There is a bizarre search warrant that has been obtained by the Manassas City Police to photograph the erect penis of a 17-year-old facing felony child-pornography charges. The charges are based on the teen sending an explicit video to his 15-year-old girlfriend. Worse yet, if the boy does not “cooperate,” the police intend to take him to a hospital to have him aroused by injection. [Update: police have said that they will decline to execute the warrant after the public outcry].
The case is in juvenile court and the response of prosecutors and police shows a complete lack of judgment or restraint. The charging of teens for sextexting remains highly controversial. We are turned children into felons for personal pictures shared with boyfriends or girlfriends. Now, these Manassas officers and prosecutors are not only building a felony case against a minor but taking this bizarre step. The necessity of such an examination is highly questionable, but the emotional impact on the teenager is obvious. They have already photographed his genitals when he was arrested in January.
It is also controversial to charge a teenager with child-pornography for taking pictures of his own genitals and sharing it with his girlfriend. It is likely that she has seen his genitals given their relationship and there is no allegation that this was done for wider distribution or for money. Yet, they are accusing him of manufacturing and distributing child pornography.
The girlfriend’s mother called police and insists that he was repeatedly told to stop sending the images. This is clearly a serious problem but the need to resort to the criminal justice system remains a concern. She could have secured an restraining order — the violation of which would bring potential criminal penalties.
The police and prosecutor appears virtually obsessed with the case given its procedural history. Detective David E. Abbott, the lead investigator on the case, has refused to return calls. However, the case began with the girlfriend, not the defendant, sending photos of herself to the boy. Yet, she has not be charged. Instead, he was served with petitions from juvenile court in early February, but not arrested. The case however was dismissed due to an error by prosecutors. They then however obtained new charges and a search warrant. They then arrested him and secured this absurd warrant. The defense attorney says that 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.” If that is the case, this is even more serious since it sounds like this abusive warrant was used to try to pressure a plea. Richardson then appeared in court to try to stop the teen from traveling until he submitted to the degrading photographs.
The fact that a Northern Virginia magistrate approved a new search warrant shows the lack of any real review in such cases. This warrant is both abusive and unnecessary. The effort to convict the boy of two felonies shows a complete refusal to exercise an ounce of prosecutorial discretion or for that matter judgment. While this story has been the source of jokes, I do not find it funny in the slightest degree. The people of Manassas need to seriously review the performance of their police and prosecutors in this case. Clearly, crime does not appear to be a serious problem in the city for these officers and prosecutors to take such extraordinary actions in such a case.
None of this belittles the problem of sextexting. However, these cases represent the continued criminalization of our society where every social ill is translated into a felony. We have been discussing the trend toward suspending and expelling students (and teachers) for comments that they make on social media (here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Some of these charges can saddle a kid with a registration as a sex offender as well as a felony record. However, adults are now just passing them over to a criminal justice system to be processed as criminals.
When adults start to secure warrants to force a child to produce an erection to be photographed, we have lost any sense of balance and judgment in our society. Whatever the dangers presented by sextexting are, they pale in comparison to the dangers inherent in his brutal response of the Manassas police and prosecutors.
While Clairborne Richardson has been listed as the lead prosecutor in this case, Paul B. Ebert is the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Prince William County clearly deserves much of the criticism for failing to properly supervise his subordinate. I have previously criticized Ebert for his lack of prosecutorial discretion in the Kevin Kelly case. It appears that the voters in Prince William County continue to support such excessive prosecutorial actions.
Source: USA Today
It reminded me of this post.
I had a couple of bratwurst @ the Brewer’s game today, Samantha. DELICIOUS!
Samantha, You certainly don’t speak for all women. I went to college w/ many nursing students and have socialized w/ many female nurses my entire adult life. A bawdy group of REAL women. Not prudes. The kind of women men like. Just sayn’. My daughter has many male friends and is bawdy as hell. You need to lighten up. Life’s hard, then you die.
Nick, or a father she respects, not hates.
Gary T, excellent observation.
When it comes to these types of photos, girls actually encourage the boys to do it. Prosecutor change of heart may have something to do with the discovery of an audit trail revealing the girl soliciting the pictures.
Finally, women do not like the type of sexual banter in comments here, especially when victims deserve sympathy and compassion, not ridicule, which is better directed towards that Weiner guy.
It looks like Samantha is the only woman secure enough weigh in on this. Kudos. Now I wish I had been more mature. I always like women comfortable in a male environment. That usually means the woman had brother[s] and/or a good father.
Has this already been posted?
“Police Abandon Plans To Photograph Teen’s Penis In Virginia Sexting Case”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/manassas-city-teen-sexting_n_5572316.html
anon – glad to see they realized the folly of this particular approach. However, they need to charge both of them or neither.
Well they came to their senses, only because the whole world was about to blow up in their faces on this one.
They will have tough time living it down even now.
“Well they came to their senses, only because the whole world was about to blow up in their faces on this one.”
~+~
Yep. That’s the reason and while I am glad that the public came to play and help put an end to this ridiculousness. The fact that the prosecution, magistrate, and police should have realized from the beginning this was a flagrant violation of decency and civil rights of the boy shows how warped common sense must be in the local government there.
“By contrast, the ba$tard rate in Japan in 1978, was 0.6%, Israel the same, and West Germany, 6.3%. Currently, der Fatherland and Japan are bankrupting American automakers despite having been bombed into oblivion 35 years ago. Israel is by far the most prosperous, developed nation in the Middle East, standing on a solid base of infantrypersons. Well, almost infantrypersons. No man up on a cross either, you know. Buddhist Japan doesn’t have one either, or North Vietnam, or China, or the Soviets. Now there’s a thought.”
END excerpt
“Why no derelict women? Because they’re in public housing projects complete with welfare check, food stamps, Medical or Medicaid, and babies, babies, babies. In 1960, 90% of all illegitimate children were adopted out to already existing, secure families that wanted them. By 1970, 90% of all the little ba$tards were kept by their loving mothers. There were among other things, no AFDC in 1960. There was in 1970, after an all-male Congress created the AFDC program in 1964, a Big Strong Congress. Of course, the same John Wayne chest-pounding ship of fools who gave the world Vietnam. In 1950, 4% or 1 out of 25 American babies were illegitimate. By 1978, it was 16.6% or 1 out of 6, despite the Pill, IUD’s, foams, jellies, and free abortions, none of which existed in 1950. Doesn’t make sense, does it? One would think the illegitimate rate would go down, not up, with birth control. Not with the Woman’s Way, er, that is, American Way. During 1981, 55% of all black babies were illegitimate and all were kept by their mothers. Funny thing, poor women making babies while poor males are driven to crime, especially violent street crimes. White girls, who outnumber black girls 10 to 1, are cranking out their little ba$tards at a 15% rate. Illegitimate children are a growth industry — ask one, like Charles Manson or Son of Sam.”
Cont’d
This is just more about how society is out to get its males, placing them on Mayan alters for sacrifice, perpetrated by the militant, extremist feminists in concert with sycophant men genuflecting for sexual favors. I offer the following from an essay by Todd McMullen, circa 1980:
“Some time ago an ABC television documentary outlined the plight of the country’s street people, individuals homeless, hungry, shoeless, by the hundreds of thousands. The footage showed dozens of them, all males, including one fellow tearing the head off a pigeon immediately after cuddling it. The commentator was a well-dressed, well-fed, well-paid White Anglo Saxon Princess (WASP) who observed nothing ‘abnormal’ about the all-male scenario. The January 10, 1982 6o Minutes had a virtual instant replay about street people, and again, no mention about the male only suffering. There’s a reason for it. It’s because male misery is institutionalized, an unquestioned, ‘normal’ event. A man in rags is a loser, a woman a ‘poor thing.’ America picks up its trash better than its men. ”
Con’t…
So true.
See Karen Straughan’s “Feminism and the Disposable Male”
http://youtu.be/vp8tToFv-bA
I always wonder how far in an investigation police are allowed to go before it crosses the line. From another post
I’d say the persecutor (yes spelled that way intentionally) should be forced to spend some quality time with Ms Bobbitt.
“The Associated Press isn’t naming the teen or his aunt in accordance with a policy of not identifying juvenile suspects.”
Why did you not name the Judge? Because she is not a judge but a substitute lawyer?
Substitute Juvenile Court Judge Jan Roltsch-Anoll is the one who signed the warrant and the one who needs to be removed from ever being allowed to be on the bench again. Her and the “prosecutor” are both sick women. Not to mention this should be considered attempted extortion..
From another site:
“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.”
That “threat” makes it illegal extortion by a court officer.
If an officier states that you either confess or we will lock you up for a very long time, isnt that coercion??
Hmmm. Interesting . . both judge and prosecutor are women, ignoring the prosecution of the girl who did the same thing, selectively prosecuting the boy and threatening to force him into public involuntary sexual stimulation to photograph his erect penis if he doesn’t plead guilty.
The radical feminism and misandry here is swollen beyond any erection.
Like someone said here, at what point is it just too much?
why would they go after the kid like this? has he been in trouble before?
Wow, how impressive, using finite state resources to destroy the lives of two teenagers for taking and sending naked pictures of themselves to themselves.
What a pathetic abuse of power and waste of resources.
PI bummer … no line-up after all (xxx).
So they State is going to jab a needle in this kids dick to prove he victimized himself by taking a picture of same said dick. Wonderfully stupid.
Gary T:
“You cannot make someone illegal of themselves, just because they are who they are. They are literally saying that a minor cannot photograph themselves, without violating child pornography laws”
**********************
Come on now, Gary, that’s not what they are saying. Send any picture of you in any state of dress or undress in any circumstance to any minor you want? Isn’t that the logical extension of your argument.
No, it is not.
A minor simply photographing hirself in some nude or lewd pose, has by those standards already committed child pornography, irrespective of where s/he sent the photo – or didn’t.
That is the logical, reductio ad absurdum, extension of my argument.
The criminality of all concerned aside, we’re missing the point that this kid has some serious emotional/mental problems. Photographing yourself and sending it to a friend and refusing to stop even after being told to do so by her parents? Anyone see something amiss here? The kid needs help not criminal charges.
mespo – Just to add to the confusion here. Wouldn’t the police be participating in child pornography by taking the photos of the erect penis? And although the boy would be an unwilling participant (assuming he refuses to cooperate) wouldn’t everyone else involved?
“although the boy would be an unwilling participant . . .”
By definition, any child involved in child pornography is an unwilling participant, as well as everyone else involved.
“Photographing yourself and sending it to a friend and refusing to stop even after being told to do so”
Sounds a lot like A Weiner.
” Anyone see something amiss here? The kid needs help not criminal charges”
Yup. But a look at our leading politicians sets a hell of an example for our kids.
The Judge is a pedophile. The prosecutor too.
They need to be locked up.
Another case of bad parenting. Take the girl´s cell phone away if she isn´t able to use it properly. Who is paying the cell phone bill? Isn´t it possible to push the delete button? Do you have to waste tax payers´ money and call the cops because you´ve lost control of your child?
Having served on the medical ethics committee of a very large hospital, and on the credentials committee of another, I think I can safely say that it ain’t gonna happen. A judge cannot force a physician to perform a procedure on an unwilling patient that carries risk of permanent physical injury. Not to mention putting the physician’s license in major jeopardy. Finally the physician and hospital insurance underwriters won’t let them.
I will let the lawyers here opine on the lawyer’s license.
The following is testimony in a habeas hearing from Owen Barber who implicated Justin Wolfe as the person who took out a murder contract which Barber said he fulfilled. Barber later retracted his testimony by affidavit and later in the habeas hearing. This excerpt is from the Fourth Circuit’s opinion upholding federal Judge Raymond Jackson’s granting of habeas relief to Wolfe.
It’s chilling:
“Barber also engaged in the following exchange with the Commonwealth’s lawyer during cross-examination:
Q You related that several times they had said if
you don’t tell us what we want, you will get capital
murder?
A. Yeah.
Q. Who is they?
A. [Commonwealth’s Attorney] Ebert, [Assistant
Commonwealth’s Attorney] Conway, [Barber’s
attorney] Pickett, [Detective] Newsome, [and
Detective] Walburn.
Q. But if my notes are correct, they never told you
exactly what to say. They didn’t give you a
script for the events of that night, did they?
A. A specific script for the events, no.
Q. They in fact told you what they wanted was the
truth, didn’t they?
A. They said that they know Justin [Wolfe] is
involved and that we know that he hired you to
kill Danny [Petrole].
Q. Well, what they told you they wanted you to tell
them was the truth. Wasn’t that their statement?
* * *
Wasn’t that their statement to you, that they
wanted the truth?
A. Yeah. I mean, they said they wanted the truth,
but at the same time they said that this is what
you have got to say or you are getting the chair.
By its Brady Order, the district court found the
foregoing testimony by Barber to be “consistent with the suppressed
[Newsome] report.” See Brady Order 9 n.9. The court
also deemed Barber’s recantation to be “credible” and generally
found his “demeanor and candor” to be “persuasive.” Id.
at 50.
Among the enumerated findings of fact in the district
court’s Brady Order is the finding (No. 6) that “[t]he prosecu-
tion failed to disclose Detective Newsome’s report outlining
his initial interview with Owen Barber on April 14, 2001, during
which he [Newsome] implicated Wolfe as being involved
in the murder before Barber mentioned his [Wolfe’s] involvement.”
Brady Order 8. The court also spelled out the controlling
legal standard for assessing Wolfe’s Brady claim,
observing that, “to find a Brady violation, it must determine
that the evidence was 1) favorable to the accused, 2) suppressed
by the prosecution (either willfully or inadvertently),
and 3) material.” Id. at 4 (citing Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S.
668, 691 (2004)). In concluding that the emergence of the
Newsome report entitled Wolfe to habeas corpus relief, the
court explained:
This information is favorable to Wolfe because it
documents the fact that detectives first mentioned
Wolfe in connection to the murder and presented
Barber with the option of execution or life imprisonment
in exchange for implicating someone else, well
before Barber began cooperating with the Commonwealth
or implicating Wolfe in the murder. Prosecutors
do not dispute the fact that the report was not
provided to [Wolfe]. Furthermore, the report is material
because it reflects that Barber had a motive to
misrepresent the facts regarding Petrole’s death.”
Wolfe v. Clarke, et als (4th Cir. 2012)