Also, while the conduct might not have been sexual harassment, I wonder if a claim for stalking could have been tenable (CC§1708.7). I expect the defendant would have vigorously opposed any claim that the conduct was harassment or conduct intended to “alarm”, however. Too bad there is not a clear claim predicated on the “ick” factor alone.

Interesting case (Ramirez v Wong). I don’t have access to read the case, but it seems pretty clear the landlord violated 1954(a). However, I wonder what the damages would have been for such a violation. I assume the damages would have been much higher under the other statutes. Although I agree that the landlord’s conduct is not sexual harassment, I’m not quite sure that it does not fall under 51.7 because there was no threat of violence. I know most women would be intimidated by such an intrusive act and feel physically unsafe in their rentals after such an experience. Again, I don’t know the exact reasoning of the court, but from your summary it appears they struck this argument down simply because they decided the landlord’s actions were not a threat of violence. I definitely disagree. Breaking into someone’s home and sniffing their underwear sends a very threatening message that this person will invade your private space and do what they like against your will. It’s about power and the message is violent: “If I can break into your house and smell your underwear, I can break into your house and rape you.” If the court’s only reasoning was the landlord’s actions were not physically threatening, then I’m blown away. He basically stalked these women, violated their private space in a sexually threatening manner, and probably scarred them for life.

Legal theories aside, I immediately suspected proof problems.

Maybe they set up a panty-cam?

Amazingly, yes they did!

See 188 Cal.App.4th p. 1484, fn. 2:

“….plaintiffs discovered Valdez’s conduct later on the day it occurred, when they examined the contents of a recorded video surveillance system they had installed. The video showed Valdez’s conduct as described in the complaint…”

Now that’s weird.

Wow. So this guy got hit with a $10,000 fine for attempting to cover his a**, when he didn’t need to. Let’s for a moment look at the human side of this – the lawyer was probably so intimidated and pressed for time that he threw in a version of a brief that had worked for him before. And now, not only is he looking at a monetary sanction, he is also facing a black mark on his permanent record – that will affect his ability to earn a living.

Coincidentally, yesterday I busted a police officer doing the exact same thing – yet the consequences are not just money, but years in prison for my client. I was reviewing a supplemental police report where the cop had cut and pasted an interview of a witness from a previous report by another cop as if he had done that same interview. So the second cop is asking the exact same questions and getting the exact same answers? Highly unlikely. Yet this police report is a document that is being relied upon by the government to lock up my client for many years of prison (1st Degree Burglary)?

I understand that the police are pressed for time, and not held up to the same ethical and document drafting standards as lawyers are – but really? Consider the consequences – consider if you were the ACCUSED in my case.