Court rules that nude pictures taken without consent “cannot be used as evidence of prostitution.”

Victims of illegal methods of investigation used by the police in the process of cracking down on prostitution, such as capturing pictures of bodies, hold a press conference announcing a lawsuit for state compensation at the Lawyers for a Democratic Society conference room in Seocho-gu, Seoul on August 30. Kim Chang-gil

The court ruled that pictures of the body of a prostitute taken by the police in the process of arresting her for sexual solicitation could not be used as evidence. The decision went a step forward and was accepted as progress from an earlier decision by the National Human Rights Commission, which claimed that the police behavior was not excessive. According to the coverage by the Kyunghyang Shinmun on September 25, Criminal Courtroom 22 presided by a single judge, Judge Ha Jin-wu, at the Seoul Central District Court ruled that some of the evidence submitted in the case against A, charged with violating the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, infringed A’s personal rights and judged that they were collected illegally.

Last March when the police cracked down on prostitution, which took place in a studio apartment in Seoul, they captured pictures of A’s nude body using their cell phones. They also refused A’s request to have her pictures deleted. The officers shared the pictures in a KakaoTalk group chatroom of fifteen officers on the team conducting the crackdown. A argued that the police made her write a statement without informing her of her rights to remain silent and to consult an attorney when arresting her.

During the trial, A's lawyer argued that the police violated the law at the time of the crackdown. The prosecutor submitted nude pictures of A taken by the police and her statement to the court as evidence, but ’s lawyer argued that they could not be recognized as evidence for they were collected without a warrant and in a manner that violated legal procedures.

The judge accepted A’s argument and excluded the pictures in question from the evidence. The judge said, “The personal rights of the defendant were violated to a considerable extent, and it is difficult to say that the pictures in this case were taken in a manner that is generally permitted.”

The judge also pointed out that taking pictures without the consent of the person being shot was a coercive investigation and that the police did not have a warrant at the time. He also said that the police making the defendant write a statement without informing her of her Miranda rights was evidence collected illegally and excluded it as well. However, after a comprehensive review of all the other evidence, the judge acknowledged A and the other defendants’ charge of violating the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts.

Prior to this ruling, the National Human Rights Commission reached a different conclusion on the same case. They admitted the misconduct of the police in taking pictures with their cell phones and not with an officially authorized device and in sharing the pictures in a group chatroom, but the Commission said the police taking nude pictures of A was not excessive behavior.

A has filed a lawsuit for state compensation against the officers who arrested her. A’s legal representative, Kim Ji-hye (Lawyers for a Democratic Society) said, “The latest ruling is meaningful for it is a decision that claims that the police cannot excessively infringe on the personal rights of the suspects for the purpose of collecting evidence in the process of making an arrest on the scene.”