Police blotter: Teens prosecuted for racy photos

"Police blotter" is a weekly News.com report on the intersection of technology and the law.

What: Teenagers taking risque photos of themselves are prosecuted for violating child pornography laws.

When: Florida state appeals court rules on January 19.

Outcome: A 2-1 majority upholds conviction on grounds the girl produced a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child.

What happened, according to court documents:
Combine unsupervised teenagers, digital cameras and e-mail, and, given sufficient time, you'll end up with risque photographs on a computer somewhere.

There's a problem with that: Technically, those images constitute child pornography. That's what 16-year-old Amber and 17-year-old Jeremy, her boyfriend, both residents of the Tallahassee, Fla., area, learned firsthand. (Court documents include only their initials, A.H. and J.G.W., so we're using these pseudonyms to make this story a little easier to read.)

On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else.

Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida police learned about the photos.

Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.

Court records don't say exactly what happened next...but somehow Florida police learned about the photos.

Some more background: Under a 1995 ruling in a case called B.B. v. State, the Florida Supreme Court said that a 16-year-old could not be found delinquent for having sex with another 16-year-old.

"The crux of the state's interest in an adult-minor situation is the prevention of exploitation of the minor by the adult," the majority said at the time. The court ruled that a Florida statute punishing sex between teens was "unconstitutional as applied to this 16-year-old as a basis for a delinquency proceeding."

The same applies to Amber and Jeremy. Even though he is a year older than her, he is still a minor in Florida.

In other words, under Florida law, Amber and Jeremy would be legally permitted to engage in carnal relations, but they're criminals if they document it.

Amber's attorney claimed that the right to privacy protected by the Florida Constitution shielded the teen from prosecution, an argument that a trial judge rejected. Amber pleaded no contest to the charges and was placed on probation, though she reserved her right to appeal her constitutional claim.

By a 2-1 vote, the appeals court didn't buy it. Judge James Wolf, a former prosecutor, wrote the majority opinion.

Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends. He claimed that Amber had neither the "foresight or maturity" to make a reasonable estimation of the risks on her own. And he said that transferring the images from a digital camera to a PC created innumerable problems: "The two computers (can) be hacked."

Judge Philip Padovano dissented. He wrote that the law "was designed to protect children from abuse by others, but it was used in this case to punish a child for her own mistake. In my view, the application of this criminal statute to the conduct at issue violates the child's right to privacy under Article 1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution."

Excerpt from Wolf's majority opinion:
As previously stated, the reasonable expectation that the material will ultimately be disseminated is by itself a compelling state interest for preventing the production of this material. In addition, the statute was intended to protect minors like appellant and her co-defendant from their own lack of judgment...

Appellant was simply too young to make an intelligent decision about engaging in sexual conduct and memorializing it. Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved.

Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos.

[baswwe]

Where the photos admited as evidence?

The story talked a lot about photos, but made mention of a video??

Did they make a video too?

[fearless345]

Only in America........

Thinking about the things I did as a kid, I probably would be doing life without chance of parole if I did those today....

[shoffmueller]

Cnet shouldn't run these stories...

...without including the photos.


Just Kidding!!!

[shoffmueller]

Cnet shouldn't run these stories...

...without including the photos.


Just Kidding!!!

[thedreaming]

My .02

I thought the child pornography laws are supposed to protect children, not send them to jail where they'll end up being someone's biatch.

[stuxstu]

Do you have an issue...

Why, are you interested in watching child pornography?

Simply put, don't create evidence. Camera's and video tape are fine for a vacation, but don't use them for any other creative ideas.

[Got Rice?]

In China

These kids would be arrested, beaten by police, the boy would go to jail for about 20 years, and the girl would probably be sent to jail for about 10 years, if she didn't commit suicide first because her family couldn't stand the shame.

And of course, both families would have to move out of their towns, because they would be publicly ostracized.

Got Rice?
http://blog.stonecamel.com

[davez2006]

Showing the evidence violated their privacy.

Since both were prosecuted, both were the other's victim. No one
outside the family would have seen the pictures, if it wasn't for the
prosecution.

[jidrobo]

That logic is pure BS!

They are prosecuting teeneagers for something they have not done
yet. Under that stupid logic, we should prosecute all people that
own guns. Because guns are designed to kill, and since they own
them, then it is likely that their judment will not be the best on a
moment of stress and they might end killing someone.
Come on!

BTW. I do not have a gun!

[lonewolfoolt]

This whole story...

is just plain retarded. The same as all the other stupid judicial judgements made on teenage matters and their need to be human. I just literally can not see how anyone can be prosecuted for doing anything to themselves. For ruining the lives of these two people the entire prosecution side should be sentenced to jail time along with the judge for allowing it all to happen.

I wish people would use common sense and get off their fake morality ride.

[ewelch]

Prosecutorial misconduct

Let's get some facts straight. Two kids, who could be married -
and tried as adults if they had committed murder - are going to
be branded sex offenders for the rest of their lives for getting
caught.

What they did was wrong. Yes. They did not hurt anyone.
Prosecutors are given leeway to ignore this kind of crime, or to
at least plead it down to some thing more resonable.

What they have done is pretty much guaranteed that if this goes
through to its logical conclusion, they have created two more
criminals they will have to jail some day.

While the 15 year old girl who was a porn star (and just
possessing those movies will land anyone in jail) is not a
television star in Holllywood.

Life is full of hypocrisy, self-righteous nonsense and Florida
once again proves they don't have the judgement to be
considered adults themselves.

[garlepp]

American Justice System...Joke

Just shows you the stupidity of the American justice system. They should get a slap on the wrist and be forced to see a psychologist or maybe a sex Anonymous group but to give them a record, especially giving the guy an extra count is ridiculous. the law should make sense with the intent for malicious behavior and should not persecute for some kids thinking they are making love and having fun... are we going back to puritan times.. **** we all would have to wait till were 18 to have sex... anyway my 2 cents..

[ColdMast]

Kids are stupid and naive.

That's why we don't let them own guns.

Digital cameras are for capture digital images.
Computers are for storing digital content.
Internet is for transmitting digital content.

BTW. I don't own a gun either.
PS. Charge smokers for suicide?
PPS. Charge everyone for doing a potential something.
LETS take away Liberty.

[Iron_Newt]

Ruined Future?

The kids' future is ruined more by them having a criminal record than by some pictures of them as kids on the internet, seeing as the people hiring in a firm are less likely to be looking for child pornography of their applicants than for criminal records. Similarly they will have to put this in applications for anything they want in their future, from college applications to job applications.

[dolobo79]

Insane

I read this in disbelief. Showing the pictures invaded their privacy and the whole thing has probably left them emotionally scarred.
It's typical of the law, instead of protecting them it has caused more harm and left them both with criminal records that will affect the rest of their lives.

Have the police nothing better to do? are the real criminals just too hard to catch?

[Solaris_User]

Job interview..

Interviewer: Says here you are guilty of distributing child porn.

Kid: ..But it was of my...

Interviewer: I'm sorry, Wal-Mart does not have any positions open for people like you.

[ShareLife]

new bill to violate privacy and support this decision

Cnet is running a story on how a new bill will support this type of decision.

http://news.com.com/Senator+to+propose+surveillance+of+illegal+images/2100-1028_3-6156976.html?tag=nefd.pulse

In the end, the bill would introduce a flesh detector that would require someone, somewhere to view these photos, even if in a private email and sent between adults. By default the photo shared here would be viewed, possibly by several government officials and considered for evidence.

The future sounds a bit scary.

[unknown unknown]

So to protect them from themselves

and the life ruining effects that some imagined release of these pictures could do. So they're going to ruin their lives in advanced with child porn charges, something several orders of magnitude more damaging than the release of the photos. People have committed suicide from just being charged, cause whether convicted or acquitted it pretty destroys ones prospects at normal life.

I've lost a lot of respect for our system of "justice".

[bettencourtt]

That comment assumes....

They even GET an interview. Too many recruiters now see "Criminal History" and automatically dump the application, no questions asked. Most of the time, they won't even gat the chance to explain it.

[rite_edge]

Moving out of America

Isn't it inevitable that a huge number of teens will do silly things like this?

Do you really want to gamble your children's freedom, ability to get a job, to move around the country without reporting where they are b/c they're convicted child pornographers , to hold office, to vote, to not go to jail for life under three strikes laws etc. etc. on the hope they won't do something as innocent as this or something else equally innocent that unbalanced judges and careerist prosecutors can make political hay with? Doesn't our country face real problems, or have all those been taken care of while I slept last night? This is pure insanity.

Think it won't happen ot your kids? I don't. I can't be sure of that at all. I am nto willing to contemplate my kids spending their lives as convicted kiddie-pornographers or child molestors. As soon as possible, I am leaving America with my family. If anyone knows a good country to be an ex-pat in, please give details. Wife, 3 kids ages 2-6, about 40 grand in the bank, career programmers both of us.

Thanks in advance.


To tell the truth, this just looks like an attempt to produce universal guilt within the population.