Wow- cops want to photo teen's junk, child porn charges

[EVT1]

Here we go again- boyfriend/girlfriend situation, parent gets involved and now we have a 17yo facing felony child pornography

www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/09/virginia-teen-sexting-cops-penis-photo/12434813/

    Virginia police have obtained a search warrant to photograph the erect penis of a 17-year-old facing felony child-pornography charges for sexting an explicit video to his 15-year-old girlfriend, the boy's lawyer says.

    The teen was charged with manufacturing and distributing child pornography after his girlfriend's mother called police. He allegedly sent the girl "pornographic videos ... after being repeatedly being told to stop," the statement added.

    Foster said the boy sent the video after she sent him photos of herself; the content has not been described. The girl has not been charged.

So it is child porn if a teenager photographs their own stuff, but an adult with a court order..........WTF?  Just the kind of person child porn laws were meant to deal with

[Deleted]

Ummmmm yeah


That's a head-scratcher for sure.

[EVT1]

If anything is cringe inducing it is 'cops want to photograph erect penis of teenager'

Going to send that to the jury are you? Have it blown up in court and have the prosecutor and a laser pointer make a positive ID against the video?  This is quite disturbing.

[mmhmm]

Umm, no, I don't think so.  This is beyond ludicrous. 

[Opti]

Seems odd, but if the girl won't testify against him, how do they

prove it is him?

I think the big problem is Mom can't keep her daughter away from

this guy. Not sure how any charges would stick if they don't take any

pics of the guy. But maybe one of our resident lawyers know?

Seems like something best dropped and Mom just taking away her phone.

[zibazinski]

What the hell is anyone thinking sending nude pictures of themselves. Not like you don't know what's gong to happen to them. Idiot.

[Tennesseer]

At least for the boy, he was thinking with the wrong head.

[Tennesseer]

"Virginia police have obtained a search warrant to photograph the erect penis of a 17-year-old..."

So are the police going to hire a fluffer to get the boy up to full staff?

[EVT1]

Jul 9, 2014 21:06:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

"Virginia police have obtained a search warrant to photograph the erect penis of a 17-year-old..."

So are the police going to hire a fluffer to get the boy up to full staff?

They are going to inject it

[Deleted]

Inject it? Oh HELLL NO!

If it was my penis, they'd have to kill me first.

I'd abide by a warrant to photograph it. I'd NOT abide by a warrant to inject anything into it.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 9, 2014 21:13:19 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jul 9, 2014 21:06:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

"Virginia police have obtained a search warrant to photograph the erect penis of a 17-year-old..."

So are the police going to hire a fluffer to get the boy up to full staff?

They are going to inject it

Ridiculous.  

Isn't there some rule about self-incrimination?  The kid should plead the 5th.  I see this turning out badly for the police and prosecution.

[EVT1]

Jul 9, 2014 20:59:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

Seems odd, but if the girl won't testify against him, how do they

prove it is him?

I think the big problem is Mom can't keep her daughter away from

this guy. Not sure how any charges would stick if they don't take any

pics of the guy. But maybe one of our resident lawyers know?

Seems like something best dropped and Mom just taking away her phone.

You make a circumstantial case- show it was recorded by his phone, not downloaded, etc.

I am not sure on the current scientific standards or acceptance of video evidence as it comes to penis identification  

Didn't this come up with Michael Jackson?  They were going to do a photo array or something   This is just so stupid it's funny.  Can you please pick out the offending member in this display of dicks....

[EVT1]

Jul 9, 2014 21:17:44 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Inject it? Oh HELLL NO!

If it was my penis, they'd have to kill me first.

I'd abide by a warrant to photograph it. I'd NOT abide by a warrant to inject anything into it.

Sadly they already photographed it- it was just not in the appropriate condition to make a comparison.  And they threatened him into that- show us your junk or else.....Just who are the real child pornographers here?

[Deleted]

As to the question of "who are the real pornographers?"... I actually disagree with calling the police pornographers. It's a part of the connotation of the word that there has to be some intent of sexual thrill involved.

I mean if you photograph or video record a naked baby smiling and laughing while playing in the bubbles in the tub (and his penis or her vulva {depending on gender} is visible in the picture)... that's not pornography... whether someone would label it as such or not. It's a photograph or video of a happy baby having fun.

In this case the court isn't doing it to get a sexual thrill out of it. They are doing it for legal purposes as evidence.

As to the suggestion that he "take the fifth"... That's a good call/question... but does an erection equal testimony or does it equal evidence (like DNA or fingerprints)? Does "the fifth" only count towards verbal incrimination? Because in the Fifth Amendment it only states that "... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...".

[moon/Laura]

This article doesn't state the age you have to be under for it to be considered "child porn", unfortunately. But it's still a good article.

www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/virginia-sexting-and-child-pornography-laws



This one, however, says under 18. wvtf.org/post/selfies-child-pornography-and-law

[Virgil Showlion]

They're taking a photo why?

If there's some kind of identifying feature like a piercing or tattoo, surely it would suffice to have a medical official testify that the feature is present.

[EVT1]

Jul 9, 2014 21:39:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

As to the question of "who are the real pornographers?"... I actually disagree with calling the police pornographers. It's a part of the connotation of the word that there has to be some intent of sexual thrill involved.

I mean if you photograph or video record a naked baby smiling and laughing while playing in the bubbles in the tub (and his penis or her vulva {depending on gender} is visible in the picture)... that's not pornography... whether someone would label it as such or not. It's a photograph or video of a happy baby having fun.

In this case the court isn't doing it to get a sexual thrill out of it. They are doing it for legal purposes as evidence.

As to the suggestion that he "take the fifth"... That's a good call/question... but does an erection equal testimony or does it equal evidence (like DNA or fingerprints)? Does "the fifth" only count towards verbal incrimination? Because in the Fifth Amendment it only states that "... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...".

Correct- an erect penis is not testimonial in nature- although it could be if you could will a boner.

And true- calling the police child pornographers is not really fair- but neither is it to call some dumb kid one either.  And I don't think thrill has that much to do with it- maybe people that possess it, but the people that make and distribute child porn are more interested in making money.  To charge this kid with 'manufacturing and delivering child porn' is bullshit for sure.

[EVT1]

BTW Richard- there are cases of children in the bathtub, etc. leading to prosecution of parents- this day and age all bets are off what the police might do.

[moon/Laura]

It's child porn because both he and his girlfriend are under 18.

Read the articles I linked and you'll see why the charges are what they are.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 9, 2014 21:39:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

As to the question of "who are the real pornographers?"... I actually disagree with calling the police pornographers. It's a part of the connotation of the word that there has to be some intent of sexual thrill involved.

I mean if you photograph or video record a naked baby smiling and laughing while playing in the bubbles in the tub (and his penis or her vulva {depending on gender} is visible in the picture)... that's not pornography... whether someone would label it as such or not. It's a photograph or video of a happy baby having fun.

In this case the court isn't doing it to get a sexual thrill out of it. They are doing it for legal purposes as evidence.

As to the suggestion that he "take the fifth"... That's a good call/question... but does an erection equal testimony or does it equal evidence (like DNA or fingerprints)? Does "the fifth" only count towards verbal incrimination? Because in the Fifth Amendment it only states that "... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...".

Not quite the same but I understand self-incriminating information gained through the administration of a truth serum has been ruled by SCOTUS as unconstitutionally coerced and therefore inadmissable. 

So would administering a drug to cause an erection that would other wise not occur under the conditions of being photographed by the police and prosecution be legal?  Not exactly a sexually stimulating setting.

Townsend v. Sain - 372 U.S. 293 (1963)

[EVT1]

Jul 9, 2014 21:47:54 GMT -5 moon/Laura said:

This article doesn't state the age you have to be under for it to be considered "child porn", unfortunately. But it's still a good article.

www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/virginia-sexting-and-child-pornography-laws



This one, however, says under 18. wvtf.org/post/selfies-child-pornography-and-law

It is really scary- because the legal system only gets involved in very few cases and those people are in real trouble. This is not what the law was designed for.  Cases like these are when I pray those with discretion use it, unlike what is happening here.

[Deleted]

Jul 9, 2014 21:56:58 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

BTW Richard- there are cases of children in the bathtub, etc. leading to prosecution of parents- this day and age all bets are off what the police might do.

Oh, I know there are cases where it has been charged when it was just "innocent images of a child having fun". They (the charges AND the people pressing them) are ignorant and stupid.

[Deleted]

Jul 9, 2014 21:58:53 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 9, 2014 21:39:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

As to the question of "who are the real pornographers?"... I actually disagree with calling the police pornographers. It's a part of the connotation of the word that there has to be some intent of sexual thrill involved.

I mean if you photograph or video record a naked baby smiling and laughing while playing in the bubbles in the tub (and his penis or her vulva {depending on gender} is visible in the picture)... that's not pornography... whether someone would label it as such or not. It's a photograph or video of a happy baby having fun.

In this case the court isn't doing it to get a sexual thrill out of it. They are doing it for legal purposes as evidence.

As to the suggestion that he "take the fifth"... That's a good call/question... but does an erection equal testimony or does it equal evidence (like DNA or fingerprints)? Does "the fifth" only count towards verbal incrimination? Because in the Fifth Amendment it only states that "... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...".

Not quite the same but I understand self-incriminating information gained through the administration of a truth serum has been ruled by SCOTUS as unconstitutionally coerced and therefore inadmissable. 

So would administering a drug to cause an erection that would other wise not occur under the conditions of being photographed by the police and prosecution be legal?  Not exactly a sexually stimulating setting.

Townsend v. Sain - 372 U.S. 293 (1963)

My reasoning for questioning it though is... you can be compelled to provide your fingerprints. If you were there (at the crime scene), that's incriminating as hell (and you'd refuse, if you could)! but fingerprinting has been ruled as not being in violation of "the Fifth". I think an erection "stands" (pardon the pun) in that category. I don't think they should be allowed to "force it by drugs" though... just like they can't force a confession with them.

[EVT1]

Jul 9, 2014 22:09:35 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 9, 2014 21:56:58 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

BTW Richard- there are cases of children in the bathtub, etc. leading to prosecution of parents- this day and age all bets are off what the police might do.

Oh, I know there are cases where it has been charged when it was just "innocent images of a child having fun". They (the charges AND the people pressing them) are ignorant and stupid.

A SLEW of cases- completely false running the gamut. Child abuse charges for spanking, the whole incident with the teachers that were fired and ran through the ringer when the whole community fell into some kind of twilight zone.

This is mighty invasive- a medical procedure against someone's will.  This isn't some suspected drunk driver that killed people, a rapist they need to identify, it's a stupid HS kid.  While 'technically' creating child pornography, that is not in the spirit of the law.  While 'technically' distributing child pornography, that is not in the spirit of the law.  This is the abuse of the law to go after people that it was never intended to go after.  Glad I didn't have a camera phone growing up- no telling what stupid shit I would have done with it.

[EVT1]

This is one of those cases that should have been quietly handled in the prosecutor's office and now it is a disaster.

I remember the last outrageous case where the cops forced an anal search (twice), a forced defecation, Xray, and other humiliations because they suspected the man was hiding drugs.  At some point enough is enough- and this is already beyond that point.

[EVT1]

I wonder how the girl's mom would feel if the police came back with a warrant to photograph her 15yo daughter's spread stuff so they could charge her with a few child porn felonies as well....

[Tennesseer]

Jul 9, 2014 22:18:57 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 9, 2014 21:58:53 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Not quite the same but I understand self-incriminating information grained through the administration of a truth serum has been ruled by SCOTUS as unconstitutionally coerced and therefore inadmissable. 

So would administering a drug to cause an erection that would other wise not occur under the conditions of being photographed by the police and prosecution be legal?  Not exactly a sexually stimulating setting.

Townsend v. Sain - 372 U.S. 293 (1963)

My reasoning for questioning it though is... you can be compelled to provide your fingerprints. If you were there (at the crime scene), that's incriminating as hell (and you'd refuse, if you could)! but fingerprinting has been ruled as not being in violation of "the Fifth". I think an erection "stands" (pardon the pun) in that category. I don't think they should be allowed to "force it by drugs" though... just like they can't force a confession with them.

Finger printing is constitutional.  So is taking a picture of a penis.  But is it legal to force a drug into a person against their will to be able to take a picture of an erect penis?   Finger prints and flacid penises are ìn their natural state.  The chemically induced erection is not.

[EVT1]

Might have a little lawyer in you TN

Forced medical procedures are an interesting part of the law- we can go from a pin prick for a blood sample to risky surgery to recover a bullet- and I got that from some TV show- not law school.

But in the real sense any medical procedure done against the will of the person is a battery- and the courts are loathe to allow this kind of thing. 

 

[Tennesseer]

EVT-I think these two kids are idiots. Warnings about sexting pictures of yourself or of others have been around for a while now.  They deserve some kind of punishment.  Both of them.

I just have a problem with forcing drug(s) into someone to get the desired result.  Similar to truth serums against a criminal suspect's will.

[EVT1]

Jul 9, 2014 23:19:25 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

EVT-I think these two kids are idiots. Warnings about sexting pictures of yourself or of others have been around for a while now.  They deserve some kind of punishment.  Both of them.

I just have a problem with forcing drug(s) into someone to get the desired result.  Similar to truth serums against a criminal suspect's will.

Sure- but it is a perversion of the law the way they are doing it.

If I remember right- showing the naughty bits to each other happened when I was in 4th grade- and that is maybe ten years old?  I got caught nude with the neighbor girl and her friend- no cops.  Wasn't even sexual- thought  they had a smaller butt in the front

What is the proper punishment?  I think parents over-react.  Not surprising- probably true in this case- their child can do no wrong- it's the fault of the teacher,boyfriend,internet,whatever.