4-20-2009 Ohio:
NEWARK — A teenager whose case attracted national publicity when she was facing potential sex offender status for transmitting nude photos of herself was in court again last week, according to records at the Juvenile Division of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas.
The girl, who was 15 years old when she was charged with illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material last fall, voided part of a deal with the state when she used a cell phone in February and is now accused of theft, court documents show.
The child pornography charge, which would have forced a judge to decide whether she should have registered as a sex offender for 20 years, was dropped by the state in November, but another felony charge remained viable unless she completed a diversion-like program.
The defendant was the first minor to be charged after the Licking County Prosecutor’s Office made presentations to high schools across the county about the illegality of having or transmitting pornographic images on or from their cell phones.
In a November hearing, she agreed to enter a plea of admit to one count of felony possession of criminal tools — for the cell phone — but Juvenile Judge Robert Hoover, as expected, refused to accept the plea and the matter was to be revisited in six months.
If she had abided by the conditions from the Prosecutor’s Office, the remaining charge would have been dismissed before disposition.
(eAdvocate Post)
According to court documents filed in February, she was caught by her foster parents using a cell phone. It does not specify to what end she was using the phone. Prosecutor Ken Oswalt could not be reached for comment.
She was sentenced in March to house arrest with electronic monitoring and several other conditions, including no cell phones or unsupervised computer usage, court records show.
The terms also included community service, which she was fulfilling at Licking Valley Elementary on April 13, the court records state. While at the school, she allegedly stole a master key, according to a juvenile complaint.
Her case has been transferred to Franklin County, which is the county from which she was placed into foster care, according to court records and earlier statements court records from Oswalt.
The girl’s legal battle was cited in The Cincinnati Enquirer last week as one of the incidents that helped spark a push by some state lawmakers to make “sexting” between minors a misdemeanor. ..News Source.. by RUSS ZIMMER • Advocate Reporter
April 20, 2009
OH- Court: Teen accused of texting nude photos violated deal
April 18, 2009
VT- Alternative sought to Senate 'sexting' bill
4-18-2009 Vermont:
Creating separate crime for teens among proposals
MONTPELIER — Legislators sought Friday to allay concerns that they were condoning the new fad of “sexting” among teens by bolstering a bill under consideration.
The move comes after a Senate bill attracted national attention and had senators defending themselves against accusations that their bill condoned or legalized teens’ transmission of indecent photos.
“We hope to send the message that it’s not OK,” said Rep. Willem Jewett, D-Ripton.
Jewett and other members of the House Judiciary Committee proposed changes to the Senate bill that include creating a new, minor crime for teens who voluntarily send nude cell phone photos of themselves. This allows them to be charged criminally but not face more serious consequences that could put them on the sex offender registry for life.
“There are good reasons for the state setting public policy to say it’s illegal. It shouldn’t be a lifetime penalty,” said Rep. Peg Flory, R-Pittsford.
The Senate version, which passed last month, would exempt teens from prosecution for child pornography for voluntary sexting. NBC’s “Today” show was among the national media programs that focused attention on the bill in recent days.
(eAdvocate Post)
Sens. Richard Sears and John Campbell defended the effort on that program, saying they were trying to differentiate between bad behavior and criminal behavior. They said they didn’t want teens to wind up on the sex offender registry if a boyfriend and girlfriend shared photos of themselves with each other.
House members said reaction to that bill prompted them to seek alternatives that would allow the state to consider such behavior criminal but tone down the consequences. They are proposing a civil violation and a juvenile court criminal violation punishable by up to a $300 fine.
Prosecutors would still be able to levy more serious charges if they had evidence of coercion, said Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Lippert said his Senate counterparts agree with the changes.
Prosecutors are likely to look on the changes favorably, said Jane Woodruff, executive director of the Department of States Attorneys and Sheriffs. They were worried about the Senate version, she said.
Chittenden County State’s Attorney T.J. Donovan said he wants to have discretion to file charges appropriate to each case, something the Senate bill might have limited.
A pending case in South Burlington that Donovan is prosecuting involves a defendant who allegedly coerced several teenage girls into sending him sexually explicit photos and videos of themselves. Donovan said the case illustrates that sometimes sexting goes beyond foolish behavior and warrants more serious charges, as he filed in that case.
Donovan said what’s more important to him is systematic education of teens about the dangers of sexting. He tried to lobby House Education Committee Chairwoman Johanna Donovan to make such education mandatory in Vermont schools, but the Burlington representative, who is his mother, balked at adding mandates to the schools.
Lippert’s committee is instead calling for the Vermont sexual violence prevention task force to include the issue in its education efforts. ..News Source.. by Terri Hallenbeck, Free Press Staff Writer
April 16, 2009
MI- Laws and prosecutors overreact to some typical teen behavior
4-16-2009 Michigan:
Sexting -- the phenomenon of young adolescents texting naked or almost-naked photos of themselves to their friends -- has become something of a media sensation.
Across the country, prosecutors have charged, or threatened to charge, youthful offenders with various serious felonies, including production, possession and distribution of pornography.
Of course, such statutes were never aimed at discouraging "sexting," and these charging decisions demonstrate a disturbing lack of understanding of adolescent development.
Unfortunately, hysterical overreaction by law enforcement has become the norm in response to allegations of conduct by kids that might be criminal if committed by adults.
In Oregon, two geeky, pre-pubescent seventh-graders were charged with five counts of felony sexual abuse for "butt-slapping" their fellow middle-school students on "butt-slap Friday" in the school hallway.
They spent five days in jail before their first court appearance (in shackles), at the start of their incredible journey through the juvenile system. The prosecutor told a local reporter that his office "aggressively" pursues sex offenses because "these cases are devastating to children."
(eAdvocate Post)
In Grand Rapids, a police detective and prosecutor threatened to charge a 5-year-old boy with criminal sexual conduct if his parents didn't sign him up for psychotherapy. The reason? The boy asked a 3-year-old in his day care to "kiss my pee pee."
One of the major costs of such overreaction is the permanency of the punishment. Many thousands of children are now on registries because of conduct -- committed at age 12, 13 or 14 -- that experts say is developmentally normal. When they apply to college, for a job, or try to rent an apartment too close to a school, this stigma will continue to sting them.
But law enforcement officers and prosecutors are not the only ones susceptible to overreacting to juvenile "sex offenders." Our politicians started it. For instance, the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act provides a clear example of how sex-offender hysteria can result in bad policy.
(2 of 2)
The 2006 statute is, of course, named after a high-profile victim of a horrendous crime. It begins with a one sentence description of 17 cases involving horrific acts of sexual violence.
But each of these example cases is an outlier -- that is, none accurately reflects the vast majority of "sex offenses" committed by the children.
There is evidence that important players in the criminal justice system worry about the costs of overreacting. Seven years ago, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld Michigan's sex offender registration act, but observed that the law, which required children of any age convicted of a sex offense to register as sex offenders for life, was draconian.
In many jurisdictions, juvenile courts, individual judges, and even some prosecutors actively seek ways of subverting the application of the law by allowing kids charged with sex offenses to plead guilty to non-sex crimes or by delaying a sentence and eventually dismissing cases without finding any offense.
When judges and courts actively subvert the law, surely this is evidence that the law has gone too far.
Frank Vandervort is a clinical assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan's Law School. Bridget McCormack is the associate dean for clinical affairs. ..News Source.. by FRANK VANDERVORT and BRIDGET MCCORMACK
April 13, 2009
OH- ‘Sexting’ and its legal ramifications
4-13-2009 Ohio:
LISBON - A detective from the Columbiana County sheriff's office has begun speaking to local high school students about the legal perils of "sexting," and the county prosecutor's office is offering to do the same with school administrators.
Detective Steve Walker, who investigates sex crimes for the sheriff's office, has spoken to assemblies at the county vocational school and Columbiana High School about sexting, the practice of young people taking nude or sexually suggestive photographs of themselves with a cell phone and then "sexting' -sending the images to others by way of texting.
"What they don't realize is if they are under the age of 18 it is considered child pornography, and it can be prosecuted as such," Walker said.
Sexting has gained more attention of late because of a 16-year-old girl in the Cincinnati area who committed suicide after her former boyfriend distributed to classmates a nude photograph she had taken of herself and sent to him when they were dating. Her parents believe their daughter was driven to take her life because of the ridicule and taunting she endured from the photograph being shared with countless other students at her school.
Assistant County Prosecutor Denise Weingart, who is assigned to county juvenile court, said that is the danger of sexting.
"A picture never goes away. Once you send it, it's out there forever. That picture can end up way beyond its intended audience," she said. "Obviously, it's a problem. Most of these kids who do this don't know how damaging this can be."
The biggest problem is how to deal with the legal issues created by this latest technological phenomenon. Detective Walker said a young person who takes a photograph of himself or another minor in the nude, or in a sexually suggestive position or engaging in sexual activity, is guilty of illegal use of a minor in a nudity- oriented material or performance. Sexting the photograph to someone under the age of 18 is another crime - disseminating material harmful to a juvenile.
(eAdvocate Post)
Walker said his talks are to "just get the information out there for the students to realize how serious a crime this is, and once they send that photo they have no control over how far this can go."
Weingart said there have been two sexting cases recently in juvenile court. One cases involves a boy who sexted nude photographs of his former girlfriend. The boy was the only one charged in this case because he took the photographs, and there is evidence he coerced the girl into letting him take the photographs.
The other case involves a camera-phone video of two boys performing a sex act on each other. One of the boys was caught showing the video to younger students riding the school bus.
Weingart said this case was resolved, with the boy who showed the video being sentenced to probation and ordered to undergo counseling. Since the offense is the juvenile-court equivalent of a felony offense, the boy currently is classified as a sex offender, a designation that will remain with him unless it is dropped by the court upon the successful completion of his probation.
Therein lies the thorny legal issues for prosecutors created by the current law and advances in phone technology: Should juveniles charged with sexting-related crimes be designated sex offenders the same as an adult who commits a similar crime and be required to register with the sheriff where they live for at least the next 10 years or beyond?
"Even though what they are doing is wrong, the big question is should they be a registered sex offender?" Weingart said.
Walker agrees. "I don't believe a child should be a registered sex offender for sending a nude photograph (of themselves or someone else) to a boyfriend or a classmate. There's got to be a middle ground," he said.
Weingart said the prosecutor's office intends to meet this week with the juvenile court Magistrate Scott Washam and Judge Tom Baronzzi to discuss if they can find that legal "middle ground" by creating a diversion program for these offenders instead of formally charging them.
"Obviously, the sexual registration laws are important and protect people, but in situations like this there has to be some balance," she said.
Help may be on the way from a state legislator in Warren County, who plans to introduce a bill that would make sexting in any form a misdemeanor for juveniles, thereby eliminating the sex-offender registration requirement.
Weingart said prosecutors walk a fine line in deciding whether to file charges under the current law. The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a lawsuit against a prosecutor in a Pennsylvania county for threatening to bring anti-pornography charges against three teenage girls over sexting.
"That's a concern because our office is trying to protect the public and do our job," she said.
Like Walker, Weingart said the prosecutor's office is offering to speak with school administrators about how to address the problem. Some school districts have been sued for seizing students' cell phones involved in sexting or trying to do something about sexting.
Meanwhile, the number of sexting cases being investigated has picked up speed in recent months, with Detective Walker saying he has received 10 such complaints during that period. ..News Source.. by TOM GIAMBRONI
March 15, 2009
Fair Punishment? -- Is sexting child pornography?
3-15-2009 National:
On the books for some time are laws to cover child pornography. Now, with technology opening areas that no one could imagine when those child porn laws were enacted, should prosecutors be allowed to apply them to this new evolving technology spawning sexting pictures?
Also on the books are specialized laws to deal with juveniles and inherent in them is a fairer and more lenient punishment scheme, every state has some form of these laws.
Child pornography -for the most part- has been adults viewing, trading or dealing with child pornography in some other way, the punishments have been very severe and frequently justified (I always allow for the oddball case in my writings).
Along comes technology which has spawned sexting, nude photos of parts of juvenile bodies which they have taken a picture of and sent it, generally to their boy/girl-friend. Often that friend then forwards the picture on to other friends. While that is definitely questionable since it was originally sent with an air of privacy attached, that secondary act doesn't necessarily take the picture out of the realm of juvenile sexting.
Clearly what the juveniles are doing is far from their best interests, but is it criminal? Prosecutors' come along and apply child porn laws to these juvenile acts, totally bypassing the intent of special handling of juveniles built into juveniles law. The result is, these juveniles are punished far more severely than they should be.
Today Fox News has this video "Fairer Punishment?" Listen carefully to what the one woman who is "Not highly sympathetic" has to say, especially how she absolves the girl who first created the picture while holding the boys who received the picture at fault. Grrrr...that old double standard again, I wonder, would a man feel the same way? Lets hear from men, I'd like to know what you think...
A special thanks to the viewer who sent in the link to that video.
eAdvocate
March 11, 2009
UT- Utah lawmakers OK bill on 'sexting'
3-11-2009 Utah:
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Utah lawmakers have agreed to lessen the penalty for minors who send or receive nude pictures through their cell phones, called "sexting."
House Bill 14, sponsored by Rep. Sheryl Allen, R-Bountiful, would reduce the penalty for someone younger than 18 to a misdemeanor from a felony. Those over 18 could still face felony charges.
Sen. Gregory Bell, R-Fruit Heights, says some parents currently interfere with investigations because they don't want their children to be charged with a felony.
The bill passed the Senate on Wednesday and now goes to the governor. ..News Source.. by KLS.com
FL- Text lands teen on sex
In today's Congressional hearing on SORNA Rep. Bobby Scott repeditally asked Laura Rogers whether a 19 year old and a 15 year old (4 years apart) would result in the 19 year old having to register, and suffer all that follows from being publically listed. I'm thinking Rep. Scott was thinking a Romeo and Juliet type of case.
Now, Rep. Scott was not getting a straight answer from Laura Rogers, she appeared evasive, saying it depends on how the person was charged and whether or not it was a felony and other factors. Rep. Scott seemed to get a bit annoyed and asked her again.
I think I may have just understood Laura Roger's comment, here in this a case of "Sexting" (Internet Child Pornography) someone charged with a felony according to SORNA (maybe different under state law).
In this case we have a "Sexting Romeo and Juliet situation," as is often the case with sexting, one underage and one an adult and he will have to register -under AWA- for a good long time and his life ruined.
Rep. Scott seemed to imply that certain Romeo and Juliet cases should be exempted from SORNA's effect, well look closely, so should some of the sexting Romeo and Juliet cases. eAdvocate
3-11-2009 Florida:
Illicit text message means 5 years probation
BREVARD COUNTY, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) - Phillip Alpert, 19 years old and a recently-registered sex offender, pointed to pictures of his young sisters on his cell phone. "When people see these pictures, it's not this kid that's a good big brother that loves his sister," he said, "it's a sex offender, with pictures of little girls on his phone. That's not me."
But Alpert is a registered sex offender, listed with all the child molesters, rapists, and the rest on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Sexual Offender Registry.
A year ago, after breaking up with his 16-year-old girlfriend, he got angry. He emailed a nude picture of her to more than seventy people, including her parents. He said she sent him the picture while they were dating.
His text was reported to police and he was later arrested for transmitting child pornography, a charge which he contests. "Child porn? No!" said Alpert. "The girl is 16-years-old!" But the law says she is a child.
A remorseful Alpert admited he made a terrible mistake, but feels the punishment is excessive. "I didn't cause trauma to her. I didn't ruin her life. I embarrassed her," he said, adding, "a lot of my friends have not stood by me. People don't want to talk to me anymore."
Attorney Lawrence Walters agreed. "These laws are designed to punish the worst child rapists and pedophiles in our society. They're designed to punish the adult that tells a toddler to perform a sex act on camera, terrible behavior! They're not designed to punish teens who share racy photos of themselves via the internet or cell phones."
For now, the way the law stands, the law does punish those who send illicit text messages of minors and get caught.
Alpert has served one year of a very strict probation and still has four more to go. After that, he will be required to stay registered as a sex offender until he is at least 43. ..News Source.. by MyFox Orlando
March 10, 2009
VA- Students face 'sexting' charges
In today's Congressional hearing on SORNA Rep. Bobby Scott repeditally asked Laura Rogers whether a 19 year old and a 15 year old (4 years apart) would result in the 19 year old having to register, and suffer all that follows from being publically listed. I'm thinking Rep. Scott was thinking a Romeo and Juliet type of case.
Now, Rep. Scott was not getting a straight answer from Laura Rogers, she kept being what appeared evasive, saying it depends on how the person was charged and whether or not it was a felony and other factors. Rep. Scott seemed to get a bit testy hearing that more then once and asked her again.
I think I may have just understood Laura Roger's comment, here in this a case of "Sexting" (Internet Child Pornography) someone is likely to be charged with a felony according to SORNA (maybe different under state law).
In this case we have a type of Romeo and Juliet situation, as is often the case with sexting, two underage juveniles and if convicted of a felony with have to register -under AWA- for a good long time and their lives ruined.
Rep. Scott seemed to imply that certain Romeo and Juliet cases should be exempted from SORNA's effect, well look closely, so should some of the sexting cases involving juveniles, if they are convicted. eAdvocate
3-10-2009 Virginia:
Spotsylvania has received several reports of the new texting trend, but today’s charges mark the first case to be prosecuted, police say.
Two Spotsylvania students were charged this morning in connection with an ongoing sexting investigation.
Moizeis Ribeiro, 18, and an unnamed 15-year-old boy were each charged with possession of child pornography with intent to distribute and electronic solicitation, said 1st Sgt. Liz Scott of the Spotsylvania County Sheriff’s Office.
The charges are the first ever placed in Spotsylvania in a sexting case.
Sexting refers to sending nude or explicit pictures over cell phone text messages and is common mostly associated with teenagers. Scott said recently that there have been several reports of the new texting trend, but today’s charges mark the first case to be prosecuted.
The charges came as the result of an investigation that began Feb. 19, according to a search warrant affidavit filed in Spotsylvania County Circuit Court.
On that day, Deputy S. Pyktel, who works as a school resource officer, was told about a sexting incident at Spotsylvania High School regarding Ribeiro’s possession of photos of a nude 13-year-old girl on his cell phone, the affidavit states.
Scott said through the investigation over the last several weeks by Detective J.C. Blankenship, it was found that Ribeiro and the 15-year-old boy had solicited pictures from three juveniles, including the 13-year-old who is a student at Chancellor Middle School.
Scott also said that one of the juveniles was in elementary school.
Scott said today in a release that during the investigation, seven cell phones were seized and three juveniles were identified, but authorities have yet to identify two others pictured on the phones.
She said that the unknown photos were sent to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for possible identification. ..News Source.. by ELLEN BILTZ
