Two 15-Year-Old Girls Flash Passing Motorists in Florida, One Man Takes Picture and Is Arrested For Possession of Child Porn and Contributing to Delinquency of a Minor

In Florida, Charlotte County Sheriff Bill Cameron arrested a man after he took a picture of girls exposing their breasts to motorists during the local “National Night Out.” The girls turned out to be 15 so the sheriff arrested Robert Lee Blevins, 33, and charged him with felony possession of photographs of sexual performance by a child and the misdemeanor for contribution to the delinquency of a minor.

Of course this assumes that Blevins could gauge the age of flashers.

Cameron was driving in his unmarked car at 7 pm when he witnessed two girls lift their shirts and expose their breasts to him and other motorists. He pulled them into a gas station and also detained Blevins whom he witnessed taking pictures of the public scene.

Since there is no alleged agreement or relationship between Blevins and these girls, the charges appear facially absurd. Presumably, the girls stopped the flashing when confronted by Cameron. Before that point, Blevins was taking a picture of a public act — pictures taken regularly in places like New Orleans.

Source: News Press

26 thoughts on “Two 15-Year-Old Girls Flash Passing Motorists in Florida, One Man Takes Picture and Is Arrested For Possession of Child Porn and Contributing to Delinquency of a Minor

  1. This is nuts!! Soon they will charge all that saw these girls in the act, and have them charged for have child porn in their brain memory..

  2. Somebodys been dipping in the weed, mushrooms, pcp, lsd or found their own pile of growing turd blossoms….

  3. I am with everyone else, this is nuts. How is anyone supposed to know how old these girls were, and WHY would you charge someone and go through the expense of this, and probably end up with a lawsuit against the law enforcement (read taxpayers)!?!??!?

    This cop needs to go back to school and get some more training.

  4. I was all set to make the “what if you got back from a vacation to Europe/Brazil/almosteverywherebuttheUS and some of your beach photos had topless 15 year olds in the background?” argument. But the concept of “photographs of sexual performance by a child” seems like a good way to differentiate between the inadvertent photo of some kid hanging out at the beach, versus the very problematic situation of a child giving a “sexual performance,” presumably for an exploitative adult.

    It does raise the question of whether or not jokey “flashing” is a “sexual performance.” There’s a big gap between “[lift]wooooooo!!!![lower]” and “dance performances” where you end up worrying about the psychological impact the dancer’s actions may be having on that poor, innocent spinning brass pole.

    This doesn’t seem as insane as charging “sexting” kids with production of child porn by taking a self-portrait, but, yes, it does seem to be going too far.

  5. So does this fine office had a dash cam? Did it record those boobies? Wouldn’t that mean he should be charged also?

    I read about this elsewhere & the girls were charged with public exposure of sex organs (and here you thought breasts were for feeding!) and released to their folks.

    Seems a bit of an over reaction to charge the guy – I hope the city or county prosecutor is not up for re-election so he can use common sense & drop the stupid case.

  6. Look up the case of the Aspen, CO cop who placed a camera in his 16yo step daughters shower. The cop was fuond not guilty on all charges because no “sexual gratification” could be proved. I think Mr. Blevins can use the same defense. Then Mr.Blevins needs to sue the Sheriff and the parents of the girls flashing.

  7. We’ve already been through this type of case down here. Under Florida law what they did & he photographed is not child pornography because of the way the statute is written. See the story at this link.

    As the judge in that case found, paragraph (g), which defines sexual conduct by a child, does not include the lewd exhibition of the female breast. Currently, only actual physical contact with the female breast or lewd exhibition of the genitals (but not the female breast) qualifies as an offense under this statute.

    2009->Ch0827->Section%20071#0827.071″>The statute has not been amended to close this loophole.

  8. David W. 1, August 6, 2010 at 12:58 am

    We’ve already been through this type of case down here. Under Florida law what they did & he photographed is not child pornography because of the way the statute is written. See the story at this link.

    As the judge in that case found, paragraph (g), which defines sexual conduct by a child, does not include the lewd exhibition of the female breast. Currently, only actual physical contact with the female breast or lewd exhibition of the genitals (but not the female breast) qualifies as an offense under this statute.

    ——————————————————-

    It sounds, though, like “overly enthusiastic mooning” could result in the “lewd exhibition of the genitals” (either male or female) and that photographing such an “exhibition” would then be the creation of child porn.

    I think that all these convolutions on the heads of pins are big clues that we’re way off track.

  9. Blouise: good for you! AY is having a problem with 8 ) on another thread. Our technology is too clever by a half.

  10. How puritanical. Breasts can be sexual organs I guess but it seems like a stretch. To classify them like that is essentially making a thought-crime. Think about it. In order for exposed breasts to be sexually exciting, the person seeing the breasts to think about them sexually. Last I heard, fantasy isn’t illegal yet. Even if it’s sick enough to be pedo fantasy as long as it remains only in your mind, it’s legal.

    Secondly, the worst part would be if this man is found guilty somehow. He’s sure to be made a registered sex offender which would ruin his life. No job is gonna hire him and he’ll be forced to live only in certain places. This cop should be retrained or fired.

  11. Does someone wanna tell me WHO THE HELL was driving the car that these girls were in while they were flashing cars?
    Why weren’t they charged with indecent exposure?

    This man is facing 5 years of prison and being labeled as a sex offender because these two tamps (and thats putting it nicely) felt the need to expose themselves! Their parents must be so proud. Just wait until they sue…and you know its gonna happen.

  12. This was the inevitable result when a cabal of left-wing and right-wing zealots decided we needed to prosecute for possession or viewing of “child pornography” — which is defined by whatever seems to be convenient for the Gestapo prosecutors.

    Thought crime is next … oh, wait. We already have that too, with “hate crime” legislation.

    When the Morality Police aren’t taken directly out and lynched, the Thought Police are right behind them.

    Neither liberals or conservatives are innocent here, and both should be ashamed.

  13. Hate crimes legislation is clearly aimed at something other than thought crime. We wouldn’t have needed hate crimes legislation if we as humans and Americans in particular had moved past prejudice by now. It used to be that when a gay man was murdered, police would put it as far down on their list of crimes to solve as possible. Interesting side note: This practice was so common Roderick Thorpe wrote a novel using the same idea. It’s called “The Detective” and the character in it is the same one John McClane of “Die Hard” is based on, true story. But I digress…

    This is already a thought crime because in order for it to be pornographic it needs to arouse and unless it can be proven the man was actually aroused it’s pretty simple. What really makes this infuriating is that we haven’t gotten over our own puritanical beliefs yet.

  14. According to a later news report, written by Tom Lyons in the Sarasota Herald Tribune three days after Professor Turley posted this entry in his Blog, the Sheriff stated that his wife pointed out the girls doing the flashing and that as he turned around to confront the girls he witnessed Blevins turn his vehicle around and drive back to the girls who, at that point, had covered their breasts. The Sheriff claims that he observed Blevins stop his vehicle next to the girls, speak to them and that they then re-enacted their earlier “flash” at which point Blevins allegedly snapped the picture(s). The Sheriff also claimes that the two 15 year old girls were obviously only 15 years old.

    Ughh!

    The Sheriff’s claims, if true, certainly throw some smoke into the case. I’m a criminal defense attorney and after reading Professor Turley’s piece I was not surprised by, but was nevertheless disappointed in, Blevin’s arrest. However, this additional information, which was not available at the time Professor Hurley made this entry in his Blog, makes this case harder to defend – particularly if a jury believes the girls obviously looked like minors at the time of the incident (and they presumably had “mugshots” taken contemporaneously, or nearly so, to Blevins as they were also arrested). While being an idiot is not illegal, it certainly doesn’t help. It seems to push the line on hitting somebody with a lifetime “SEX OFFENDER” tag for this momentary act of stupidity (not that that usually stops many police/prosecutors from doing so anyway), but Mr. Blevins did himself no favors in this matter (if the Sheriff’s statements are accurate).

    If the girls really were “obviously” minors, and Sheriff is believed regarding Blevins driving back to the girls and speaking to them (what jury or judge isn’t going to believe him?), IMO the contributing charge definitely sticks and the child porn charge(s) are a lot easier to prove than at first thought. Indefensible on a purely legal basis – NO. Indefensible in a courtroom – most likely. Blevins better hope it’s not an election year for the DA and that his attorney can wrangle a non-sex offense plea deal. Good luck with that sir.

  15. This proves my theory that idiotic “child pornography” laws have become a menace comparable to the War on Drugs or even Islamic Fundamentalism, right down to the public stonings!
    The only answer will be to legalise child pornography(!) not because there is any merit in these images, but because the risk to the innocent (including children) from legal predators is now FAR greater than the risk to children from sexual predators.Families and children are put IN MORTAL DANGER and deprivation by draconian sex offender laws, and they should NEVER be used in conjunction with this sort of thought-crime legislation. Even in the case of real sexual predators some of the restrictions are unconstitutional. People who look at pictures, however unpleasant, are morally neutral and not sex offenders, unless they commit a physical crime. Even then, there is no scientific evidence to link the viewing of ANY form of pornography with physical sex offending-some studies show the reverse. The argument that such images are used to groom children for abuse is also false.
    I must add that despite my opposition to the death penalty, the politicians responsible for this thought-crime legislation, along with those responsible for the war on drugs, should be publicly hung for crimes against humanity.
    Now rant and rage because I have questioned a false theory of child abuse. But I suspect the biggest cheerleaders for this sort of thought-crime legislation are secret paedophiles.

  16. The whole sex offender registry has snowballed into something it was never meant to be. People with WAY too much time on their hands get bored and find ways of ruining other people’s lives. The registry is the biggest ruiner of futures. These girls, in my state of IL, would have been arrested and put on a sex offender list for 10 years. This would also ruin any possible future these girls had. Once you are on a registry getting a job is next to impossible. Nobody will hire you no matter how long ago the crime was comitted. I still can’t figure out how any type of sexual offence is worse than taking a person’s life. Goes to show how f’ď up this country has corten. We’ve lost our sense of privacy. Everybody want to know everything about averybody…….sounds like some kind of collective conciousness out of Star Trek or something equally as stupid. Also, this is a Scarlet letter system, which has been proven not to work at all. It just creates stigmatism that is unjust and untrue. Furthering my point would no differentiation between the rapists and the people who only looked at nude child pictures. They are all on the same list…..oh yeah that’s the same list those girls would be on. What I would like to know is what would the caption say for the age of the victim……..”various”?, don’t make me laugh. With all the sex riddled into all facets of advertising, tv shows and music icons, how can anyone get offended or defensive when someone does something out of the sexual norm? How can a guy ask a woman if he can buy her a drink and all she has to do is SAY he was groping me without my pemission, when no cantact was made, and he will end up in jail and on a registry for doing NOTHING but asking to buy a drink for a woman. The courts favor the women in this country way too much. Women are the conivers in this world, not the men. We just act on what we see. We see a couple of girls showing their breasts to the world on a sidewalk, we’re going to stop and look, maybe take a pic and go on our way. Men are visually stimulated. Women are not. Most men, if asked confidentially, would say they would look at naked child images and even masturbate to them if they couldn’t get into any trouble. It’s a naked body. Visual….see. Women, on the other hand are not. They’re more interested in finacial security and love. Guys just want them hot and able…..age usually doesn’t matter. If she’s willing, he’s lucky because guys are always willing. So again to reiterate, in less words, what I’m saying is that this registry needs to be abolished. It is a poor and curel way to punish people for crimes. Was probably dreamt up by a woman, because no man would ever want to ruin the future for men. Which it already has, don’t ever f-up, background checking sites made available to public access with tell them everything true and some untrue things about you…..they’re not always right.

Comments are closed.