By Ruth Lapointe
On Dec. 31, 2013, Iowa City landlord Gene Miller was convicted of six counts of invasion of privacy–nudity for peeping on six female tenants in two of the rental properties he owns in Iowa City.
He was caught in the act on Halloween day, Oct. 31, 2012, when my neighbor across the hall was exiting the shower and saw him shuffle above her through a peephole in her bathroom ceiling.
Following the incident, Miller admitted to the police that he had peeped on his tenants. One of my other neighbors, Jane (whose name has been changed), found out that he had been looking at her and three other women in my building. I was on my way to a Halloween party that night when I saw Jane and her boyfriend in the hallway. It was then that I was informed that our landlord, the man I had looked in the eye many times over the past two months, had admitted to the police that he had been watching me.
After I heard the news, I began to get to know my neighbors. Eight of us in total—six women and two men—had been peeped on. We were all so scared after it happened, and no one had any information about what our lives were going to look like in the near future. Was our landlord in jail? If not, was he allowed on the property? We didn’t know if the other tenants were aware of what had just happened, and if we would continue living in our apartments. Even mundane concerns entered our minds: Would we pay November’s rent? Did we have the right not to?
The trial against Miller was held on Sept. 24, 2013, and it was an experience that many of the victims, including myself, found degrading. Miller’s lawyer, Mark Brown, asked us questions that implied that our accusations against the defendant were based on hearsay or that our memories of specific details were fabricated.
Each of us seemed to have a story about a specific incident that, in hindsight, clearly indicated that our landlord had been engaging in some sort of suspicious activity. After we relayed these stories in court, the defense attorney criticized the fact that we didn’t act on our suspicions, implying that if they had been significant, we would have done something. Ultimately, we were all asked whether or not we had any evidence of Miller spying on us—whether we heard or saw him do so—and all but one of us were forced to say no. Luckily the county attorney, Anne Lahey, was able to include a few final questions that convinced the judge that the psychological effects of the incident were made worse by the fact that it never occurred to us this activity had been going on: It has been hard not to think of myself as a fool, a naive college student, who can remain blind to being watched in such a blatant manner.
The worst part of the trial experience was having to prove that Miller violated a law that is archaic and sexist at best and does not properly address the problem we were are all faced with. Invasion of privacy under Iowa code can be described in short as someone viewing an at least partially nude person without his or her knowledge, in a place where there is an expectation of privacy, for the purpose of his or her arousal.
I am utterly shocked that evidence of arousal is required to prove violation of the law—as if spying on us while nude was not a crime enough. We were asked a question about what evidence we had to show how “aroused” Miller may have appeared when we saw him at the property. This was the most degrading question by far during the trial.
Iowa’s invasion of privacy law is inherently sexist, as it assumes that because the perpetrator is heterosexual, none of the males who were spied on while in the shower have any claim against Miller in criminal courts. Ultimately, the two men with peepholes in their residences were excluded from the counts against Miller for invasion of privacy.
When the defense attorney asked victims if Miller was ever aroused, I don’t know what kind of response he was expecting. It was hard to know what to say. There was little possible evidence to obtain, and the disgusting nature of these possibilities made us very uncomfortable. Still, the worst part of this question was that, though it was clear to us as victims what the lawyer wanted, it was humiliating to be forced to imagine again being spied on, while nude, for someone else’s pleasure, after trying for a whole year to erase it from memory.
After the incident in the fall of 2012, Miller replaced the tenants who moved out, including myself. I am sure that very few of them knew anything about what went on at their residence just before they arrived. I feel sorry for the new tenants, and for any of Miller’s future tenants, because they don’t have the right to know about any of Miller’s activities according to Iowa City law: He has all the same rights as a landlord that he did before, so I can’t help but think he might just peep on his tenants again.
I wrote this article, in part, because I believe Iowa’s invasion of privacy law should be changed, not only because of its inherent sexism, but also because the law does not effectively deter landlords, including Miller, from repeating the act after conviction. I also feel it is my duty to continue to bring attention to this incident, because I want as many people to know about this as possible—not only so the current tenants at 1024 Burlington St., 639 S. Lucas and Miller’s two other properties at 641 and 637 S. Lucas can be more informed, but also so more incidents like this can go reported. I hope that you read this story and feel it’s your duty to pass it on as well. Let this story be a lesson to you, and don’t let it escape your mind.
Ruth Lapointe was born and raised in Mason City, Iowa and recently graduated from the University of Iowa with a B.A. in Philosophy. She has ambitions to be a successful singer/songwriter and a politician. She is currently living in Des Moines, working on political campaigns and writing songs.
