Hey kids! I think we all know the drill by now. Good news: Republican Cumberland County Commission and Karl Rove body double Bruce Barclay seems to be innocent of the rape charges that were brought against him by another guy. (The sex between the two men seems to have been consensual, according to the video tape that Barclay made.)
Oh yeah, that leads us to the not-so-good news: it probably isn't a really good thing to tape quite that many sexual encounters with prostitutes/rent boys.
I am thinking that the 2008 Republican National Convention should probably just be held at a bathhouse for the sake of convenience.
Police: Barclay secretly videotaped “100 to 500” sexual encounters with hidden camera network
Former commissioner's attorney: Footage shows rape charge unfounded
By staff reports, April 9, 2008
Last updated: Wednesday, April 9, 2008 12:29 PM EDT
State police say former Cumberland County commissioner Bruce Barclay videotaped hundreds of sexual encounters — many with male escorts — using cameras hidden throughout his Monroe Township home.
Police say the sexual encounters were videotaped without the knowledge of the participants, according to an affidavit of probable cause filed Tuesday with Magisterial District Judge Susan Day. Court documents say cameras were installed in January of 2007.
Investigators are searching items seized from Barclay's residence a second time in relation to a rape investigation.
Reading a prepared statement, Barclay's attorney, Matthew Gover, said although he and Barclay do not agree with everything in the affidavit, “It is clear in my client’s private life he has made an error of judgment. What is striking is this very same lack of judgment exonerates him from a rape allegation that wasn’t going anywhere.”
Gover emphasized the Barclay’s misjudgment never extended into his role as a county commissioner, which he said Barclay “always handled with honor.”Photo Reprints
Bruce Barclay's home in Monroe Township. Michael Bupp/The Sentinel
Videotaping and the law
Laws involving videotaping individuals without their knowledge can differ based on a number of circumstances that may be involved in a particular instance.
According to Cumberland District Attorney David Freed, a major distinction between what is considered a felony and what is considered a misdemeanor is whether or not the footage contains sound.
“The distinction is made with the interception of oral communication and video,” Freed said. “If it does contain sound, it is a wire tap violation, and that is considered a felony of the third degree. If it is just video, it is considered a third-degree misdemeanor if there is only one violation or a second-degree misdemeanor if there is more than one, and there’s usually more than one.”
Second-degree misdemeanors have a maximum sentence of two years for each violation.
Among violations involving only video, there is also another distinction between filming a public act and a private act.
If a person is filmed walking down the street, there is no violation, according to Freed. That, however, does not include “upskirting,” where people film underneath the skirts of women walking in a public area.
“It was sort of a new thing, and there wasn’t a law for it before,” Freed said. “There was a case in Cumberland County that changed that law in 2005, to take effect in January 2006. There was a man who was filming women at the Capital City Mall, but the charges were dropped, and the woman wasn’t happy with that result. We got that law changed.”
The law now includes a section prohibiting the videotaping of intimate body parts, even if they are covered.
For violations involving a private area, such as a home, it is not illegal to own security cameras or to tape those visiting the household without notifying them of the cameras.
What does make the security camera footage illegal is when what is being filmed is sexual in nature, according to Freed.
The Invasion of Privacy law states that a person commits an offense when filming someone without his/her knowledge and using the videotapes or photography for sexual gratification, recording a person in full or partial nudity or filming someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Taping sexual acts without consent would also fall into this category as a violation of privacy.
— Naomi Creason, The Sentinel
Neighbors react
Nobody answered the door at Barclay’s residence early today.
When informed of the new allegations, Gene Hertzler, a neighbor of Barclay’s, said he still stands behind the former county commissioner.
“My opinion of Bruce has not changed,” said Hertzler, who lives at 262 Brindle Road in Monroe Township.
He had been inside Barclay’s house several times, for Christmas and Superbowl parties.
The other side of the story, he thinks, has not come out.
“I still think the community will respect him at the end of the day.”more...
AMEN BROTHER!