Police want to force 17 yo to have erection as evidence

[mr friendly guy]

Please tell me this is a hoax.

In ‘sexting’ case Manassas City police want to photograph teen in sexually explicit manner, lawyers say

ORIGINAL POST: A Manassas City teenager accused of “sexting” a video to his girlfriend is now facing a search warrant in which Manassas City police and Prince William County prosecutors want to take a photo of his erect penis, possibly forcing the teen to become erect by taking him to a hospital and giving him an injection, the teen’s lawyers said. A Prince William County judge allowed the 17-year-old to leave the area without the warrant being served or the pictures being taken — yet.

The teen is facing two felony charges, for possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography, which could lead not only to incarceration until he’s 21, but inclusion on the state sex offender data base for, possibly, the rest of his life. David Culver of NBC Washington first reported the story and interviewed the teen’s guardian, his aunt, who was shocked at the lengths Prince William authorities were willing to go to make a sexting case in juvenile court.

“The prosecutor’s job is to seek justice,” said the teen’s defense lawyer, Jessica Harbeson Foster. “What is just about this? How does this advance the interest of the Commonwealth? This is a 17-year-old who goes to school every day, plays football, has never been in trouble with the law before. Now he’s saddled with two felonies and the implication that he’s a sexual predator. I don’t mind trying the case. My goal is to stop the search warrant. I don’t want him to go through that. Taking him down to the hospital so he can get an erection in front of all those cops, that’s traumatizing.”

Manassas City Police spokeswoman Adrienne Helms said the department would not comment, and Detective David E. Abbott, the lead investigator on the case, did not return a call seeking comment. And no one except a Prince William magistrate has seen the affidavit and search warrant for the photos — they aren’t made public until after they are served and then returned to the courthouse. The Post is not naming the teen defendant.

Foster said the case began when the teen’s 15-year-old girlfriend sent photos of herself to the 17-year-old, who in turn sent her the video in question. The girl has not been charged, and her mother filed a complaint about the boy’s video, Foster said. The male teen was served with petitions from juvenile court in early February, and not arrested, but when the case went to trial in juvenile court in June, Foster said prosecutors forgot to certify that the teen was a juvenile. The case was dismissed, but police immediately obtained new charges and also a search warrant for his home. Police also arrested the teen and took him to juvenile jail, where Foster said they took photos of the teen’s genitals against his will.

The case was set for trial on July 1, where Foster said Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Claiborne Richardson told her that her client must either plead guilty or police would obtain another search warrant “for pictures of his erect penis,” for comparison to the evidence from the teen’s cell phone. Foster asked how that would be accomplished and was told that “we just take him down to the hospital, give him a shot and then take the pictures that we need.”

The teen declined to plead guilty. Foster said the prosecutor then requested a continuance so police could get a search warrant, which was granted by substitute Juvenile Court Judge Jan Roltsch-Anoll. Two days later, both sides were back in court. Foster had filed a motion to allow her client to travel out of state to visit family. Richardson wanted the teen to comply with the search warrant before he left. Juvenile Court Judge Lisa Baird declined to order that, and allowed the teen to leave the area. But he has another court date on July 15.

Despite the request by the prosecutor in court, Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul B. Ebert said that police told him “these allegations [by the lawyers] lack credibility.” He said he would look into the matter further.

Carlos Flores Laboy, appointed the teen’s guardian ad litem in the case, said he thought it was just as illegal for the Manassas City police to create their own child pornography as to investigate the teen for it. “They’re using a statute that was designed to protect children from being exploited in a sexual manner,” Flores Laboy said, “to take a picture of this young man in a sexually explicit manner. The irony is incredible.” The guardian added, “As a parent myself, I was floored. It’s child abuse. We’re wasting thousands of dollars and resources and man hours on a sexting case. That’s what we’re doing.”

Foster said Detective Abbott told her that after obtaining photos of the teen’s erect penis he would “use special software to compare pictures of this penis to this penis. Who does this? It’s just crazy.”

So the 17 yo kid is charged with posession of child porn (pictures from his 15 yo girlfriend) and charged with creating child porn (the photograph of his penis). Police of course want to also create their own child pornography (by that logic) by taking a picture of this guys penis (they have) but now want an photo of his erect penis. Good grief.

[Mr Bean]

By this logic we should sit back and let the Prosecutor do it, then arrest him and the cops for possession of child pornography.

[Darth Tanner]

I can see why they are required to follow the letter of the law but seriously any sane judge is not going to prosecute a 17 year old for making child porn by taking a photo of his own penis. Obviously its all too easy to find a non sane judge.

The police obviously have too much time on their hands that they are dedicating such resources to this and need their numbers reduced appropriately.

[General Zod]

I can see why they are required to follow the letter of the law but seriously any sane judge is not going to prosecute a 17 year old for making child porn by taking a photo of his own penis. Obviously its all too easy to find a non sane judge.

The police obviously have too much time on their hands that they are dedicating such resources to this and need their numbers reduced appropriately.

On the other hand, this is hardly unprecedented.

[Darth Tanner]

On the other hand, this is hardly unprecedented.

I'd be interested to know if these cases ever go beyond the police/prosecution building up a case. I can see why a dogmatic obedience to the letter of the law would exist amongst these organisation but I'd be curious if that follows through to conviction and ultimately sentencing.

[TheHammer]

There certainly needs to be some common sense exceptions, and exemptions put into these laws. There are better ways to discourage this type of behavior amongst teens that don't include lifetime branding as sex offenders.

The idea that a child could be prosecuted for "producing child porn" by taking photos of themselves is absolutely asinine. The obvious intent of the law is to protect the child from exploitation by others.

[General Zod]

There certainly needs to be some common sense exceptions, and exemptions put into these laws. There are better ways to discourage this type of behavior amongst teens that don't include lifetime branding as sex offenders.

You're competing against the collective hormones of millions of horny teenagers. Exactly how do you propose to discourage it?

[TheFeniX]

You're competing against the collective hormones of millions of horny teenagers. Exactly how do you propose to discourage it?

Maybe I'm reading to much into it, but the shift in prosecutions lately has been going this route: you don't discourage this type of behavior by teaching kids it's irresponsible and could have consequences in the long term such as having said pics come back later in life to haunt you. Instead, the justice system is taking it upon themselves to handle the long-term repercussions themselves. The idea that you can possess child-pornography of yourself is pretty dumb, but you don't see prosecutors going after parents with baby pictures showing genitalia because they "know" there's nothing wrong with that.

But teenagers doing stupid shit makes them degenerates because we all know this generation of kids is the worst ever, just like the last generation, and the generation before that. We have to protect society by turning good kids who made a stupid decision (which caused no loss of life or limb) into pariahs both legally and socially for life. It's a craps shoot if your state even differentiates between a sex offender who brutally raped a child and someone who just got popped pissing in public.

The saddest part for me is that the laws almost always come about because "please think of the children." Which makes it (un)hilariously ironic.

I can't say I'm all that opposed even to fine for sexting, but this is going way to far. Just like in Texas, it's now a permanent drug conviction for being caught with even a single joint. They don't care if you've force fed the stuff to disabled children or just happened to be around the stuff when someone else got busted: they will try to fuck your entire life up because "it's the law." Being a juvenile doesn't protect you from the long-term: even convictions in kiddie court are lifetime, if the prosecutor from my jury duty summons is to be believed.

It seems "no tolerance" polices weaseled their way out of schools and into the justice system. People who support this shit shouldn't be allowed in any field where they have authority over anyone.

[TheHammer]

There certainly needs to be some common sense exceptions, and exemptions put into these laws. There are better ways to discourage this type of behavior amongst teens that don't include lifetime branding as sex offenders.

You're competing against the collective hormones of millions of horny teenagers. Exactly how do you propose to discourage it?

A fine and or civil service. I think the same sort of exceptions should exist for "statutory rape" when the persons involved are close (within a couple of years) in age.

[General Zod]

A fine and or civil service.

You're sending teenagers the message that something their bodies are demanding they be interested in and pay attention to is something illicit and bad. Teenagers are notorious for rebelling against authority. Do you really think this is going to have the effect you hope it will?

[Iroscato]

There certainly needs to be some common sense exceptions, and exemptions put into these laws. There are better ways to discourage this type of behavior amongst teens that don't include lifetime branding as sex offenders.

You're competing against the collective hormones of millions of horny teenagers. Exactly how do you propose to discourage it?

A fine and or civil service. I think the same sort of exceptions should exist for "statutory rape" when the persons involved are close (within a couple of years) in age.

Really? That's your solution to the juggernaut of teenage sex drives?
Here's a radical, cutting-edge idea; education. Incorporate responsible use of technology such as phones and the internet into sex education in schools, and drive home the consequences of its misuse. Hell, make a point of showing kids just how stupid and farcical the justice system is, so they know how easy it is to get in trouble over something like this. And for the kids that do do it, with somebody 2 years younger than themselves, scare the shit out of them, give them a stern talking to about their actions, and send them on their way.

[TheHammer]

A fine and or civil service.

You're sending teenagers the message that something their bodies are demanding they be interested in and pay attention to is something illicit and bad. Teenagers are notorious for rebelling against authority. Do you really think this is going to have the effect you hope it will?

Having some sort of penalty, hence keeping it "illegal", will act as a deterrent for some kids. For others, it wont matter how harsh you make the penalty. The effect that I hope it will have is that teenagers caught doing stupid things like sexting or having sex aren't branded sex offenders for life because of draconian sex crime laws.

[General Zod]

Having some sort of penalty, hence keeping it "illegal", will act as a deterrent for some kids. For others, it wont matter how harsh you make the penalty. The effect that I hope it will have is that teenagers caught doing stupid things like sexting or having sex aren't branded sex offenders for life because of draconian sex crime laws.

I still think you're sending the wrong message here. What sort of public good is being served by having a fine at all? How is that going to impact the self image of these kids in the future when they try to get into relationships?

[TheHammer]

A fine and or civil service. I think the same sort of exceptions should exist for "statutory rape" when the persons involved are close (within a couple of years) in age.

Really? That's your solution to the juggernaut of teenage sex drives?

You and Zod saying "LOL you think this will stop Teens sex?" is kind of asinine. That's neither my goal, nor am I under the delusion that such a thing is even possible.

Here's a radical, cutting-edge idea; education. Incorporate responsible use of technology such as phones and the internet into sex education in schools, and drive home the consequences of its misuse. Hell, make a point of showing kids just how stupid and farcical the justice system is, so they know how easy it is to get in trouble over something like this.

By and large this is already done. The problem is "Teen invincibility syndrome" where they don't think they will get caught. I'm trying to strike a balance between some sort of penalty (rather than outright permissiveness) and the incredibly harsh penalties that the subject of the OP is facing.

And for the kids that do do it, with somebody 2 years younger than themselves, scare the shit out of them, give them a stern talking to about their actions, and send them on their way.

That's basically what the fine and community service is for. Treat it like underage drinking. Hell, force them to attend 20 hours of sex ed classes at their own expense.

[Borgholio]

When it comes to something happening between a 15 and a 16 or 17 year old honestly it's such a gray area I don't know what would make sense. On one hand, it's biologically natural and normal. In the wild, they'd probably have kids already. On the other hand, it's not legal. But then the legal aspect was put into place to protect minors from abusive or manipulative adults....and it relies on age, not actual mental developmental levels. When discussing child porn, a pic of yourself IS technically child porn but how can the existing laws even try to protect you from...yourself? And what do you do with naked pics your 17 1/2 year old girlfriend gives you if you turned 18 yesterday? When you have issues on the border of adulthood like that it can get really screwy.

[TheHammer]

Having some sort of penalty, hence keeping it "illegal", will act as a deterrent for some kids. For others, it wont matter how harsh you make the penalty. The effect that I hope it will have is that teenagers caught doing stupid things like sexting or having sex aren't branded sex offenders for life because of draconian sex crime laws.

I still think you're sending the wrong message here. What sort of public good is being served by having a fine at all? How is that going to impact the self image of these kids in the future when they try to get into relationships?

How does being potentially labeled a sex offender impact the self image of these kids in the future? I don't think you can open the door and tell kids under the age of 18 its ok to have sex, which is essentially what complete decriminalization would do. I don't think such a thing is smart, nor politically feasible. And most parents aren't going to be ok with it.

There are plenty of laws that apply only to children for activities that are perfectly legal for adults. The same way we don't allow underage kids to drink or smoke without some sort of penalty. The same way in many communities there are curfews for underage children and penalties for violation of curfew. I don't feel like sending the message to kids that if they have sex while under 18, or if they are 18-19 and have sex with someone else under 18 they will get into trouble is going to have the stigmatizing effect that you do.

[TheHammer]

When it comes to something happening between a 15 and a 16 or 17 year old honestly it's such a gray area I don't know what would make sense. On one hand, it's biologically natural and normal. In the wild, they'd probably have kids already. On the other hand, it's not legal. But then the legal aspect was put into place to protect minors from abusive or manipulative adults....and it relies on age, not actual mental developmental levels. When discussing child porn, a pic of yourself IS technically child porn but how can the existing laws even try to protect you from...yourself? And what do you do with naked pics your 17 1/2 year old girlfriend gives you if you turned 18 yesterday? When you have issues on the border of adulthood like that it can get really screwy.

That's why I think that grey area should strike a balance between not ruining someone's life, and not making it "completely ok".

[General Zod]

How does being potentially labeled a sex offender impact the self image of these kids in the future?

It doesn't, which is why I don't support these laws at all? I don't know what the point of this comment is.

I don't think you can open the door and tell kids under the age of 18 its ok to have sex, which is essentially what complete decriminalization would do. I don't think such a thing is smart, nor politically feasible. And most parents aren't going to be ok with it.

There's plenty of states where it's fine for kids under the age of 18 to have sex with each other. If you're Jewish you're going to probably start making babies as soon as possible, which means anywhere between 14 and 16, for example. Then there's Utah.

There are plenty of laws that apply only to children for activities that are perfectly legal for adults. The same way we don't allow underage kids to drink or smoke without some sort of penalty. The same way in many communities there are curfews for underage children and penalties for violation of curfew. I don't feel like sending the message to kids that if they have sex while under 18, or if they are 18-19 and have sex with someone else under 18 they will get into trouble is going to have the stigmatizing effect that you do.

Again, what public interest does this serve? So far all I'm seeing is you and your own personal hangups about sex.

[Borgholio]

When it comes to something happening between a 15 and a 16 or 17 year old honestly it's such a gray area I don't know what would make sense. On one hand, it's biologically natural and normal. In the wild, they'd probably have kids already. On the other hand, it's not legal. But then the legal aspect was put into place to protect minors from abusive or manipulative adults....and it relies on age, not actual mental developmental levels. When discussing child porn, a pic of yourself IS technically child porn but how can the existing laws even try to protect you from...yourself? And what do you do with naked pics your 17 1/2 year old girlfriend gives you if you turned 18 yesterday? When you have issues on the border of adulthood like that it can get really screwy.

That's why I think that grey area should strike a balance between not ruining someone's life, and not making it "completely ok".

I think the idea of a sex-ed class for cases like this is a good idea. It would not ruin them for life but at the same time they would be taught that having sex at a young age could lead to problems later on, and when he turns 18 there could be legal repercussions as well.

On a related note, how fair is it to have a hard cap at the age of 18 for statutory rape? Unlike other age limits (smoking, drinking, etc...) the statutory rape law was put into place to prevent adults from taking advantage of minors. Trouble is that there's practically no difference between an 18 year old and his 17 1/2 year old girlfriend as far as mental development. Same goes if you're 17 and she's 16 and so forth. Wouldn't it make more sense to say that statutory rape is when the other person is under 18 and you are more than X years older...rather than an inflexible number?

[TheHammer]

How does being potentially labeled a sex offender impact the self image of these kids in the future?

It doesn't, which is why I don't support these laws at all? I don't know what the point of this comment is.

The point of my comment was if the current harsh laws don't really have a major impact on relationships, would would laws with less harsh penalties cause any issues? Being sentenced to a fine and community service is something you can recover from FAR more easily than being branded a sex offender.

There's plenty of states where it's fine for kids under the age of 18 to have sex with each other. If you're Jewish you're going to probably start making babies as soon as possible, which means anywhere between 14 and 16, for example. Then there's Utah.

Yes the age of consent varies, but usually with some restrictions. But the point is there is a line drawn somewhere. If that line is violated, some sort of penalty should thus be incurred.

I happen to think 18 is the right age where there shouldn't be any special restrictions. Society, at least in America, has decided that is the age where they may legally vote, and that is the age where they can fight in a war.

There are plenty of laws that apply only to children for activities that are perfectly legal for adults. The same way we don't allow underage kids to drink or smoke without some sort of penalty. The same way in many communities there are curfews for underage children and penalties for violation of curfew. I don't feel like sending the message to kids that if they have sex while under 18, or if they are 18-19 and have sex with someone else under 18 they will get into trouble is going to have the stigmatizing effect that you do.

Again, what public interest does this serve? So far all I'm seeing is you and your own personal hangups about sex.

I don't have any personal hangups about sex.

The public interest is that underage kids who have sex and end up having children are often emotionally and financially incapable of supporting these children. It then falls to their parents, and the government to care for the child in question. Further, underage parents are less likely to develop into as productive members of society, and thus are more likely to end up dependent on the government. Further, underage teens are more likely to be unsafe during sex and the spread of STIs is a public health risk. If some sort of penalty acts in any way as a deterrent, and it most certainly would, it would then be of public benefit to have one in place.

[General Zod]

How does being potentially labeled a sex offender impact the self image of these kids in the future?

It doesn't, which is why I don't support these laws at all? I don't know what the point of this comment is.

The point of my comment was if the current harsh laws don't really have a major impact on relationships, would would laws with less harsh penalties cause any issues? Being sentenced to a fine and community service is something you can recover from FAR more easily than being branded a sex offender.

There's plenty of states where it's fine for kids under the age of 18 to have sex with each other. If you're Jewish you're going to probably start making babies as soon as possible, which means anywhere between 14 and 16, for example. Then there's Utah.

Yes the age of consent varies, but usually with some restrictions. But the point is there is a line drawn somewhere. If that line is violated, some sort of penalty should thus be incurred.

I happen to think 18 is the right age where there shouldn't be any special restrictions. Society, at least in America, has decided that is the age where they may legally vote, and that is the age where they can fight in a war.

There are plenty of laws that apply only to children for activities that are perfectly legal for adults. The same way we don't allow underage kids to drink or smoke without some sort of penalty. The same way in many communities there are curfews for underage children and penalties for violation of curfew. I don't feel like sending the message to kids that if they have sex while under 18, or if they are 18-19 and have sex with someone else under 18 they will get into trouble is going to have the stigmatizing effect that you do.

Again, what public interest does this serve? So far all I'm seeing is you and your own personal hangups about sex.

I don't have any personal hangups about sex.

The public interest is that underage kids who have sex and end up having children are often emotionally and financially incapable of supporting these children. It then falls to their parents, and the government to care for the child in question. Further, underage parents are less likely to develop into as productive members of society, and thus are more likely to end up dependent on the government. Further, underage teens are more likely to be unsafe during sex and the spread of STIs is a public health risk. If some sort of penalty acts in any way as a deterrent, and it most certainly would, it would then be of public benefit to have one in place.

So why do we need to make it some sort of punishable offense? Places where this sort of thing is more likely to happen are states that typically try and eliminate sex ed altogether.

[TheHammer]

So why do we need to make it some sort of punishable offense? Places where this sort of thing is more likely to happen are states that typically try and eliminate sex ed altogether.

I'm in favor of sex-ed, and alcohol and drug education as well. Doesn't mean that I feel that underage persons should be allowed to use it as they see fit.

Say you have a group of kids and a swimming pool. And all the kids like to swim. If there is a sign up that says "Open to public" on a swimming pool, all of those kids are going to go swimming. If you put up a sign that says "Private Pool - No Trespassing" you'll have some kids who refuse to go for fear of getting punished if caught. Same concept. Making something a punishable offense does deter some people who might otherwise participate in said activity.

[General Zod]

So why do we need to make it some sort of punishable offense? Places where this sort of thing is more likely to happen are states that typically try and eliminate sex ed altogether.

I'm in favor of sex-ed, and alcohol and drug education as well. Doesn't mean that I feel that underage persons should be allowed to use it as they see fit.

Say you have a group of kids and a swimming pool. And all the kids like to swim. If there is a sign up that says "Open to public" on a swimming pool, all of those kids are going to go swimming. If you put up a sign that says "Private Pool - No Trespassing" you'll have some kids who refuse to go for fear of getting punished if caught. Same concept. Making something a punishable offense does deter some people who might otherwise participate in said activity.

Except that's . . . not really equivalent. If you're trespassing you're violating someone else's wishes. If it's just a couple of kids that are roughly the same age who are sending each other naked pictures or fooling around, who's getting hurt? I think they need to be aware of the consequences of their actions but turning it into a punishable offense doesn't really sit well with me.

[TheHammer]

So why do we need to make it some sort of punishable offense? Places where this sort of thing is more likely to happen are states that typically try and eliminate sex ed altogether.

I'm in favor of sex-ed, and alcohol and drug education as well. Doesn't mean that I feel that underage persons should be allowed to use it as they see fit.

Say you have a group of kids and a swimming pool. And all the kids like to swim. If there is a sign up that says "Open to public" on a swimming pool, all of those kids are going to go swimming. If you put up a sign that says "Private Pool - No Trespassing" you'll have some kids who refuse to go for fear of getting punished if caught. Same concept. Making something a punishable offense does deter some people who might otherwise participate in said activity.

Except that's . . . not really equivalent. If you're trespassing you're violating someone else's wishes. If it's just a couple of kids that are roughly the same age who are sending each other naked pictures or fooling around, who's getting hurt? I think they need to be aware of the consequences of their actions but turning it into a punishable offense doesn't really sit well with me.

The same argument could be made then to allow underage children to drink as long as they don't drive anywhere.
Children under 18 really aren't in the position to be making those decisions. As to who it hurts, if one of those kids gets pregnant or an STI while fooling around those can be life altering. If those pictures being sent end up posted on the internet it can cause real harm socially at an age where social issues are of a major importance to a person's self worth.

Having kids who are caught doing such things compelled to attend extra sex-ed classes, and or community service is not the end of the world for them. If anything, it will make them think more carefully about their actions in the future. It doesn't make someone a prude to realize that given the potential consequences, sex isn't something to be cavalier about.

[General Zod]

The same argument could be made then to allow underage children to drink as long as they don't drive anywhere.
Children under 18 really aren't in the position to be making those decisions. As to who it hurts, if one of those kids gets pregnant or an STI while fooling around those can be life altering. If those pictures being sent end up posted on the internet it can cause real harm socially at an age where social issues are of a major importance to a person's self worth.

Having kids who are caught doing such things compelled to attend extra sex-ed classes, and or community service is not the end of the world for them. If anything, it will make them think more carefully about their actions in the future. It doesn't make someone a prude to realize that given the potential consequences, sex isn't something to be cavalier about.

But extra classes aren't a fine, are they?