Virginia Police Want To Force A 17 Year-Old Boy To Have An Erection, And Then Take Pictures Of It

[Hurmoth]

Virginia Police Want To Force A 17 Year-Old Boy To Have An Erection, And Then Take Pictures Of It

 

A 17 year-old Virginia teenager who is under investigation for sending a consensual sext to his 15-year-old girlfriend may be forced to have an erection in front of police as evidence in the case.

 

The boy, who the Washington Post will not identify for privacy reasons, is being charged with two felonies ? one for possession of child pornography (sexts from his girlfriend) and one for manufacturing child pornography (taking video of himself). He faces time in prison, as well as permanent placement on the sex offender registry.

 

Police have already taken photos of the boy?s genitals as a part of their investigation, his lawyer told the Post. But they want to bring the teen to the hospital and inject him with something that will force an erection, to compare his erect penis to that in the video found on his phone.

 

University of Pennsylvania law professor David Rudovsky, who specializes in invasions of privacy by police, doubts that there is legal standing for police to pursue such measures.

?In my view, it?s not [a legal search] for this reason: Normally the police can get a warrant to conduct a search if they have probable cause that it will find evidence they can use in criminal trial,? Rudovsky said. ?What the courts have said in a number of situations is that even if there?s some cause to believe that the procedure might lead them to evidence, where it involves a serious intrusion of personal dignity and privacy, you have to balance that with the nature of the intrusion.?

 

Rudovsky cited specifically a case, Winston v. Lee, in which police sought to extract a bullet from a man?s body to use it as evidence that he had been involved in criminal activity. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that such an invasion was unreasonable, citing the fourth amendment?s guidance on search and seizures.

 

?It seems to me that this case is similar to that one,? Rudovsky said. Taking pictures of a boy?s erection is ?too invasive in terms of his personal dignity? therefore the police need to have good reason, it needs to be a serious case and they need to have need for this evidence. I don?t think they have either.?

 

He also pointed to several other problematic factors in the case: ?If they?re complaining about the child pornography, that?s what they?re incidentally creating. And they?ll want to use it in court,? he said. ?Why they?re going after this guy to felony charges also seems like a misapplication of discretion of resources.?

 

Upon request for comment, the Manassas City police department referred ThinkProgress to the Commonwealth Attorney?s Office, citing the fact that the boy is a juvenile. The Attorney?s Office did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

 

As technology advances and teens find new ways to express their sexuality, legislators and law enforcement are grappling with how to deal with sexting. At least 20 states have criminalized sexually explicit messages between teens. There is a perception that sexting has dangerous implications for young people. There are actual risks when it is used for cyberbullying, but teens actually overall report positive experiences sexting, and there is no indication that it leads to more ?deviant? behavior. Meanwhile, the amount of manipulative sexting is on the decline.

 

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/09/3458159/manassas-erection-pictures-police/

[Draconian Guppy]

Taking a picture of himself is child pornography ? Would that not be a selfie? :shifty:

 

Seriously though, if they both were consenting... The story doesn't seem to point out why?

[Hurmoth]

Taking a picture of himself is child pornography ? Would that be a selfie? :shifty:

 

Seriously though, if they both were consenting... The story doesn't seem to point out why?

In Virginia, and in a lot of other states, sexting under the age of 18 is considering manufacturing of child pornography. Police are cracking down on it big time.

 

In a lot of cases (maybe not necessarily this one though), the receiver isn't keeping it to themselves, they're passing the picture(s) out to their friends and then they send it out too. When this happens, it is considered distribution of child pornography.

 

Technically speaking, I don't think anyone under the age of 18 can legally consent, it requires their legal guardian/parent.

[techbeck]

Taking a picture of himself is child pornography ? Would that not be a selfie? :shifty:

 

Seriously though, if they both were consenting... The story doesn't seem to point out why?

 

He sent it out though.  So basically, they can get him on distributing child pornography to

[HawkMan]

Taking a picture of himself is child pornography ? Would that not be a selfie? :shifty:

 

Seriously though, if they both were consenting... The story doesn't seem to point out why?

 

Because America, and moral police...

[techbeck]

In Virginia, and in a lot of other states, sexting under the age of 18 is considering manufacturing of child pornography. Police are cracking down on it big time.

 

In a lot of cases (maybe not necessarily this one though), the receiver isn't keeping it to themselves, they're passing the picture(s) out to their friends and then they send it out too. When this happens, it is considered distribution of child pornography.

 

Technically speaking, I don't think anyone under the age of 18 can legally consent, it requires their legal guardian/parent.

 

Yup.  My boss is dealing with something with his kid and a guy in LA.  Long story short, they found pics of his underaged daughter on his PC.  And recorded chat sessions.  So basically they got him on a number of different charges and intent to distribute.  He even admitted to it all and so did his dad.  The kid is like 21 and now royally screwed for life.

[Draconian Guppy]

Because America, and moral police...

Double standards police i'd say.

 

one of my exes took polaroids of herself around 17 yo. That means she would've been charged with child pornography, even though I asked for it :shifty:

[theyarecomingforyou]

Ridiculous, though sadly not surprising given how ridiculous the US justice system is.  :no:

[Hurmoth]

I think the bigger issue here is that the State, my state unfortunately, wants to take a picture of someone's penis who is under the age of 18. Even worse, they want to force him to have an erection before taking it.

 

That is a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure). Under 18 or not, he still has Constitutional rights.

 

Furthermore, isn't what the state is doing manufacturing child porn?

[LaP]

Taking a picture of himself is child pornography ? Would that not be a selfie? :shifty:

 

 

 

The strange thing is pretty much everyone born in the 70ies and 80ies have a couple of nude photos of themselves (in the bath etc) their parents took when they were under 18.

 

Should we remove those photos from our family album and burn them just in case ...

Double standards police i'd say.

 

one of my exes took polaroids of herself around 17 yo. That means she would've been charged with child pornography, even though I asked for it :shifty:

 

You should defintely go to jail and not get 200$.

[Hurmoth]

The strange thing is pretty much everyone born in the 70ies and 80ies have a couple of nude photos of themselves (in the bath etc) their parents took when they were under 18.

 

Should we remove those photos from our family album and burn them just in case ...

Law & Order: SVU had an episode about that exact same thing. A father had pictures like what you described and posted them on Facebook and was arrested for the manufacturing and distribution of child porn.

 

I think it depends though on the picture and the contents thereof though. If genitalia is clearly visible, don't post that stuff where others can see it. In fact, why even keep that photo?

[techbeck]

Because America, and moral police...

 

Yea, America.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_child_pornography

[LaP]

Law & Order: SVU had an episode about that exact same thing. A father had pictures like what you described and posted them on Facebook and was arrested for the manufacturing and distribution of child porn.

 

I think it depends though on the picture and the contents thereof though. If genitalia is clearly visible, don't post that stuff where others can see it. In fact, why even keep that photo?

 

Because it is in the family album and nobody in the family actually care? I agree tough that scanning something like this and sharing it on Facebook is not a bright idea.

 

I think one day we might come to a point where removing the cover of Nevermind and burning it might be a good idea just in case.

[timster]

the police are building up a collection of dick pics?

[madd-hatter]

In Virginia, and in a lot of other states, sexting under the age of 18 is considering manufacturing of child pornography. Police are cracking down on it big time.

 

I doubt many will argue against the need...

 

However,

 

 

He faces time in prison, as well as permanent placement on the sex offender registry.

A 17-year old serving prison time and being placed on the permanent sex offender registry for being sexual with his consenting 15-year old g/f doesn't add up. This is not why this system is in place, Virgina.

[timster]

A 17-year old serving prison time and being placed on the permanent sex offender registry for being sexual with his consenting 15-year old g/f doesn't add up. This is not why this system is in place, Virgina.

i think it's more for the distribution of kiddie porn rather than him having sexual relations with his 15 year old gf

[+LogicalApex MVC]

When you have the collapse of Mens Rea this is the expected result. I think it makes no sense to be able to charge minors under child poragrophy laws especially when there is no wider intent than to share them amongst themselves.

[HawkMan]

Yea, America.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_child_pornography

 

 

Yeah, I'm not reading through all that. What I know is that in Europe peoples life aren't ruined because two underage kids has sex or send pictures to each other. Not until one of them gets angry and posts the pictures online anyway. Even with limited age difference we don't ruin lives, we do individual judgments, IF they are reported on in the first place.

 

In America, this is all to common, and for absolutely ridiculous reasons.

 

Heck look up Astrid Lindgren. A woman who made very good and popular children books/movies in scandinavia. In America her movies would be considered child porn.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I think it depends though on the picture and the contents thereof though. If genitalia is clearly visible, don't post that stuff where others can see it. In fact, why even keep that photo?

It's sad that nudity is considered such a taboo in this day and age. People should be free to take naked pictures of themselves without issue and send them to others in a consensual manner. My parents took pictures of me naked when I was a kid and I don't have any issue with it; some of my friends share naked pictures of their children on Facebook. People just need to apply common sense. If a parent takes a picture of their own child naked, and it obviously isn't done with sexual intent, then no action should be taken.

 

There is absolutely NO benefit to society in prosecuting teenagers?or indeed anyone?for sending naked pictures of themselves to a consenting individual. In fact by criminalising such behaviour it hurts everyone involved. This nonsense needs to stop.

[x-scratch]

seems those police are pedophiles

[LaP]

I doubt many will argue against the need...

 

However,

 

 

A 17-year old serving prison time and being placed on the permanent sex offender registry for being sexual with his consenting 15-year old g/f doesn't add up. This is not why this system is in place, Virgina.

 

There's no doubt that it should not be considered okay for under 18 to sexting or whatever it is called. But as long as both kids are about the same age i don't think it should be enough to be considered a sex offender.

[Hurmoth]

 

There is absolutely NO benefit to society in prosecuting teenagers?or indeed anyone?for sending naked pictures of themselves to a consenting individual. In fact by criminalising such behaviour it hurts everyone involved. This nonsense needs to stop.

The problem is that it doesn't stay between those consenting individuals. I'm not arguing your point, I'm merely stating that most teenagers aren't keeping these photos to themselves, they are passing them around.

 

That's how most of them get caught in the first place, by showing their friends the pictures. Teenagers aren't mentally capable of making decisions that affect their future. At least not the teenagers I know and remember from when I was in high school.

 

***That's not to say that are all like that though.***

[badb0y]

 

 

Seriously though, if they both were consenting... The story doesn't seem to point out why?

 

Typical Americans do this all the time. They also carry guns, to protect their families, while they are 100 miles away from them. They, themselves' being caffeine Addicts/ alcoholics, are always right......They eat and look like potatoes but they are right, and so is their police......Its America and its people.

[DocM]

Odd permutations in the law

The film Pretty Baby has extensive nude scenes of a 12 year old Brooke Shields. It's "art" and gets a pass.

Same goes for the cover of the Scorpions album Virgin Killer and other print art by many artistic photographers.

[notchinese]

This is so stupid. This kid's life will be RUINED FOREVER if he is convicted. There was a similar case where a kid who was only like 12 or 13 had to register on the sex offender list for basically the same reason (giving others the picture of some classmate).

 

The strange thing is pretty much everyone born in the 70ies and 80ies have a couple of nude photos of themselves (in the bath etc) their parents took when they were under 18.

 

Should we remove those photos from our family album and burn them just in case ...

 

You should defintely go to jail and not get 200$.

 

Nude photos are not considered child pornography. Its nude photos of a sexual nature that are the problem.