By: Commonfreakingsense on 5/6/09
Wow! Someone remind me to be nicer to my crazy ex-boyfriends! Scary stuff! Someone is obviously in need of some meds!

By: Momma on 5/6/09
And here's your sign...DUMB$#*

By: ItIsMeAgain on 5/6/09
Sounds like someone forgot to grow up............

By: ItsGood on 5/6/09
Had a crazy ex-girlfriend that scared me like that

By: postfan on 5/6/09
Isn't this the same guy who got caught up with the cop taking bribes several months ago??????

By: tnwolf1762 on 5/6/09
I hope he moved to the County from out of state, way out. My family came from N.C. between 1801 and 1823 and have had some decendents that lived there since. My grandfather, his brother and parents moved to Nashville in 1913. So what I'm saying is I hope he's not kin but if he is,
"My Apologies"

M.E.Simmons

By: jeremytn on 5/6/09
Yes this is also the same guy who has a handgun permit. How scary is that???

By: Dave42 on 5/7/09
All my Ex's live in Tennessee, That's why I now live in California. I've seen things like this in the movies, but this if the first time I've seen it in real life. The guy is NUTS!!!!!!

By: attagirl on 5/7/09
This crap happens all the time. However, the police usually don't care. I'm sure the only reason they got involved in this is because the utility truck was damaged.

By: Jimbo on 5/8/09
What the hell is "illegal photography"? If it is because he took a picture of her without her knowledge and then published it, look out all you photojournalists out there, the cops are waiting to charge you with the same thing.
I think that one is a bogus charge being used to get him to plea bargain down.

By: magnum on 5/8/09
This is the same man who towed my car and six others the night MTSU football was on ESPN (09/30/08). All of the vehicles were parked in an area not parked with "no parking" signs. He charged each of us over $200 to get our vehicles! He then bragged he had towed a preacher, firefighter, and retired cop that night. You reap what you sow!!

By: tkboro on 5/8/09
To Jimbo's comment: If you would have paid attention to the story, you would have seen that it was a nude photo and that constitutes "Illegal Photography". If you look up the charge, it states you cannot take a photo of someone without their knowledge in a sexual manner and distribute the photo without their knowledge. It has nothing to do with photojounalists taking pictures of someone without their knowledge and publishing it unless that photo happens to be of someone nude or in a sexual act, and I doubt legitimate photojournalists are taking those kinds of pictures. The cops are doing exactly what they need to be doing and I'm glad this scum, who thinks "he's above the law" is finally getting what he deserves. To postfan: Yes, this is the same guy who was caught up with the cop that was taking bribes to get more business for his wrecker service. To jeremytn: It is scary that he has a handgun permit. How did he even get one, because it was reported that he's been charged with felony purgery in the past. Felons are not supposed to get handgun permits... To magnum: I agree with you totally. He does whatever he wants when he tows cars and gets away with it, because he doesn't have rates posted. He's crooked and he's finally getting what he deserves.

By: Jimbo on 5/8/09
actually tkboro, that is not what the statute says at all. It says that a photo cannot be taken of a person in a place that they have an expectation of privacy, if the photo or photos in question were taken at his residence, she had no expectation of privacy at all.
It then goes on to say that if it is published or disseminated, that the ordinary person would be embarassed by it or that it is used by the photographer for sexual gratification, all mind reading written into statute.
Based on the wording of the statute, yes a photojournalist could be charged under this statute very easily. It is a badly worded law with lots of mind reading being codified.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the photo being of a sexual or nude nature at all.
It sounds like the rest of the charges are legitimate but illegal photography charges are bogus.

By: Jimbo on 5/8/09
In case you want the specifics of the law, here it is.

39-13-605. Unlawful photographing in violation of privacy. —

(a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly photograph, or cause to be photographed an individual, when the individual is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without the prior effective consent of the individual, or in the case of a minor, without the prior effective consent of the minor’s parent or guardian, if the photograph:

Would offend or embarrass an ordinary person if such person appeared in the photograph; and
Was taken for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant.
(b) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, “photograph” means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission of any individual so that the individual is readily identifiable.

(c) All photographs taken in violation of this section shall be confiscated and, after their use as evidence, destroyed.

(d)

A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
If the defendant disseminates or permits the dissemination of the photograph to any other person, a violation of this section is a Class E felony.


The more I read the statute, if the pictures were taken at his house, and she had no expectation of privacy, then the rest would not apply and so therefore he could not be charged with illegal photography at all.

By: MyVoice on 5/9/09
So what you all are saying is that if I come to your house to visit you and you have a secret camera in your bathroom. It is ok for you to film me in a place I would expect to have privacy? Wow!

By: Jimbo on 5/9/09
No, I am saying when at someone elses house, you should have no expectation of privacy, it is there house. When in a public place, you should have the expectation of privacy in a public bathroom and not expect to be photographed.
If these photos were taken at his house and she was performing a sex act on him, she had no expectation of privacy at all.

By: tkboro on 5/9/09
Jimbo: First of all, you don't know what the hell you are talking about! If it was just him and her, then she did have an expectation of privacy from the rest of the world! He violated her privacy by taking the picture, first of all. Then, he violated her privacy by printing and mailing the pictures. It says if you disseminate the photograph to any other person, this violation is a class E felony. That is exactly what he did. If you and your partner are engaging in a sexual act, it is in the privacy of your home between the two of you. Your home is not a public place, which means, yes she did have an expectation of privacy since it was taking place in a private place. If they were doing it in the McDonald's parking lot for everyone to see, then no she would not expect privacy and the charge would be bogus. You need to think about what you are saying before you say it! You also shouldn't even be commenting on it, because you don't know where they were or where it took place!

By: Jimbo on 5/9/09
tkboro, respectfully, read the law. If they were shot in his home, she had no expectation of privacy and so therefore the rest of the law does not apply.
As far as the rest of your assinine post, it is you that is unable to read. I have always said IF it took place in his home, I have never said that IT DID take place in her home.
With your misintrepretation of this statute, a lot of photojournalist could be charged. It is written this way for a reason but you choose, through ignorance or just plain stupidity to misintrepret it.
When in someone elses home, you have no expectation of privacy and so therefore the rest of the statute does not apply and the charge is bogus to get him to plea bargain. It would not be the first and would not be the last time that the police apply this statute wrongly, just ask the guy in Johnson City about how it was applied to him when he took a picture of some cops arresting a suspect.

By: tkboro on 5/9/09
Jimbo: It doesn't matter to me what you believe to be correct. The point is no matter whose home she was in, she expected privacy from the public. If you go to someone's house and use their bathroom and they either video tape it or take a picture and they distribute that tape or picture to other people, it's against the law, because you expected privacy while using the bathroom. It doesn't matter whose house they were in. They were in a relationship and when you are in a relationship, you don't expect your private life to become public! If this happened to you, you wouldn't be saying the things you are saying.

By: Jimbo on 5/9/09
tkboro, respectfully, you are an idiot. This law does not apply in this case and if you think it does, you are an ass. There is a complete difference between this and your example. She consented to the act and could not have expected privacy in someone elses home, if that is where this took place.
If this is allowed to stand, then photojournalists could be charged under this statute as well as photographers who take shots of models who for some reason are not happy with their photos.
It is idiotic and completely insane misintrepretation of the law by you and the police in this case.

By: tkboro on 5/11/09
No, the difference is photojournalists and photographers who take pictures of models get consent from the person they are photographing. In this case, he did not have consent to photograph this private, intimate moment. It just proves how judgemental you really are for calling me an ass when you don't even know me.

By: justdance on 5/12/09


Good Lord........!!

By: citizenkane on 5/12/09
Jimbo, you can have an expectation of privacy anywhere. The law was passed because owners of tanning beds were video taping customers in tannig salons. Using a public restroom gives u a reasonable expectation of privacy as well as work bathroom areas or areas where one unclothes, i.e. simmons home. She consented to having sexual relations, not him taking pictures and sending it all over town.
And to clear the record, police can't trump up charges, all charges are reviewed by a judicial seat and if the elements of a crime is not met, the warrant will not be issued. sick of people not knowing what they are complaining about

By: TOPCOP on 7/3/09
Actually the U.S. Supreme Court has weigh in on this – sort of – regarding voice recordings. When you say something in the presence of others – and I would assume, what you do would be included -- you give up your right to privacy and it can be recorded. If you voice can be recorded, I would assume that your image can be recorded. From this story, I at least I know that Mayercik has read the criminal impersonation statue --- I know for fact that he was promoted to detective without knowing that law. ---- Regarding the photos ---- If this guy was in the room with her during all the photos --- then she had no privacy. If any of them was taken while he was out of the room and she was alone --- then he violated her right to privacy. Regardless, he has the morals and demeanor of a jerk – and while he may not have violated her right to privacy, in a legal sense, he certainly violated her trust and once the word gets out, I hope he enjoyed he last sex act with a partner. – Go get him Mayercik -- work your version of the statues!!!!!