ICE Agent Who Took Upskirt Photos of Flight Attendant Says It Wasn't a Crime Because He Was Sneaky
Um, no, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit says, upholding his conviction.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Billy Olvera just wanted more cookies—or so he told an American Airlines flight attendant. Meanwhile, he used the ruse to take photos and videos of the attendant's butt, legs, and feet.
A police examination of his phone uncovered 23 photos and 20 videos of the flight attendant, who goes by A.G. in court documents.
Olvera's "clandestine video voyeurism," as his lawyer would later describe it, took place while Olvera was on duty, working as a deportation officer transporting a detainee on a flight.
"This case boils down to an armed, on-duty law enforcement officer who was actively transporting a detainee on a commercial flight using his cell phone to film underneath a flight attendant's skirt and take other compromising pictures of that flight attendant without her awareness or consent," as U.S. attorney Markenzy Lapointe summarized the case before it went to trial.
Olvera was convicted in federal court of interference with flight crew members and attendants. He appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, arguing that he should be acquitted because he was sneaky about his attempts to photograph A.G. and didn't intend to interfere.
The 11th Circuit has now rejected this argument and affirmed Olvera's conviction.
The case stems from a Dallas to Miami flight in November 2023. Olvera was on the flight with another ICE officer, transporting a detainee.
According to A.G., "Olvera positioned himself with his shoulder and leg in the aisle area, which caused A.G. to have to brush up against him when she passed through the aisle, but she thought that he positioned himself this way because he was tall and needed more room," the appeals court explained. "A.G. also noticed Olvera' looking over his shoulder' a few times toward the galley area, but she thought that he was just trying to ensure that he was out of the way because the flight attendants were frequently going up and down the aisles."
When A.G. started going around with the beverage cart, Olvera asked her if he could have some cookies. They weren't on that cart, so she pledged that she would return with some cookies later. But back in the galley, she noticed something odd: Olvera's phone was sitting on his aisle-side thigh with the camera facing up.
When he called her back over to ask about the cookies again, he was talking so softly that A.G. had to lean in, semi-squatting, in order to hear him, she said. At this point, his phone was out in the aisle "with the camera facing up, very close to [her]," about "an inch and a half away from [her] knees," almost as if he was "trying to get underneath [her] dress," she testified at trial. She looked up at him and he then "took his phone and slid it up against his thigh and up to his chest," hiding the screen from her view. This caused "bells and whistles" to go off in her head, she said. She realized that maybe Olvera had been "trying to record underneath [her] dress" all along.
A.G. told another flight attendant, "L.A.," about her suspicions and they decided to test the theory. As A.G. walked down the aisle, L.A. secretly observed and recorded what happened from back in the galley. Sure enough, Olvera slid his phone underneath his tray table and used it to take pictures and videos of A.G.
A.G. told the trial court that she felt "violated" and "extremely enraged." She was used to unruly passengers—but not ones who were armed, she said.
As Olvera later waited for the detainee he was escorting to use the bathroom, he "stared" at A.G. and told her that he preferred the heels she had been wearing to the flat shoes she was wearing now, she testified.
But unbeknownst to Olvera, A.G. and L.A. had told the rest of the crew and the captain about Olvera's photography habit, and they had arranged for law enforcement to be waiting when the plane landed.
A police examination of Olvera's phone revealed 43 pictures and videos of A.G. Many were "images of A.G.'s backside while she was walking, sitting, and performing her cart services (angled many times in a way that suggested Olvera was trying to view up her skirt)," the 11th Circuit explained in its opinion.
Olvera was later charged with violating the federal law against "interference with flight crew members and attendants." It bans "assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft" in a way that "interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act."
At trial, prosecutors told the jury that a guilty finding did not require the government to prove that Olvera intended to intimidate A.G. or that he intended to interfere with her duties, merely that this had been a consequence of his knowing action.
He was convicted.
In a motion for a judgment of acquittal, Olvera's lawyer argued that he couldn't have broken the law because he wasn't aware A.G. was intimidated. After all, Olvera had "acted surreptitiously so as not to get caught" and "for all [Olvera] knew, he had gotten away with his clandestine video voyeurism. It was not until the Defendant disembarked the plane and was apprehended by law enforcement that Defendant realized he had been caught and the gig was up."
After the district court denied his acquittal motion, Olvera appealed to the 11th Circuit.
In an October 7 decision, three appeals court judges affirmed Olvera's conviction. "Contrary to Olvera's argument, the government was not required to prove that he was subjectively aware that he was intimidating A.G.," they wrote. All that is required "is that the defendant knowingly engaged in certain speech or conduct that intimidated a flight attendant in a manner that interfered with the performance of the attendant's duties," and there was "more than sufficient evidence" to suggest that Olvera did just this.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Boy, IDK. As sleezy as he was it's not illegal to video or take pictures of someone in public and I didn't see where he actually had up skirt pictures?
It looks like the "sorry you thought I was trying to rape you but I had my dork out and tripped on top of you and it accidently fell in" defense didn't work.
He definitely was desperate.
Out-competed, obese, impotent right wing dead ends of evolution have a particular way to interact with women. As they are repulsive, unsatisfying, and generally highly unappealing, they never receive consent. So they have to work around these constraints. But women will continue to do gods work and simply not select them. And there is no amount of disaffected, powerless crying and stomping that can change this.
Carry on, right wingers. You are not selected.
0:00
drivel, drivel, drivel, drivel, drivel, drivel, drivel, drivel!
Thanks, asswipe.
He was trying to skirt the rules.
She sounds like an eager beaver.
Ah, I see the pervy and cringe worthy exchanges of unselected right wing rejects, whose coercion is being wholeheartedly rejected by a modern, successful, young, energetic, progressive population. A population that celebrates sexual openness while dismissing the fading, repressed, obsolete, unappealing, impotent conservative residue. The winners smile at your demise and then discard all memory of you.
Adjective Artie? Is that you?
Lol. What a loser. A boring loser. Keep waiting though. Someday……. Haha.
Some people wear certain clothes to attract attention. Some of these clothes directly reveal body parts. Some hint at what is more covered.
And some other people pay attention, to various degrees. Sure, we have social conventions that suggest limits, but these are fuzzy and arbitrary.
Was she "asking for it"? I don't know, but humans do desperately ask, and dress, for attention. When does looking become "rape"?
Stewardess uniforms tend to be uniform. A quick visual admiration of her ass ≠ taking upskirt photos. The guy should be fired for being a sleazy creeper.
Maybe. But, again, that boundary is fuzzy. How about a photo from normal height 10 feet away?
And crew uniforms might have some options, i.e. skirt vs pants. Not like the good old days.
Is a picture taken 10 feet away the same as what he did? Not really and that would also be a bit creepy.
The lecher was on-duty transporting a detainee. He needs to go.
Recently flew from Logan (Boston) to Narita (Tokyo) and later back. All on JAL. The stewardesses looked good - they wore skirts. Am confident each knew she presented well. Don’t recall any creepers doing their photo collection thing.
He did more than seize an opportunity, according to this article. Positioning himself to brush against her, pushing up close to her, and making her lean in close so her could snap a few photos, that’s violative. And she caught him in the act so she knew he’d done it.
If you see a woman in a short skirt bending over in public and you capture a picture to preserve the memory, that’s creepy, but probably not illegal if you don’t share it. Forcing a woman who has to pay attention to you because it’s her job to get close enough for you to take advantage is crossing so many lines.
Look, I agree that what this guy did (if reported accurately) is creepy, and maybe crossed some lines.
Do you think he broke any laws? What are "lines"?
I also support firing the creep, but justification for firing, if at all necessary, can include legal but undesirable behavior.
I suppose this comes down to personal opinion. Like porn, you know it when you see it--for you.
Look, I agree that what this guy did (if reported accurately) is creepy, and maybe crossed some lines.
Fun idea: Olvera captures all the footage he wants/needs with a state/department-issued bodycam.
Did he break any laws? Gee, maybe we should have a group of people who (i) went to law school, (ii) are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, (iii) promise to be impartial, and (iv) listen to both sides of the argument, and have them decide such questions.
So much for the Rule of Law. Isn't the point of writing laws down that ordinary people can know what the laws are? Of what use is a law so poorly written than only judges can tell what it means?
Guys, guys, guys... "on duty".
Shitcan his ass for taking upskirt photos when he was supposed to be deporting illegals and call it a day. He had one job and he managed to pretty knowingly engage in one of the few niche activities that he should've known would compromise it.
Sorry, not sorry Olvera, maybe you and some of the "disease detectives" who got RIF'ed can make ENB soak her libertarian feminist pants by starting your own OF page from home just like any other business transaction.
I know sure as shit that ENB doesn't give a fuck as to whether someone is specifically performing their journalistic duty at any given moment, which Olvera quite plausibly could've been, but that's no excuse not to trim fat either way.
Did you read the article? Its a bad article, but it does get to the point that the pictures on the phone are more than a snap of her arse from down the aisle.
That I agree with but where is the proof of upskirt pics? How is taking pictures of her ass impeding her ability to do her job? She could have just told him she see's what he's doing and stop.
Flight attendants wear standard uniforms.
Some wear them better than others.
Wat?
Dude wasn't just looking. Dude was sticking a camera up her skirt.
Judge should have charge the sleaze with the crime and charged the lawyer with contempt for making a defense claim that foul and terrible.
Judges typically don’t charge defendants with violating the criminal codes.
Liberty_Belle is an imbecilic pile of lying lefty shit who in incapable of that sort of knowledge.
Should he get more time than most soros judges give pedophiles?
He never knew it was a "she".
Back in the day it would have been the Dundee verification grab but today it's the camera up the skirt...
I'm inclined to agree that he was innocent of the crime of "interference with flight crew members". Nothing in his actions or behaviors actually interfered with the attendants completing their duties or imperiled the safety of the aircraft. He's almost certainly guilty of some other charge, though, and should have been convicted of that. This was a charging error by the prosecutor that the court is covering up because the defendant is icky.
Intentionally blocking/impeding the aisle is one. Harassment while working is considered interfering as well.
If that counted as "blocking/impeding the aisle", then pretty much every passenger of above-average leg length in an aisle seat is guilty at multiple times during each flight. Since we don't see those prosecutions on every single flight, that can't be the real standard. So no on that one.
"Harassment while working" only counts as interference if it actually gets in the way of a flight crew member performing their work and endangers the aircraft. That was not credibly argued (much less, proven) in this particular case. That logic also rebuts Sailor's claim below. Yes, he's icky and yes, he did something wrong - but he did not do the specific wrong thing of "interference with flight crew members".
I would disagree and point out so does the court and so does the court of appeals. That is , of course, an Appeal to Authority argument; so I will be content to disagree on the matter.
It went far enough that the rest of the crew had to delay their normal duties in order to deal with his perversion.
He interfered.
Saying otherwise is like arguing breaking into your house isn't a crime because you should've just let the burglar rape you.
That logic would say that every loud, rude or just frightened customer is a potential felon solely at the discretion of the flight crew who have to "delay their normal duties" to deal with a disruption. That cannot be enough to justify this specific crime.
Again, I'm not saying he was a good guy. I'm saying only that what he did was not this particular wrong. Getting the charge right is important if we still want to consider ourselves a society governed by the rule of law.
The second he was caught, the stewardess then had to worry about more pictures or touches that, at that point, were obviously of a sexual nature. That then caused distress and would most certainly interfere with her duties as she had no idea what else he might do.
What if she suspected it but he wasn't actually doing it? Would he still be interfering with her duties just because he gives off the vibe of a creep?
We must believe the women.
So if they opened his phone and there were no pictures or videos, what then?
We do not prosecute for crimes which might happen in the future.
Or she could have loudly told him to stop touching her and taking pictures of her body embarrassing him into stopping.
"bad man stays in jail" outcome
Is there a crime of attempted voyeurism?
I wish I could have seen the airport city cops arresting the ICE asshole while he was on duty.
lol
That was my first thought on this. Seems like the charge doesn't quite fit the crime.
Nothing in his actions or behaviors actually interfered with the attendants completing their duties
Once she knew he was taking upskirt pictures, it seems reasonable she wouldn't want to get anywhere near the guy after that, which would indeed interfere with her ability to perform her duties.
Look, his lawyers' argument wasn't that his action wasn't a crime. They argued his actions wasn't the crime he was convicted of.
The argument at its base isn't a particularly difficult concept. If he had been charged with attempted murder, we'd all agree that he wasn't guilty of that, right? Even in a hypothetical scenario where her reaction to discovering that he was taking upskirt video was to jump in alarm, and as a result she slipped, fell, and hit her head seriously enough she needed emergency medical treatment to save her life? Because it isn't reasonably foreseeable that simply taking an upskirt video of a woman will endanger her life, it isn't attempted murder, even if she almost dies as a result.
So, now we move to whether taking an upskirt video is "knowingly intimidating" the subject. Well. Usually, in law, "knowingly" simply means that the person knows that they were voluntarily and intentionally taking a specific physical action that is a crime, whether or not they were aware the action was a crime.
But the instructions to the jury were kinda weird, at a first glance. Generally/historically, intimidation law does not care if the person was in fact intimidated, it cares if a "reasonable person" would have been intimidated. After all, the conduct is what's being outlawed, and we don't want credible death threats to be legal because the target wasn't scared, nor wishing people "Have a nice day" to be a crime because the hearer is irrationally fearful.
But while the first part of the jury instructions did effectively reference the reasonable person standard ("to intentionally say or do something that would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities to fear bodily harm"), the second part did not ("to say or do something to make another person fearful or make that person refrain from doing something that the person would otherwise do – or do something that the person would otherwise not do").
So, the lawyers' argument here was that insofar as the jury was told that intimidation had to actually make the flight attendant fearful/change her behavior (instead of just being an action that would make a hypothetical reasonable person fearful/change their behavior) then the meaning of "knowingly" moves from knowing he was committing a specific physical act, to knowing his act was actually causing fear or a change in behavior.
That is not, really, an unreasonable argument. If the "reasonable person" standard applied, the lawyers could have argued to the jury about whether their client's actions would have intimidated a reasonable person. Instead, with no practical way to argue with whether the flight attendant felt fear/changed her actions, they argued that there's no way he could have been intentionally causing fear or a change in her actions through an act he was trying to keep secret from her.
ENB objecting to the creation of pornography???
Remember - you privacy can not be violated if you don't know your privacy was violated.
ENB - you are a horrible 'journalist'.
Dude isn't saying that what he did isn't a crime (because he was sneaky about it). He is saying that he didn't do the specific crime he was convicted for.
Yeah, this. The guy should be fired and is probably guilty of some crime. But the defense attorney did his job in questioning whether he's actually guilty of this crime.
Dude isn't saying that what he did isn't a crime (because he was sneaky about it). He is saying that he didn't do the specific crime he was convicted for.
Just gonna float the usual: I know it might make me an evil misogynist to even consider that ENB isn't representing libertarian feminists by being confused by words, but that she's representing libertarian feminists by being knowingly dishonest or subversive. Even doing it to dishonestly and/or subversively represent libertarian feminists themselves!
get the idiot off the field before he uses the uniform to rape someone.
So what is the beef here? Is the beef here that he took an upskirt photo, or took an upskirt photo as an ICE agent?
I guess what I'm trying to understand... is this a "... and hey, subscribe to my onlyfans!" issue, or is this something that should be filed under "immigration"?
Well I guess I should just RTFT:
ICE Immigration Police Airlines Criminal Justice Crime
Ok, I'll shut up, this has been cleared up. Carry on, chat.
As creepy as this guy is, this conviction seems screwy.
If all it takes to get convicted of a serious crime is someone willing to testify that they were "intimidated" by the defendant, even as there was no evidence even presented that defendant knew such intimidation was occurring, we've entered a very Kafkaesque zone.
But then we'd have to defend someone we don't like... and that's not what we do around here. That's why this article is filed under "keep the borders open!"
Something like that for sure.
But then we'd have to defend someone we don't like... and that's not what we do around here.
And by "defend" you mean "not lock in a cell". Pretty much all of us agree that he should lose his job with ICE and be 'sentenced' to at least couple of years of paid work mopping adult theaters or changing bedpans at the hospital or something.
""This case boils down to an armed, on-duty law enforcement officer who was actively transporting a detainee on a commercial flight using his cell phone to film underneath a flight attendant's skirt and take other compromising pictures of that flight attendant without her awareness or consent," "
What does "being armed" have to do with any of this? You may as well mention if he was wearing brown or black shoes.
I think being armed means that it's more likely that a reasonable person might be intimidated by your actions. Open carry is legal in NH, but if you start arguing about the price of a candy bar to a store clerk while openly carrying, from a legal standpoint you're likelier to be considered intimidating about it than if you were not openly armed.
I'm with Super Scary here.
Not that your point is incorrect but, by a similar token, the stewardesses should just thank their lucky stars that the ICE Agent wasn't carrying a container with 10*1*ml of liquid like an ordinary pleb-terrorist.
"What does "being armed" have to do with any of this? You may as well mention if he was wearing brown or black shoes."
ENB is a slimy pile of TDS-addled lying shit who has to make sure we all know it.
"ICE Agent Who...."
No bias here at all, right?
Stuff your TDS up your ass, ENB. Your head wants company and then make the world a better place: Fuck off and die.
It sounds like there were no actual upskirt photos.
Only photos that seemed to be trying to get upskirt photos.
A law that allows the stance that someone 'feels' intimidated is too subjective. It means that anyone who looks scary to a flight attendant is taking a chance on jail whenever they fly because they don't actually have to intimidate anyone, merely make someone feel that way by their presence.
I gotta call cap. As we all know there was no ICE in 2023, and certainly not any actually apprehending illegals.
Trump's best! My wife wondered how may female detainees have been raped by IVE agents. I'm guessing it's a nonzero number
Except it happened in 2023…
I wonder how many illegal immigrants were raped by traffickers while Biden had the borders wide open. I'm guessing it's hundreds of thousands.