In a clear victory for both the public and basic notions of decency, the Manassas City Police have announced that they will not execute the abusive warrant discussed yesterday to force a 17-year-old boy to be photographed with an erect penis — including the authority to force an erection with the administration of drugs if the boy did not “cooperate.” However, Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Claiborne Richardson is still pursing the teen for two major felonies for sending his 15-year-old girlfriend an explicit video. There is still no word from Paul B. Ebert, the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Prince William County (right).
As we discussed yesterday, Richardson charged the teen with manufacturing and distributing child pornography. The girlfriend sent him pictures earlier but she is not being charged. The girlfriend’s mother called police and insists that he was repeatedly told to stop sending the images. 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 teen is now set for a trial on July 15th but the police were inundated with angry complaints by the public from around the world. The boy had already been forced to be photographed in the nude including his genitals but Richardson demanded that he either plead guilty or go through the added trauma of being forced to have an erection and then photographed.
The police department issued a statement that “It is not the policy of the Manassas City Police or the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office to authorize invasive search procedures of suspects in cases of this nature and no such procedures have been conducted in this case.” That still leaves the question of Richardson’s insistence that the teen be forced to do precisely what both the police and prosecutors say is outside of their policy. There was virtually no value to the pictures given the facts of this case beyond tormenting this teenager. It is not just unprofessional and potentially unethical (if used just to force a plea) but downright creepy. Had the public not reacted to this abuse, this grotesque scene would have unfolded as planned by Richardson (who objected to the boy leaving the state with family before he was forced through this procedure).
While Clairborne Richardson has been listed as the lead prosecutor in this case, once again, Paul Ebert clearly deserves much of the criticism for failing to properly supervise his subordinate and his silence in the matter is deafening. I have previously criticized Ebert for his lack of prosecutorial discretion in the Kevin Kelly case.
The entire heavy-handed prosecution of this teenager should be reexamined and dropped in favor of noncriminal actions. Moreover, if the reported facts are proven true, Richardson’s continuation as a prosecutor needs to be reviewed. Unfortunately, prosecutorial abuse is something that we have routinely encountered. It is a problem because prosecutors are rarely punished. However, this abuse involved a minor and justifiably brought the entire office into disrepute. There must also be a review of the magistrate who signed this abusive warrant which now even the police will not execute. The conduct of the prosecutors and the magistrate strike me as a far greater menace than these two kids sending each other explicit pictures and videos. Indeed, the lack of any response thus far from Ebert should again cause Prince William voters to examine his role and failure to exercise a modicum of control over his prosecutors.
Source: ABA Journal
When I was 14 my brother introduced me to the nightclubs in East Saint Louis and when I was 16 and could drive I introduced myself to the cathouses in East Saint Louis and got a job there cleaning the cathouse rooms. By today’s standards I was under age and could tell you some things. So, in my dotage I got a job out in Nevada which I had to quit recently but it was basically doing the same tasks but I got paid in cash and not “in trade”.
The prosecutor, the detectives who want the warrant, the Chief who wants the warrant (or wanted it), and particularly the fruit in the photograph are all closet pedophiles. Me thinks that they have been exposed so to speak.
The two kids involved have a right to sue all involved for violation of their civil rights to privacy. The mom of the girl ought to be pistol whipped. If he kid has a big one then it is his prerogative to post it on the internet not the perp prosecutor.
A “perp prosecutor” is a new genre in AmeriKa. They must be exposed.
@bettykath “The story is that several requests were made that he should stop sending such photos If he had stopped, end of story. Outside help was needed and it went to juvenile court. Did he stop sending photos? If there were no more photos, wasn’t the objective of the court action met?”
I just don’t buy the claim the mother/girl asked the boy to stop sending pictures but he wouldn’t stop. If you know how to send pictures, you know how to block senders/calls. If not, you can find out in a minimal amount of time. Why wouldn’t the mother block the calls? What, was she going to allow the girl to continue to communicate with the boy as long as he didn’t send dirty pictures? That just doesn’t jibe with the fact the mother was so upset she called the police. I also don’t believe a seventeen year old boy would continue sending naked pictures of himself once he knew the girl’s mother was looking at them.
Nope. This is a case of the girl claiming “Mmm, welllll……, I TOLD him to stop sending them.”
Gary, Absolutely. That’s why national politicians keep a very close eye on what comedians are getting laughs w/ @ their expense. That’s why I have, and will continually ridicule Hillary. I am just a bozo commenter on a blog. But, it makes me feel more of the process than a single vote. She is worthy of all the scorn she receives.
“It is not the policy of the Manassas City Police or the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office to authorize invasive search procedures”
Oh really? Then explain the use of SWAT teams, flash bang grenades, and tactics developed over years on the battlefield for search warrant executions at 3am for a small amount of drugs belonging to non-violent offenders?
The police and prosecutors far too often see the general public as the enemy. Go read what is said on boards like PoliceOne. They demonize suspected criminals in a fashion that has more in common with the treatment of Japanese in World War II than that of Americans looking out for and protecting fellow citizens. Disgusting and worrisome at the same time. It’s only going to get worse as the mentality of those trusted to protect us goes deeper into the bunker and refuses to see the self-fulfilling nature of their actions in hardening viewpoints against law enforcement.
Nick:
It is scorn, humiliation and mockery that hurts these politicians and public institutions more than anything else.
People agreeing with them, or condemning them, that they can handle.
But people laughing at them, this they will buckle under. It is their kryptonite.
I think the headline should be changed. Refuse implies the police had an attack of conscience and wouldn’t enforce a court order. They asked for it in the first place, so it’s much more accurate to say police won’t execute the warrant after a massive public outcry compared their proposed actions to that of certain evil doctors from the 1940’s.
And I agree with Paul. The decision to not charge the girl, who apparently sent the photo first, is very sexist. Neither of these kids should have been charged. But to charge just the boy is more proof of an evolving double standard that says only boys/men need be responsible for their actions. In reality it’s no different than muslim and fundamentalist christian belief that forces women to cover up so as to not entice the males.
The idea for the sexual warrant is ridiculous and disturbing. It seems that the prosecutors may have been more upset about their loss in their first and unsuccessful attempt.
bettykath wrote “Was his phone hacked, in which case, it wasn’t his penis”
Your honor, we move to dismiss on the grounds that it was actually a cyber-penis.
There’s a lot of the story missing imo. What kind of picture did the girl send him? If it was sexy, she invited a similar response. If not, he went over the line. The story is that several requests were made that he should stop sending such photos If he had stopped, end of story. Outside help was needed and it went to juvenile court. Did he stop sending photos? If there were no more photos, wasn’t the objective of the court action met?
Was the girl traumatized or just her mom? Was she traumatized by the photos or by her mom seeing them?
Was his phone hacked, in which case, it wasn’t his penis. Maybe this is his claim and the prosecution wants to prove he’s the one in the picture. The boy isn’t an innocent here unless his phone was hacked. But the prosecution is way over the top. Perv does seem to be an appropriate adjective.
Still, the boy is charged and the girl is not. That is sexist. The girl sent the first pictures and the boy sent his back. Why is the girl not charged with child porno?
I’ll bet dollars to dimes that a photo will turn up of this kid nekked (even though they swear it was never taken). Probably on some cops or prosecutors computer.
One of the things I’ve always wondered about is why are “minors” deemed sufficiently competent to engage in some adult activities – like say contracting for a cheeseburger at a fast food place or buying a pair of blue jeans – but the state must statutorily protect them from other conduct merely because of their age?
It seems to me that if the girl is deemed to be responsible enough by her parents or the cell phone service provider to have a cell phone, then she ought to be deemed responsible enough to decide who to talk to and how to interact with people while using her phone. She sent the boy her picture first which means she implicitly consented to receiving his in return. Whose liberty was harmed? She’s only deemed to have been harmed by the state because she’s been afforded this special privileged “minor” status.
There’s a lot rotten here. From the girl’s mother raising enough of a fuss to get the state to intervene, to the reprehensible conduct of the prosecutor and the judge. The lack of common sense and good judgment by just about everybody involved is astounding. It’s really tragic all around.
What’s the phone numbers for Richardson and Ebert so that we the people can properly exercise our right to petition the government? Do they have a Facebook page that one can leave a review?
I would like to think our ridicule here yesterday played a part. Scorn is something that politicians will hear and it can change their behavior. Although, our President seems oblivious to it. He can take solace in the fact that Muslims love him. He polls poorly[recent Gallup] w/ several religions, but his strongest demographic is 72% support by Muslims.
If Jerry Sandusky was a prosecutor or a magistrate …
I don’t understand the overreaction to two teens sexing. Mel Johansson above has it right. While, as a parent it’s not something I would condone, I don’t think it’s criminal between a boyfriend and girlfriend, both underage. The warrant and the forcing of an erecction sounds more abusive bordering on criminal to me.
I believe that there should be a warrant issued for the search of Mr. Richardson’s computer and possibly his home in the search of sadist child pornography. It appears that his insistence in perusing this matter borders on manic!
“These prosecutors are a bunch of pervs.” Yep. They should all be fired.
The whole hysteria surrounding sexting is ridiculous. This prosecution has already done more psychological and emotional damage damage to these two kids than any you-show-me-yours-and-I’ll-show-you-mine. And would someone explain to me why the police are allowed to take pictures of this teenager’s junk, but when he, the owner of said junk, does it, it’s a crime.
These prosecutors are a bundh of pervs.