Patterico's Pontifications

7/12/2014

Police Abandon Plan to Force Teenaged Boy to Have an Erection So They Can Photograph It

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:18 am

When this story was first reported, there was just an allegation from the defense and a kind of squirrelly non-denial denial from the cops and prosecutors. I waited until it was clarified whether police actually intended to do this. Apparently, they did:

Manassas City police said Thursday they would not serve a search warrant seeking to take photos of a 17-year-old boy charged with “sexting” an explicit video to his 15-year-old girlfriend earlier this year.

The teen is facing felony counts of manufacturing and distributing child pornography. As the case was headed to trial last week, Manassas City police and Prince William County prosecutors said in juvenile court that they had obtained a warrant to photograph the teen’s erect penis, in order to compare with the video he allegedly sent in January, according to the teen’s lawyers. When defense lawyer Jessica Harbeson Foster asked how they would obtain a photo of her client while aroused, she said police told her they would take him to a hospital and inject him with a drug to force an erection.

On Thursday, Prince William authorities decided to drop that plan. Lt. Brian Larkin of the Manassas City police said, “We are not going to pursue it.” He said the police planned to allow the search warrant, obtained last week, to expire. He would not say why the decision had been made to abandon the warrant or discuss the reasons for the search.

Here’s a question nobody seems to be asking: who signed such a warrant? And can we see a copy?

29 Responses to “Police Abandon Plan to Force Teenaged Boy to Have an Erection So They Can Photograph It”

  1. This story calls for a snarky comment:

    In my day they could have just given us the latest issue of Playboy, but kids today are so saturated with Internet pornography that nowadays they have to go straight to Viagra.

    [Note - had to fish this one out of the spam folder because I used the clinical term for dirty pictures and movies. JVW]

    [UPDATE BY PATTERICO: More likely, because you named a certain medication used to address erectile dysfunction.]

    JVW (feb406)

  2. I really think we should focus often on the judges that sign horse manure warrants.

    SPQR (c4e119)

  3. A lot of people have so ‘splainin’ to do.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  4. …some ‘splainin’…

    askeptic (efcf22)

  5. Are the judge who signed his warrant and the police somehow exempt from laws against manufacturing child porn?

    If they thought they could do this to the kid, why are they prosecuting him for allegedly doing it to himself?

    Steve57 (cd4182)

  6. america keeps thinking of new ways to creep me out

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  7. I’m guessing the answer to your questions is the reason why they dropped the warrant.

    Someone (the judge or magistrate) decided this looked pretty bad and told the police to cease.

    jakee308 (f1b953)

  8. The cops gave the teenager a hard difficult time.
    Or whatever.

    Elephant Stone (5c2aa0)

  9. So, we need some judges who are willing to stand up?

    More seriously, I wonder if the judge realized the dangers of handing out pre-signed blank warrants?

    htom (412a17)

  10. The Virginia statute under which they wanted to charge the boy was quoted in one news report. (And they did not charge his girlfriend, who did the same thing.) After the arrest, the police stripped him and photgraphed him nude – then wanted to repeat a photo session after arousing him. The police violated the very statute in doing so. There was no exception which allows photographing nude children in order to construct evidence to use against a defendant.

    David (6f3506)

  11. “police told her they would take him to a hospital and inject him with a drug to force an erection”

    They should just ask Harry Reid how he does it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  12. “Here’s a question nobody seems to be asking: who signed such a warrant?”

    The names of both the magistrate who supposedly signed the warrant, and the magistrate that let the kid leave the state, were in early news reports about this case. But the first magistrates name isn’t available anywhere online now, as far as I can tell. You can still find the kids’s name on Google, though.

    Jeff Hall (0c9255)

  13. 10. And they did not charge his girlfriend, who did the same thing.

    David (6f3506) — 7/12/2014 @ 2:14 pm

    I suppose if he girlfriend sen he guy nude pis, hey’d haearresedheguyforpossessingkiddieporn,bunogirlfriendforanufauringandransiingi.

    Steve57 (cd4182)

  14. 10. …And they did not charge his girlfriend, who did the same thing.

    David (6f3506) — 7/12/2014 @ 2:14 pm

    I suppose if the girlfriend sent the boyfriend nude pics, they’d have arrested the guy for possessing kiddie porn, but not girlfriend for manufacturing and transmitting it.

    We have a wonderful double standard in this country. A 21y.o. college girl who has “regrettable sex” is a helpless child after one drink, who can’t knowingly give consent or later be held to the adult standard of being responsible for her own actions. Meanwhile the college dude who had the roll in the hay with her is completely responsible for his actions no matter how impaired he was.

    I realize not all women, or even most, are on board with this. There are lots of women who refuse to think of themselves as helpless victims; and if someone else makes a bad choice, they don’t let them off the hook by claiming victim hood and thereby diminishing all women.

    Bu they’re generally not Democrats, who are making all the noise.

    Steve57 (cd4182)

  15. I have no idea how 13 got there.

    I need a new’ puter. This one is getting really funky.

    Steve57 (cd4182)

  16. The judge who issued the warrant should have seen the movie “Porky’s” from the early 1980s. It’s one of the great raunch comedies of all time. A male high school student sticks his member through a hole in the girl’s shower room wall. The female gym teacher sees it, and tries to grab it. The boy pervert pulls away. The gym teacher, who looks like she’s got 16 forward speeds and a Georgia overdrive, goes into the high school principal’s office and demands that every boy in the school be lined up and ordered to drop his pants. She’d recognize that penis if she saw it. The principal and his staff dissolve in helpless laughter at the inanity of the request.

    Skeptical Voter (12e67d)

  17. In order to be a good identification wouldn’t they need five additional erect penises in order to make a photo ID six pack? This could add a whole new dimension to the booking photo process. Not only would you need a vertical ruler for height but a horizontal one to provide a scale reference.

    Paul (46c47d)

  18. In order to be a good identification wouldn’t they need five additional erect penises in order to make a photo ID six pack?

    Supposedly, they were going to use a computer program to match the penis in the video to the penis in the pictures they wanted to take.

    But here’s another thing that is wrong. The police and the prosecutor’s office released a statement saying in part:


    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.

    Then why did they get a magistrate to sign off on the warrant? If it is not the policy of the two divisions to do such a thing, then why go in front of a magistrate and ask for a warrant allowing them to photograph the teen?

    Did they lie to the magistrate? The people? Or both?

    gitarcarver (71ca11)

  19. I think it should be legal for citizens to b#tch slap officials who act this stupidly in their name.

    Thresherman (0e1328)

  20. Officer Balbricker: Your Honor. I know this is completely unorthodox. But I think this is the only way to find that boy. Now that penis had a mole on it – I’d recognize that penis anywhere. In spite of the juvenile snickers of some, this is a serious matter. That seducer and despoiler must be stopped; he’s extremely dangerous. And, your Honor, I’m certain that everyone in this room knows who that is. He’s a contemptible little pervert who…
    The Magistrate: Officer Balbricker!
    Balbricker: Well, I’m sorry, but I’ve got him now, and I’m not going to let him slip through my fingers again. Now, all I’m asking is that you give me five boys for a few minutes. The coaches can be present – Tommy Turner and any four boys you see fit to choose and we… and we… can put a stop to this menace. And it is a menace.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  21. Did they lie to the magistrate? The people? Or both?

    Duh!

    askeptic (efcf22)

  22. 19- She was obviously overlooked for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar that year.

    You have to wonder, how many takes did they have to run through?

    askeptic (efcf22)

  23. At the point she says, ” Now, all I’m asking is that you give me five boys for a few minutes. ” the actress, Nancy Parsons, breaks character for just a tick, and let’s loose a giggle.

    That half a giggle cost Nancy the nomination.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  24. Rational: a search warrant to determine if there are other photos he has taken of his anatomy. Irrational: taking those photos yourself.

    Now, I’m not a criminal lawyer, but it seems like the prosecution could put on its case without having a match-up of the pictures and the defendant’s anatomy. If the defendant wants to prove that it’s not his anatomy, he can do that of his own volition and present the resulting evidence at trial.

    bridget (37b281)

  25. Um, you’re forgetting that the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution. The defense doesn’t have to prove anything. The prosecution says this is a picture of the defendant, and the defense says how do you know?

    What I don’t get is why the defense lawyer didn’t threaten that if the charge against her client is not dropped immediately, she will file a criminal complaint against the girl. I get why the boy thinks he’s being a gentleman and doesn’t want to do that, but the lawyer should threaten to do it anyway. Surely that would make the whole case go away, because the girl’s parents will no longer cooperate with the prosecution.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  26. Force him to have an erection? When does a 17-year-old NOT have an erection?

    gp (0c542c)

  27. Got a question. Everyone is asking if the girl is not going to be charged. My thought is mom is the one who needs to be nailed. She’s the one that accessed the child porn and viewed it. Boy and girl were simply doing something that came naturally. Their mistake was placing it in a publicly accessable mode. Mom is the one who forced her way in.

    Yes, I know mom needs to be able to watch over her precious, but instead of trying to destroy someones life for virtually nothing, she could have tried being, well, adult about it.

    Bill H (f9e4cd)

  28. Mihouse: the same way you would prove that anything else came from a person: testimony of those involved, electronic records (to the extent they exist), other statements the accused has made that support the fact being alleged, etc. The prosecution’s burden if proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, not being all doubt, nor is it to present every piece of evidence that could possibly be presented.

    I’m not a criminal lawyer – my court experience Is limited to probate court – but I find it hard to believe that photographing this young man’s naked body is a necessary part of the prosecution’s case.

    bridget (02befa)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1802 secs.