Robinson v. United States, 263 A.3d 139

Defendant Wayne Robinson followed a woman through Union Station, stood directly behind her on an escalator, crouched, extended his hand under her skirt, and pressed his phone against her knee while angling it upward.
The complainant felt the phone, saw its angle, confronted Robinson, and notified Amtrak police; Robinson at times claimed the photo was accidental but admitted to taking pictures of other women.
Police recovered a photo on Robinson’s phone showing the complainant’s legs; the government charged him with attempted voyeurism under D.C. Code § 22-3531(a)(2) and (d).
At a bench trial the court discredited Robinson’s accidental-taking claim, found the elements of attempted voyeurism met, and convicted him.
On appeal Robinson conceded the attempted upskirting act but argued the evidence was legally insufficient because, he said, a person in a public place cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in covered (clothed) private areas.
The D.C. Court of Appeals rejected that argument, holding the statute’s reference to “circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” protects statutorily defined clothed private areas even in public when covered and photographed without express informed consent; the conviction was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 22-3531(d)’s “circumstances” requirement excludes expectation of privacy for clothed private areas in public	Robinson: A person in a public place has no reasonable expectation of privacy in any part of their body; statute should not reach public upskirting	Government: “Circumstances” includes conditions created by clothing/covering; a covered private area can be protected even in public absent consent	Court: “Circumstances” is broader than location; covered private areas create a reasonable expectation of privacy in public and statute applies; evidence sufficient

In re K.G., 178 A.3d 1213 (D.C. 2018) (standard of review for sufficiency and statutory interpretation cited)
Carrell v. United States, 165 A.3d 314 (D.C. 2017) (framework for actus reus elements and related analysis)
Miller v. United States, 209 A.3d 75 (D.C. 2019) (legal-sufficiency standard—any rational trier of fact could find elements)
Lopez-Ramirez v. United States, 171 A.3d 169 (D.C. 2017) (textualist approach to discerning legislative intent from statute)
State v. Boyd, 155 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (persuasive authority: clothing/covering can create an expectation of privacy despite incidental visibility)
State v. Glas, 54 P.3d 147 (Wash. 2002) (contrasts locational voyeurism statutes with those protecting privacy based on circumstances)