'No evidence of such intent here'

'No evidence of such intent here'

Tom's Mailbag publishes at 2 p.m. Fridays. Submit questions by clicking here.

A sampling of what's to come later today addresses the Jay Rosenstein situation:

“Why would (Champaign County State’s Attorney) Julia Rietz choose not to prosecute someone who violated the law?  The law seems pretty clear that recording of any kind, not just while someone is actively urinating at a urinal, is prohibited. Do you believe this could become an issue when Ms. Rietz is up again for re-election (assuming she does run again)?”

Tom Kacich's response: Coincidentally this question came up in a New York Times story Thursday about how a silly controversy about pretend American Indian won’t go away at Illinois’ foremost institute of public higher education.

In that story Rietz was quoted as saying that in the past her office had prosecuted cases that involved cameras hidden in bathrooms or locker rooms “to record unknowing victims for the offenders’ sexual gratification.”

In this case she said, “While the arrest was technically appropriate, there was no evidence of such intent here.”

Today she added this explanation: “My job as state’s attorney is to make decisions in complicated cases and to explain those decisions to the public, a responsibility I have been honored to take on many times over the past 13 years and plan on continuing to do in the future.

“My job also is to appropriately use the limited resources we have in the criminal justice system to address crime in our community. We certainly could not charge every report that comes into our office. In this case, Mr. (Jay) Rosenstein was arrested on preliminary charges of Unauthorized Video Recording, a class 4 felony. An officer’s decision to arrest is separate from the prosecutor’s decision to file formal charges. The prosecutor must take into account the likelihood of success at trial based on the totality of the circumstances, including the question of criminal intent.”

Rietz reiterated that she charges “Unauthorized Video Recording in cases when offenders place hidden cameras in bathrooms, locker rooms or tanning salon rooms to record unknowing victims for the offenders’ sexual gratification. That is not the case in this situation. Taking on this case would have required using considerable resources in my office and in the local court system that are better used to address the many other issues facing our community, and the issues raised by Mr. Rosenstein’s actions can be appropriately addressed outside of the criminal justice system.”

As for whether this could be an issue if she runs again in 2020 (for what would be a fifth term), sure it could be an issue. So could hundreds of other decisions she’ll make over the next 2 1/2 years (and thousands she has made since 2004) but she won in 2016 over a good Republican candidate and got 57 percent of the vote. She survived worse situations than this one.
 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
cjw61822@hotmail.com wrote on February 02, 2018 at 12:02 pm

In this case she said, “While the arrest was technically appropriate, there was no evidence of such intent here.”

 

 

Well that is not how the SJW including Capt. Ahab have said about this case.  They claim that there was NO violation of the law.

 

Without the video that you refused to get a supeona for, how do YOU know what his intent was?  Cuz he told you that there was nothing bad on the video?

 

wow.

GLG wrote on February 02, 2018 at 12:02 pm

Today she added this explanation: “My job as state’s attorney is to make decisions in complicated cases and to explain those decisions to the public"

This case looks pretty simple, Rosenstein recorded someone in a restroom, A violation of state law.

 

She also said, " We certainly could not charge every report that comes into our office"

Reitz has no problem charging every case in her little cash cow traffic court, That is unless the defendant has a lot of money and walks on a first time D U I or is allowed to leave the country by walking out of a hospital after a felony D U I resulting in death, Reitz and the Illinois State Police blew that one. We were told new guidlines for felony D U I were being used by the ISP, What are they ?If voters are happy with this kind of justice, Please reelect Reitz when she runs again!!  I hope you think you are getting your moneys worth!

wayward wrote on February 02, 2018 at 12:02 pm

It's almost as if she doesn't allow the internet comments section to make charging decisions for her.  Shocking!

BruckJr wrote on February 02, 2018 at 1:02 pm

Of the previous cases that she has prosecuted, how many were filming women?  Is there a seperate standard used for women than for men by this SA?  How many of the previous prosecutions were of her colleagues at the University?  Is there a seperate standard for folks that she works with?  How many of the previous prosecutions were of members of her synagogue?  Is there a seperate standard for gentiles?

Innocent_Primate wrote on February 02, 2018 at 1:02 pm

I may be wrong, but I believe an inapplicable law is being referenced. To my understanding, this instance didn’t involve the placing of a hidden camera. I believe the applicable state law is as follows. 720 ILCS 5/26-4(a): “(a) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly make a video record or transmit live video of another person without that person's consent in a restroom, tanning bed, tanning salon, locker room, changing room, or hotel bedroom.” I don’t see any mention made there (or anywhere else in the statute) that the offender’s intent must be sexual gratification.

byrdslover wrote on February 02, 2018 at 1:02 pm

Can you read?  "The prosecutor must take into account the likelihood of success at trial based on the totality of the circumstances, including the question of criminal intent.”

cjw61822@hotmail.com wrote on February 02, 2018 at 6:02 pm

So by your logic  if I get a ticket for running a stop sign   The State has to prove that I intended to run the stop sign? 

 

Might want to look again at that...............

897RGL wrote on February 02, 2018 at 1:02 pm

If intent is the issue, the professor's intent to was stalk an individual throughout the SFC up to and including a public restroom with a video camera.  So, his motive wasn't "sexual gratification".  Seems there was still some type of gratification he was attempting to get.

All come back to common decency.  You just don't do this. Too bad others in the washroom didnt make the same complaint.

This approach by the state' attorney doesn't encourage people to follow the law and do the right thing. I would suspect most guys would have put the professor on the floor for recording them in a washroom. That didn't happen here and the law didn't support the victim.

Shame on the state attorney's office....SHAME!!

Innocent_Primate wrote on February 02, 2018 at 2:02 pm

The statute I cite supplies a criminal mental state, "knowingly". "Intent" isn't mentioned. And I believe I already mentioned that in my opinion the article addresses an inapplicable statute with an element not contained in the statute I'm referring to.

CommonSenseless wrote on February 02, 2018 at 4:02 pm

I guess this means you can record people in the bathroom and sell the footage if your motivation is only money and not sexual gratification.