A content analysis of existing State and Federal voyeurism statutes found that many required that there be an "invasion of privacy." Of the 47 existing voyeurism statutes, only 16 do not contain the requirement of a privacy violation. The Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004, for example, States that recording the private area of a person without their consent "... under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy" is illegal. Assuming there can be no violation of a right of privacy in a public place, as several courts have held, private areas of a person's body secretly viewed while they are in a public area may not be covered under many current voyeurism statutes. Some States have recognized this problem and acted to address it; for example, under proposed legislation (HB1413) in Maryland, it would be illegal to videotape a private area of a person's body without the consent of that individual. Where the videotaping occurs is irrelevant to the offense. The constitutionality of such laws must be tested, and it may be years before legislators can draft legislation that will survive constitutional scrutiny while adequately protecting citizens from video voyeurs in public places. If a statute is too broad, it may not pass judicial scrutiny; and if it is too narrow, it may not cover the variety of places where a creative video voyeur can secretly record private areas of a person's body. 4 tables and 14 references