December 16, 2005
Lawyer claims bathroom cam was to catch pot smokers By Heather Yakin Times Herald-Record [EMAIL="email@example.com"]firstname.lastname@example.org[/EMAIL] Monticello - Lawyer Larry Gold says he had a good reason to install a minicamera in the bathroom at his law office, where his three secretaries are women. People were smoking pot in the office bathroom, he said, and he wanted to catch the culprit. The camera caught a secretary using the toilet. She spotted the camera and went to Monticello police. They charged Gold, a lawyer since 1989, with three counts of unlawful surveillance, a felony. Yesterday in Sullivan County Court, Gold took the stand in his own defense as his lawyer, Henri Shawn, guided him. Gold broke down in tears as he talked about losing 80 percent of his clients after the arrest. Gold said a friend installed a surveillance camera in 1999. Transients had been stealing from his office at 2 Jones St., which is located between the Heritage Inn and the Salvation Army. Gold said he wanted the camera to watch the entry stairs, but the friend put it in the bathroom. A secretary found it the next day. Gold disconnected the camera, but left the wires in place, running under baseboard heaters through the hallway to his office. In early 2004, he said, he found signs of people smoking pot in the bathroom. A commercial client complained that he couldn't bring people there for business if that was going on. Gold said he set up the camera again on Feb. 17, 2004, duct-taping it to a plastic pipe behind the toilet in the 4-foot-by-4-foot bathroom. He hooked a TV to the other end of the cable in his office. Later, he heard the bathroom door close, and he flipped on the TV. He saw one of his secretaries. She saw the camera and put a towel over it. He said he was mortified. Under cross-examination by Assistant District Attorney K.C. Garn, Gold said he didn't know the camera was illegal. "I knew what I was doing was risky. There was a chance someone would go to the bathroom and I would see their rear end or genitals," he said. He said that he should have looked for a better camera, one that would have shown the entire bathroom. "I was selfish by not thinking about the potential consequences," he said. The trial continues today before Judge Jonathan Nichols. http://www.davesdaily.com/out.php?id=11847&url=http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/12/16/news-hygold-12-16.html
Sure its because they are smoking. Bah the dude just wanted to wack at the office. Sico.
he could have put a smoke detector in, retard.
He deserves a punishment, if you want nekkid women :google:
Roger the smoke detector. This guy is a perv, pure and simple. And I like seeing lawyers behind bars. :)
When in doubt, gas it!
Hope he gets what he deserves in jail time. Also likes seeing lawyers behind bars.
No! I'm Spamacus!
17th June 2003
How would he even know someone was smoking in the women's restroom in the first place? :Puzzled: I find it odd someone who has been a lawyer for so many years and all the work in law school and he never once knew that such a thing was "somewhat" illegal. :vikki:
How could he justify this in court? The man is stupid to spy on his assitants and if he has two of them it suggest that he is modertly sucessful, to lose all of that for a peep show would kill me.
You want to stare at naked women, go to a strip club.
Snipes With Artillery
22nd March 2005
Agreed. I think that this laywer has shown an abysmal lack of legal knowledge.
Heh, he should have known it, he is a lawyer after all. what a pervert.
Wanna go Double Dutch?
9th December 2003
"Gold said he didn't know the camera was illegal.
" :lol: And he calls himself a lawyer? Every random Joe knows that you can't just place cameras everywhere without certain permissions, certainly not in areas such as bathrooms, lockerrooms, bedrooms etc. It's hard enough already to get a a permit from the town for hanging a camera in a public place already as far as I am aware. That's one hell of a bad excuse for a lawyet.
"I knew what I was doing was risky. There was a chance someone would go to the bathroom and I would see their rear end or genitals," he said. He said that he should have looked for a better camera, one that would have shown the entire bathroom."
Risky? I think he knew that he would be in trouble if caught, enough reason not to even consider placing a camera. A camera showing the entire bathroom? That wouldn't be any less illegal, bathrooms are private areas. The only people who may have a chanche of legally monitoring a toilet is the police or other authorities that must protect and maintain (national) security and order but even those have to ask permission and have nouh evidence to show that area should be monitored.
It's just a sick pervert.
Better luck him next time in trying to perve ;)