Air Marshal Takes Upskirt Cell phone photos

No Joy

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
1,387
Display Name

Display name:
No Joy
Air marshal accused of taking photos under women's skirts, arrested in Nashville
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/1...tos-under-women-skirts-arrested-in-nashville/

The marshal, identified as 28-year-old Adam Bartsch, was on official duty at the time of his arrest.

Police say a witness grabbed Bartsch's cellphone after seeing him take the inappropriate photos and notified a flight attendant.

Authorities say Bartsch was taken off the flight and taken into police custody after admitting to taking 10 to 12 pictures up women's skirts.

Investigators say Bartsch, of Rockville, Md., admitted taking similar photos more than a dozen times in the past. He is charged with unlawful photography.
http://www.630wpro.com/common/more....ticle=2E0942C037D011E3B51EFEFDADE6840A&mode=2

Power corrupts. Perverts in charge.

Glad to hear a witness took charge of the situation to get evidence and report the air marshal.
 
Last edited:
You can't make this stuff up. Just unbelievable .
 
Disorderly conduct is one of those "We don't know what to charge you with, but we're going to charge you with something" crimes. As NJ points out, he can be charged with something more appropriate later.
 
What's more appropriate to charge him with? Last I heard being a pervert wasn't illegal. He did not touch or otherwise assault any of these women, exactly what crime is he guilty of?
 
Creeper bob taking pics of women..... he had to know it wouldnt last ;)
 
'Criminal Photography'? What the heck is that???

Not sayin don't fire the creep, but when did criminal photography hit the books?
 
What's more appropriate to charge him with? Last I heard being a pervert wasn't illegal. He did not touch or otherwise assault any of these women, exactly what crime is he guilty of?
I posted a link to the legislation. You too lazy and/or incompetent? Don't know if this is current law are not, but I'm using this as a guidepost.
The photography should be illegal because it violated privacy. It also should be illegal because non consent with the intent of arousal. Normally there should be an expectation of privacy up a woman's skirt

2010 Tennessee Code
Title 39 - Criminal Offenses
Chapter 13 - Offenses Against Person
Part 6 - Invasion of Privacy
39-13-605 - Unlawful photographing in violation of privacy.


(a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly photograph, or cause to be photographed an individual, when the individual is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without the prior effective consent of the individual, or in the case of a minor, without the prior effective consent of the minor's parent or guardian, if the photograph:

(1) Would offend or embarrass an ordinary person if such person appeared in the photograph; and

(2) Was taken for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant.

(b) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, “photograph” means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission of any individual so that the individual is readily identifiable.

(c) All photographs taken in violation of this section shall be confiscated and, after their use as evidence, destroyed.

(d) (1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(2) If the defendant disseminates or permits the dissemination of the photograph to any other person, a violation of this section is a Class E felony.
 
I posted a link to the legislation. You too lazy and/or incompetent? Don't know if this is current law are not, but I'm using this as a guidepost.
The photography should be illegal because it violated privacy. It also should be illegal because non consent with the intent of arousal. Normally there should be an expectation of privacy up a woman's skirt

Look ****wad, you're citing a Tennessee code, doesn't apply.
 
Look ****wad, you're citing a Tennessee code, doesn't apply.
They were on the ground in Tennessee. The law that was cited in the reports, seems to be a Tennessee law. I would think he could additionally be charged under federal laws.

Why don't you think those laws should apply?

Suggest getting help with your anger management problem
 
He was released a few hours after being booked.

Nashville Jail

BARTSCH, ADAM JOSEPH

CIS Number687123
OCA Number503434
SexM
RaceWhite

Admitted Oct 17, 2013 - 01:41 PM
Initial BookingOct 17, 2013 - 01:41 PM
Medical ScreeningOct 17, 2013 - 01:55 PM
Final BookingOct 17, 2013 - 03:15 PM
ReleasedOct 17, 2013 - 09:23 PM
 
I suspect, the marshals marriage probably isn't going to last long.

Married
federal air marshal, 28, 'took photos up female passengers' skirts as they boarded a plane'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-female-passengers-skirts-boarded-plane.html
When the witness, Rey Collazo, confronted Bartsch, he allegedly tried to delete the sick photographs - so Collazo reached for the phone.

' struggled with him a little bit and I got the better part of the phone and twisted and hit him with my right hand between the neck and the shoulder,' Collazo told WKRN.
Rey Collazo is a hero in my book. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to figure out how he would take pictures up their skirts?
 
(A) was not met and therefore (1) and (2) do not apply. I don't think you can argue that the cabin of an airliner is a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

(a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly photograph, or cause to be photographed an individual, when the individual is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without the prior effective consent of the individual, or in the case of a minor, without the prior effective consent of the minor's parent or guardian, if the photograph:

(1) Would offend or embarrass an ordinary person if such person appeared in the photograph; and

(2) Was taken for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant.
 
Sigh. Some people are so ridiculous. How did he think nobody would ever notice.
 
I'm trying to figure out how he would take pictures up their skirts?

I don't get it.... You can see ALOT more walking down a beach....:dunno::confused:

And there is NO law against taking pictures there..:confused:
 
Last edited:
I don't think you can argue that the cabin of an airliner is a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
That's absurd. The argument isn't and wouldn't be that privacy is expected in the cabin.

Don't you have a wife, daughter and/or mother? Wouldn't you consider up their skirts a place of privacy?
Normally there should be an expectation of privacy up a woman's skirt
 
In that particular statute, the Tennessee Court of Appeals (in the Gilliand case) has specifically stated that PLACE means the place the person is located, not some part of their body with respect to the "reasonable expectation of privacy" clause. Gilliand was another upskirt place, and the judge said the place was the mall, where there wasn't such an expectation, not "up the skirt."

Here's the decision: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In TNCO 20100618581

There might be some other law on the books that can be applied, but this one is not it.
 
I don't see him breaking the law. Is it creepy? Hell yes. Illegal? Shouldn't be. Fired? Hell yes.

How do you define it? If I take a picture of my friend at an outdoor restaurant and someone in the background is seated just right to to expose under her skirt am I now a law breaker? Maybe women shouldn't be allowed to have private parts of their body exposed?

Again, I'm not defending the guy. He's a creep and a bad person. But do we have to make EVERYTHING we don't like illegal? What's the women's harm? Embarrassment? They were unaware. I think this should just fall to being outside social norm and he be ostracized. This isn't for the legal system, IMO.
 
That's absurd. The argument isn't and wouldn't be that privacy is expected in the cabin.

Don't you have a wife, daughter and/or mother? Wouldn't you consider up their skirts a place of privacy?

Think of the children!

His lawyer is going to argue exactly that.
 
Last edited:
And what demographic exactly did you think these "air cop" jobs would bring in???
 
Well, go figure that TSA agents are wanna be cops that couldn't make it with an actual law enforcement agency.

George Zimmerman should have probably opted for a TSA career instead of volunteer neighborhood watch. He'd be a role model there.
 
I think it's much harder and selective to be an air marshal than a cop. I could be wrong...
 
Oh, yeah. I guess air marshals aren't from TSA, huh.
 
How do you define it? If I take a picture of my friend at an outdoor restaurant and someone in the background is seated just right to to expose under her skirt am I now a law breaker? Maybe women shouldn't be allowed to have private parts of their body exposed?

The concept you are missing is Mens rea. If the picture is taken inadvertently then there would be no crime. If the picture was taken deliberately then there may well be a crime.

As far as I'm concerned going out of one's way to peer up a skirt or kilt in order to see something that the subject has the reasonable expectation of keeping private is certainly aberrant behavior and subject to penalty. What particular law that might be I have no idea but there are enough "catch-all" laws around that finding one shouldn't be a big problem for a resourceful prosecutor.
 
The concept you are missing is Mens rea. If the picture is taken inadvertently then there would be no crime. If the picture was taken deliberately then there may well be a crime.

As far as I'm concerned going out of one's way to peer up a skirt or kilt in order to see something that the subject has the reasonable expectation of keeping private is certainly aberrant behavior and subject to penalty. What particular law that might be I have no idea but there are enough "catch-all" laws around that finding one shouldn't be a big problem for a resourceful prosecutor.

True.

But there will always be a special place in america for paparazzi up skirt shots of skanky celebrities exiting limousines.
 
True.

But there will always be a special place in america for paparazzi up skirt shots of skanky celebrities exiting limousines.

True and on that one the celeb didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when spreading legs while lacking pants and wearing a short skirt. In fact it could be reasonably argued that the celeb expected to be exposed.
 
I think it's much harder and selective to be an air marshal than a cop. I could be wrong...

Because it's that hard to become a cop?? Most every community college has a cop course and with the way our gov't is going they are going to need more enforcers as the public gets more and more intolerant of the gov'ts crap.

didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when spreading legs while lacking pants and wearing a short skirt.

Well, though I'm not a celeb, I do drive a low sports car and my gf does wear some shorter skirts when we go out. If I even saw a creep taking a photo of her getting out of my car, though I wouldn't go cry to our useless police, the jerk would for sure be needed a new camera and perhaps some dental work.

People need to learn to resolve their own problems, think folks would be more civil that way :dunno:
 
Back
Top