Any person who installs or who maintains after April 1, 1970, any two-way mirror permitting observation of any restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower, locker room, fitting room, motel room, or hotel room, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
This section does not apply to such areas (a)in state or local public penal, correctional, custodial, or medical institutions which are used by, or for the treatment of, persons who are committed or voluntarily confined to such institutions or voluntarily receive treatment therein; (b)in private custodial or medical institutions, which are used by, or for
the treatment of, persons who are committed or voluntarily confined to such institutions or voluntarily receive treatment therein; (c)in public or private treatment facilities which are used by, or for the treatment of, persons who are committed or voluntarily confined to such facilities or voluntarily receive treatment therein; (d)in buildings operated by state or local law enforcement agencies; or (e)in public or private educational institutions.
“Two-way mirror” as used in this section means a mirror or other surface which permits any person on one side thereof to see through it under certain conditions of lighting, while any person on the other side thereof or other surface at that time can see only the usual mirror or other surface reflection.
Notes of Decisions
Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 865 P.2d 633 (Cal. 1994).
· cites it 2× “2d 639, 659-660 ]; Pen. Code, § 653n [installation or maintenance of two-way mirror permitting observation of restroom is misdemeanor].”
Levy v. Skywalker Sound, 108 Cal. App. 4th 753 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
“Based on the statute, employees of a trucking company sued their employer for violating their privacy by installing video monitoring equipment behind two-way mirrors in employee restrooms.”
Cramer v. Consol. Freightways Inc., 255 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2001).
“See Cal.Penal Code § 653n. Rather than merely hold that Consolidated’s covert actions here were illegal, the Court today holds that even in future contract negotiations, the parties could not reduce privacy expectations in the bathrooms of California workplaces.”
Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc., 209 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000).
· cites it 5× “See CaLPenal Code § 653n. We cannot agree. While the level of culpability and the consequences may be different, the claim for relief is not; here as in the random search and drug-testing cases, the employees complain of an invasion of privacy contrary to their rights under the…”
People v. Super. Ct. (Ortiz), No. E077594 (Cal. Ct. App. July 28, 2022).
“Code § 649); installing two- 4 way mirrors in locker rooms (Pen. Code § 653n), and selling an endangered animal or its body part or product (Pen.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.