PROVIDENCE — A proposal to close a loophole in the state’s peeping Tom law ran into difficulty at the State House yesterday when questions were raised about whether it might inadvertently apply to married couples or domestic partners.

While acknowledging that it might sound “absurd,” Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, raised the question of whether, under the proposed bill, “a spouse looking lasciviously at his or her partner is violating the law.” He spoke at a hearing on the bill before the House Judiciary Committee.

Legislators sought to amend the law last month after prosecutors were forced to drop a charge against a Middletown fitness club owner accused of spying through a ceiling tile at a woman showering in the locker room. The disorderly conduct charge had to be dismissed because, as the law reads now, a defendant must enter another’s property, such as a peeping Tom walking across someone’s yard to peer through their window. In the Middletown case, the accused owned the club, Bridge to Fitness.

State Rep. Amy Rice, D-Portsmouth and Rep. Donald J. Lally Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, cosponsored legislation to close what Rice last night called a “glaring loophole.”

The proposed legislation makes it illegal for someone to look “for a lascivious purpose through a window, or any other opening, into an area in which another would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, including but not limited to a restroom, locker room, shower, changing room, dressing room, bedroom, or any other such private area, notwithstanding any property rights ... .”

Brown commended lawmakers for striving to close the loophole and protect people’s privacy rights, saying, “We strongly support the intent of this bill.” But he said the language ought to be refined to “avoid unnecessarily broad interpretations.”

Brown also described another scenario that could be problematic if the law is passed. In some locker rooms, he said, people can see each other in the nude. Someone might peer at someone else and “that person could be charged,” he said. He proposed that someone only be deemed an offender if their actions are taken “without the knowledge or consent of the individual” being seen. The issue, said Brown, is “who’s looking.”

Rep. Joseph Scott, D-Exeter, a defense lawyer, wondered whether the proposed statute might needlessly spur domestic peeping Tom cases. For example, he said, suppose a husband gets in a fight with his wife, leaves home and upon returning sees her naked.

“If he’s looking at her when she doesn’t want him to be, perhaps he is disorderly,” Scott remarked.

Rice and Lally said they thought the language in their proposed bill was adequate and that a judge or jury would apply the appropriate discretion to prevent the law from being applied in a way that was not intended.

“I would like to get something passed as soon as possible,” Rice said.

But she and Lally went along with the wishes of committee members to spend a little more time reviewing the proposed bill and the ACLU’s suggestions. The committee will take up the matter again on Tuesday.

rsalit@projo.com