Because Colorado law has not kept up with technology, video surveillance cases are being prosecuted as eavesdropping, a law intended to outlaw wiretaps and surreptitiously overhead conversations.

Prosecutors eventually abandoned the felony eavesdropping charge and instead allowed the suspect to plead to a misdemeanor and avoid jail time.

Now, a Nebraska father is asking why Colorado has no law that could have better punished the man who peeped in on his daughters.

"I don't want this to happen to anybody else or their children again," said Robert Reams of Papillion, Neb.

Reams, his wife and their 11- and 15-year-old daughters checked into the Towne Place Suites, on South Chester Street off East Dry Creek Road in Englewood, in August for an end-of-summer getaway. The daughters spent their last day at the motel trying on new school clothes.

The trip was a distant memory until a letter arrived last week notifying them they had been victims of a crime.

Following their stay, a small hole was discovered between their room and the room next door. That's where 41-year-old David Lee Fugate of Swords Creek, Va., was staying.

When confronted by investigators with the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Fugate admitted he used a small, wireless camera to look into the Reams family's room during their stay in the hotel.

Fugate told deputies he watched live by connecting the camera to his television.

Fugate was originally charged with a class 6 felony charge of eavesdropping and overhearing a conversation. It can carry a sentence of more than a year in jail.

Arapahoe County Deputy District Attorney Doug Bechtel declined to take the case to trial and instead offered a plea deal on a lesser charge of wiretapping.

One complication: Because the eavesdropping law refers only to audio surveillance, a video peeper who can't clearly discern his subjects is not committing a crime by simply watching.

"At this point, this kind of video remote feed is not illegal," Bechtel said. "There should be some kind of prohibition. You have a right to privacy. But at this point, there really isn't a way to protect that privacy."

Prosecutors were unable to use additional charges because they could not prove Fugate was peeping for sexual gratification.

Fugate told sheriff's deputies he was simply testing out a new camera.

9NEWS legal analyst Scott Robinson said Colorado law ignores modern video technology.

"I think that most people would think that a voyeur looking in on the privacy of someone's bedroom is committing a lot more serious crime than an individual who is simply listening at a doorway," Robinson said. "In Colorado, recording or videotaping another without their consent is no more serious than putting an ear to the door and listening."

The plea deal Fugate reached earned him two months of probation.

That doesn't seem appropriate to the father of two girls haunted by what happened.

"The fact that he basically got off scot-free for the most part I simply cannot believe," Reams said.

Bechtel admits there is an argument to be made for changing Colorado law.

"Some of these statutes haven't kept up with the technology," Bechtel said.

Reams said the hotel's management company, Sage Hospitality of Denver, referred him to an insurance company when he inquired about the incident. An insurance company representative offered the Reams family a free weekend's stay. Reams rejected it.

"It is of the utmost importance that all our guests are provided safety and privacy," Sage vice president Jan Lucas said. "If a situation occurs that compromises the security of our guests, we proactively involve the proper authorities."

The investigation and prosecution of the case were hampered by communication problems.

Reams said he first learned of the peeping incident in a letter from a victim's advocate after Fugate was sentenced.

Fugate was arrested August 22 and was sentenced September 29.

The report by an Arapahoe County Sheriff's deputy indicates three voicemail messages were left for Reams, who insists he was never contacted.

Prosecutors did not make attempt to make contact with the victims.

Despite Fugate's statement to investigators that he could hear a family in the adjacent room, prosecutors assumed the only occupant was Robert Reams, who was listed on the hotel log.

"If had known there was a family involved, we could have gone to greater lengths, I'm sure, to contact the victims," Bechtel said. "I just assumed that somebody did not want to become involved."

Reams feels prosecutors were to quick to reach a plea agreement.

"If I would have known, I would have flown out here on a moment's notice, sat in front of the judge, the district attorney, whatever, to make sure this individual was put in jail," Reams said. "I'd have said I have two young daughters, and I absolutely want you to stand up for their rights. Do it."

Bechtel said he does not believe Fugate deserved a felony conviction on his record.

"Even knowing now that there was a family on the other side, I still don't think that this is a bad disposition for this case," Bechtel said. "He stood up, he admitted what he did was wrong."

The report prepared by investigators included contradictory information about when the peephole was discovered, and whether the same hole was found earlier and patched, only to be opened again.

The hotel identified 16 other guests who stayed in the Reams family's room during the months when Fugate was in the adjacent unit.

To date, none of those hotel guests have been contacted by investigators or prosecutors.

There is no convincing evidence those guests were victims of video peeping, said authorities.

To contact 9Wants To Know investigator Kyle Clark about this story, or to suggest another story, e-mail kyle.clark@9news.com or call (303) 871-1841.