Inhabitance requirement for peeping
<p>Under <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=647.&amp;lawCode=PEN" rel="nofollow noreferrer">California PC647(i)</a>,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Except as provided in paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (l), every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>(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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The language in this section suggests the space must be occupied at the time the act is done, because of the term &quot;inhabited.&quot; Is this a valid interpretation or can &quot;inhabited&quot; simply mean &quot;owned/rented&quot;, e.g. it may be that the occupant has gone to the market but <em>does</em> currently live there.</p>

<p>The section of the same penal code on assault and battery says this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>As used in this section, “inhabited” means currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The section on arson:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Inhabited” means currently being used for dwelling purposes whether occupied or not. “Inhabited structure” and “inhabited property” do not include the real property on which an inhabited structure or an inhabited property is located.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Everywhere "inhabit" is used in this code and explained, the explanation is consistent: inhabited means used (and, possibly, intended to be used) for human habitation, whether occupied at the time or not.</p>

criminal-law california