|
House Bill 4262 creates a civil path for minors and their
parents to sue people who illegally film minors without parental
permission in certain private places.
Bill sponsor Rep. Curtis J. Tarver, D-Chicago, said while there
are already criminal charges someone would face for the act, the
bill allows families to seek relief for harm done to the victim.
“The general impetus of the bill is to protect children from
there being hidden cameras in areas where they might reasonably
expect privacy,” Tarver said.
Relief for damages is set by the bill at a maximum of $10,000
plus emotional damages and attorneys fees. The statute of
limitations would be two years from the date the violation was
discovered.
According to the bill, private spaces include restrooms, locker
and changing rooms, tanning salons and beds, and spaces within
hotels.
Additionally, the text leaves room for additional locations,
saying it would cover any location not in a child’s home, where
someone would "reasonably expect privacy."
The committee unanimously passed the bill, despite minor
concerns from Republicans.
Rep. Dan Ugaste, R-St. Charles, raised concerns over a portion
of the bill pertaining to liability. He questioned whether or
not the bill would automatically hold liable employers of
offenders or owners of the location a camera is found.
Tarver said it would not, unless placement of a hidden camera
was known by any of those parties.
“There was an article about a manager at a TJ Maxx who installed
a camera in the dressing room. It would not be automatic that TJ
Maxx has some strict liability,” Tarver said. “Now in some
instances that [offending] individual may be the owner of the
company as well.”
Ugaste also expressed worry that a different part of the bill –
requiring local or state agencies to look for hidden cameras
when otherwise inspecting a space – would potentially create a
liability and expand duties for inspectors who aren’t trained to
look for the cameras.
Tarver said inspectors would be protected by existing state
protections.
“If they're there, I would hope they'd look for them and and and
point them out, but I'm just worried about the duty being
created,” Ugaste said.
The bill is now expected to move to the House Floor for another
reading.
|
|
