specifically he was convicted of knowingly making a video recording of another person without that person's consent in a restroom a specific statute also delineates other areas such as a tanning bed tanning salon locker room changing room or hotel bed room where these video recordings are illegal the statute is on constitutionally over brawn and thus violates due process because it criminal laid out in the briefs which would be a parent filming a child in the restroom not even using the restroom or maybe doing something funny as to what the pair of thanks for filming some of that's working on the an example of people which is very commonplace today as we see videos all the time and uses so much so many police officers who these people may think of those officers are violating their rights and they want to document this and the conduct is occurring in a restroom the issue with the statute is that it delineates locations where it says that these videos are on authorized in the us illegally but it doesn't delineate the conduct and that's where it's overbroad when you when you think of some of the other locations there list the overbroad and due process violation becomes more clear the tanning salon this was a tanning salon is not defined in the statute so a tanning salon would include one would assume the entirety of the business which includes the waiting room the  lobby many businesses may have a camera filming people entering or exiting their business or a camera over top of the cash register to make sure that there's not an authorized transactions under the statue all those recordings would be illegal surely that's not the conduct the one would assume that the legislature wanted to criminalize when they passed this medical decision of the supreme court which was involving they dennehy theft statue and the identity theft statue it was again using personal information of another and was using it without their con and the magical court struck that provision of the identity theft downs on constitutional stating that it would potentially punish a broad array of innocent conduct and gave a myriad of examples and thus there was not a rationally based to make illegal what what conduct the statue assumed was set up to to attempt to make it legal which takes almost no security or credit card number two then maybe open up an account one would assume that that's what the purpose of the identity theft statute was and what conduct a criminal is but it criminalized a broad array of wholly innocent conduct just as this statute does as well  recognizes that this exact argument was brought up in the nd district in the in the mail it decision and the male decision ruled that this was not a violation of due process  statutes not violation of due process but that decision was wrongly decided the mail of decisions the what the court focused on there is  of the precise activities that the statute was meant to punish which was the non consensual video recording of a person in a location where sheer she has a heightened expectation of privacy but again the way the statute is written it violates all nonconsensual recordings in these locations regardless of the compound content so bathroom there are things you would do in a bathroom or restroom where you would have heightened expectation of privacy but not simply standing in a bathroom or restroom and being found and not doing any of the activities that a bodily function  any state of on dress is still penalize under the statute and against since this statute covers all recordings and doesn't delineate specific conduct or specific content of those recordings it's over broad and fails the rational basis test the scorcher hold that mr mckevitt is convictions pursuant to the statute was taken off a mere copy of his computer he was mr cabot was prosecutor in another case there was a search warrant the took the computer a mere copy was made for the police different case is that the police did not have a right to search the copy of his hard drive without obtaining search warrant which they did let me and let me ask you  well that case goes to trial and that matter convicted and then sometime later somebody reports some stolen jewelry  takes photocopies of every single document that a company has or or a person has for a woman to investigate and look at these certain documents or or all the documents for a whatever they're specifically investigating once that investigation is done i think you have an issue of privacy violation of the police that can go back and any time that you're in the future decades in the future and then look at the photocopies of every single file that was taken and i think that's different than a photograph there's a making a copy of a they i mean the copy didn't change obviously when they they but they they would have the ability to go back if by keeping the copy and never returning to home and then at their leisure going back and looking and means that any time the police could go back and look inside a computer for whatever they want to look for and we all know that i'm going to sing the most people's computers and much of their phones was that or a subsequent search or whatever you want to do i think that would potentially be appropriate if you got a subsequent search warrant once the previous prosecution and that if them the police then got a subsequent search warrant based on that information she well you know you only have a right of privacy because the st piece and that's basically what you're saying his right to well he had a right to privacy in his computer from the beginning and then when the search warrant a valid search warrant an organ the st search or the took his computer and made a mere copy was not improper it was proper ramming argument it was not proper his expectation of privacy dissipates obviously when the when the police how the copy of his his hard drives during the pendency of that case but as soon as that case is over his right to privacy is as full as it was before the police took and that's what was this court ruled on the previous metabo decision at that point you know the cop in easier turned to mr cabot or the police came to destroy it so that they can go back again and look at it at their at their leisure and here there was never a subsequent search warrant at all for evidence of on authorized video recording the subsequent search warrant that was done was for child pornography which was then the basis of the previous