California Penal Code §647(i) — Peeking into Inhabited Dwelling
PC §647(i) — often called the 'Peeping Tom' statute — makes it a misdemeanor to loiter, prowl, or wander upon the private property of another, at any time, and while doing so, peek into a door or window of an inhabited building or structure, without visible or lawful business with the owner or occupant. It is a straight misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in county jail and a $1,000 fine, and requires NO PC §290 sex-offender registration on a first offense.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney · Peeking into Inhabited Dwelling Cases in All LA County Courts
01 — Quick Facts
PC §647(i) — Peeking into Inhabited Dwelling at a Glance
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Full Name | California Penal Code §647(i) — Peeking into Inhabited Dwelling |
| Code Type | Penal Code (PC) |
| Classification | Misdemeanor |
| Penalty | Up to 6 months county jail + $1,000 fine |
| PC §290 Registration | No — on first offense |
| §647(j) Overlap | Often co-charged in modern cases |
| Moral Turpitude | Yes — CIMT under most authority |
| Strike | No |
| Probation | Available — up to 3 years |
| Diversion | PC §1001.95 available for first offense |
| Free Consultation | (213) 723-2337 — 24/7 |
01 — What Is PC §647(i)?
What Is California Penal Code §647(i)?
PC §647(i) Reads:
"Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (i) Who, while loitering, prowling, or wandering upon the private property of another, at any time, peeks in the door or window of any inhabited building or structure, without visible or lawful business with the owner or occupant."
— California Penal Code §647(i)
PC §647(i) is one of two California peeping statutes (the other is §647(j), covering camera-based invasions of privacy). §647(i) targets physical, in-person peeking — going onto private property and looking through a door or window of an occupied home. All four elements must be proven: (1) loitering / prowling / wandering, (2) on private property, (3) actual peeking into a door or window of an inhabited structure, (4) without visible or lawful business.
§647(i) vs §647(j)
§647(i) covers physical peeking on private property. §647(j) covers electronic voyeurism — using a camera, telescope, drone, or mirror to observe or record someone in a place of privacy. The two subdivisions are often co-charged in modern voyeurism cases, and each has distinct elements and defenses.
PC §647(i) — Peeking In Person
Physical peeking on private property. Misdemeanor, no §290 registration on 1st offense.
PC §647(j) — Voyeurism / Camera
Camera, drone, mirror, or recording device used to invade privacy. §647(j)(4) revenge porn triggers §290.
Why §647(i) Matters Beyond the Sentence
§647(i) is a misdemeanor with employment, licensing, and CIMT exposure. It does NOT trigger PC §290 registration on a first offense, but repeated or aggravated conduct can support §647.6 (annoying a minor) or §288(a) filings that do. Rubin Law, P.C. defends §647(i) aggressively to prevent escalation to registerable offenses.
Official Sources
02 — Elements of the Crime
Elements the Prosecution Must Prove Under PC §647(i)
To convict under PC §647(i), the prosecution must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Loitering, Prowling, or Wandering
The defendant must have been physically present on another's private property in a loitering, prowling, or wandering manner — not lawfully invited or on business.
Private Property of Another
The property must belong to another. Public spaces, common areas of apartment buildings, and shared driveways may fall outside the statute.
Peeking into a Door or Window of an Inhabited Building
The peeking must be directed into a door or window of an occupied dwelling. Casual glances from a distance, non-dwelling structures (garages, sheds), and uninhabited buildings fall outside the statute.
Without Visible or Lawful Business
The defendant must have had no legitimate reason to be there. Lawful business (delivery, invited visit, service call) is a complete defense.
04 — Penalties
Penalties for PC §647(i) Peeking into Inhabited Dwelling in California
PC §647(i) penalties are structured as follows.
| Charge | Code | Prison Term | Probation | Strike |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peeking — 1st Offense | PC §647(i) | Up to 6 months county jail | Yes — up to 3 years informal | No |
| §647(i) w/ Prior | PC §647(i) | Up to 6 months + protective orders | Yes — conditions | No |
| §647(i) + §647(j) Voyeurism | PC §647(j)(1)-(4) | Up to 1 year jail + registration risk | Yes — subject to §290 analysis | No |
| Diversion Track | PC §1001.95 | Case dismissed on completion | Diversion terms | No |
Related Enhancements & Charges
Prior Convictions
PC §667.5 / §1170.12
Prior similar convictions increase custody exposure and reduce diversion eligibility.
Gang Enhancement
PC §186.22
Gang-motivated conduct adds 1 year to a misdemeanor or 2–10 years to a felony filing.
Beyond the Sentence
- Public arrest record and criminal-history rap sheet exposure
- Employment background-check disclosure
- Housing background-check disclosure
- Immigration consequences for non-citizens (see FAQs)
- Professional licensing disclosure obligations
Sentencing References
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends PC §647(i) Peeking into Inhabited Dwelling Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. attacks the elements of PC §647(i) and drives outcomes that avoid conviction where possible.
Lawful Business — Delivery / Invited Visit
Delivery workers, service technicians, invited guests, and mistaken-address visitors have 'visible or lawful business.' Documentary evidence (delivery logs, texts, service records) defeats the charge.
PC §647(i) / CALCRIM 2914
No Actual Peeking
Passing by, brief glance, or looking in the general direction of a window is not 'peeking.' The statute requires focused, deliberate viewing.
PC §647(i)
Not Loitering — Legitimate Purpose
A person walking to a specific destination or performing a task is not 'loitering, prowling, or wandering.' Purpose-driven presence defeats the loitering element.
PC §647(i)
Common Area / Not Private Property
Apartment common corridors, shared driveways, and semi-public passages may fall outside 'private property of another.' Ownership documentation is dispositive.
PC §647(i)
Mistaken Identity
Nighttime peeping-tom filings frequently rest on brief silhouette identifications. Alibi, video, and cell-site data challenge identification.
Kirby v. Illinois (1972) / CALCRIM 315
Diversion — PC §1001.95
First-offense §647(i) qualifies for PC §1001.95 judicial diversion — case dismissed after program with no conviction, no CIMT.
Plea to §602 Trespass
Where a plea is unavoidable, negotiation to PC §602 trespass (non-CIMT, non-registration) preserves record and immigration status.
PC §602
Constitutional Sources
07 — Court Process
How PC §647(i) Peeking into Inhabited Dwelling Cases Move Through Los Angeles Courts
PC §647(i) cases proceed through the following stages in Los Angeles County courts.
- 1
Step 1 — Investigation
Most §647(i) filings arise from resident 911 calls or security-camera captures. Suspects are often approached at the scene — do not consent to searches or interviews without counsel.
- 2
Step 2 — Arraignment
Misdemeanor arraignment in the local courthouse. Bail typically $2,500–$10,000; often OR release with stay-away orders. Rubin Law appears under PC §977 for calendar minimization.
- 3
Step 3 — Discovery & ID Evidence
Cell-site data, doorbell-camera footage, and neighborhood-camera canvasses drive identification. Rubin Law engages defense investigators to obtain and analyze video and to interview surrounding neighbors.
- 4
Step 4 — Motion Practice
Pitchess motions on officer identification history; PC §1538.5 suppression when consent to search was obtained improperly; motions to exclude cross-racial identification evidence.
- 5
Step 5 — Diversion Application
First-offense §647(i) is a strong candidate for PC §1001.95 diversion. Package includes counseling, no-contact terms, and community service.
- 6
Step 6 — Resolution
Diversion is the priority. Where declined, negotiation to PC §602 trespass (non-CIMT, non-registration) preserves the record.
Los Angeles Courts That Handle PC §647(i) Peeking into Inhabited Dwelling Cases
PC §647(i) cases are filed in the courthouse serving the location of the arrest.
Reviewed by Your Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin — Los Angeles Peeking into Inhabited Dwelling Defense Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin has defended clients charged with peeking into inhabited dwelling and related offenses in Los Angeles County courts — including Clara Shortridge Foltz, Van Nuys, Compton, and Pomona. He understands that these cases are won in the details: the suppression hearing that eliminates key evidence, the preliminary hearing cross-examination that exposes a weak witness, the penalty phase argument that keeps a client out of the worst outcome.
This page was written and reviewed by Daniel A. Rubin, Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, CA State Bar 302093, with 10+ years of experience defending clients charged under PC §647(i) in Los Angeles County. Last reviewed: July 2026.
CA Bar 302093 | Whittier Law School | Rising Star — Super Lawyers 2019–2023 | Peeking into Inhabited Dwelling Cases Throughout LA County
See our full Peeking into Inhabited Dwelling defense practice
09 — FAQs
PC §647(i) Peeking into Inhabited Dwelling Questions — Los Angeles
What is 'peeking' under PC §647(i)?
PC §647(i) requires (1) loitering, prowling, or wandering, (2) on private property of another, (3) peeking into a door or window of an inhabited building, (4) without visible or lawful business. All four elements must be proven. Brief glances, passing by, and casual observation do not satisfy the 'peeking' element.
Does PC §647(i) require sex-offender registration?
No — not on a first offense. PC §647(i) alone does not trigger PC §290 registration. However, related charges (§647(j)(4) revenge porn, §647.6 annoying a minor, §314 exposure) that are often co-filed DO trigger registration. Rubin Law negotiates to isolate §647(i) exposure and avoid registration.
Is PC §647(i) a crime of moral turpitude?
Yes — most immigration authorities treat §647(i) as a crime of moral turpitude, creating deportation and inadmissibility exposure for non-citizens. Non-CIMT plea alternatives (PC §602 trespass) are the objective in immigration-sensitive cases.
What if I looked in a window by accident or from a public sidewalk?
§647(i) requires loitering on private property. Looking in a window from a public sidewalk, or from a lawful vantage point, is not §647(i). The statute requires physical presence on the private property AND deliberate peeking.
Can §647(i) be diverted?
Yes. First-offense §647(i) qualifies for PC §1001.95 judicial diversion — case dismissed on program completion with no conviction. Rubin Law prepares diversion packages with counseling, community service, and stay-away terms.
What's the difference between §647(i) and §647(j)?
§647(i) covers physical, in-person peeking on private property. §647(j) covers camera-based voyeurism — using a device (phone camera, hidden camera, drone, mirror) to observe or record another in a place of privacy. §647(j)(4) also covers 'revenge porn' non-consensual distribution and triggers §290 registration.
Can I be charged if I was on my own property?
No. §647(i) requires peeking on 'the private property of another.' Peeking from your own property is not §647(i), though other charges (§647(j) if a device was used, harassment or stalking laws) may apply.
What if the window I looked into was already uncovered?
The uncovered status of the window is not a defense to §647(i) — the statute doesn't require the occupant to have curtained the window. However, the totality of circumstances (uncovered window, lit interior, sidewalk vantage) may support a not-loitering defense or a not-peeking defense.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged Under PC §647(i) Peeking Into a Dwelling?
§647(i) is a misdemeanor with no §290 registration on first offense. Rubin Law, P.C. pursues PC §1001.95 diversion and PC §602 reduction.