Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
School officials confiscated several students' cell phones, examined them and discovered photographs of 'scantily clad, semi-nude and nude teenage girls.' The School reported that male students had been trading these images over their cell phones. The School turned the phones over to D. D stated publically to local newspaper reporters and a district assembly at Tunkhannock High School that students who possess inappropriate images of minors could be prosecuted under Pennsylvania law for possessing or distributing child pornography. D contends that if found guilty of these crimes, the three minor plaintiffs would probably be subject to registration as sex offenders under Pennsylvania's Registration of Sexual Offenders Act. D sent letters to the parents of approximately twenty Tunkhannock students on whose cell phones the pictures were stored and to the girls shown in the photos. The letter informed the parents that their child had been 'identified in a police investigation involving the possession and/or dissemination of child pornography.' D promised that the charges would be dropped if the child successfully completed a six- to nine-month program focused on education and counseling. The letter warned that 'charges will be filed against those that do not participate or those that do not successfully complete the program.' When asked by a parent at the meeting why his daughter--who had been depicted in a photograph wearing a bathing suit--could be charged with child pornography, D replied that the girl was posed 'provocatively,' which made her subject to the child pornography charge. When the father of Marissa Miller asked D who got to decide what 'provocative' meant, the District Attorney replied that he refused to argue the question and reminded the crowd that he could charge all the minors that night. Plaintiff MaryJo Miller and her ex-husband met with D who showed them the photograph that involved their daughter Marissa. It was two years old and showed Marissa Miller and Grace Kelly from the waist up, each wearing a white, opaque bra. Marissa was speaking on the phone and Grace using her hand to make the peace sign. The girls were thirteen years old at the time the picture was taken. D claimed that this image met the definition of child pornography because the girls were posed 'provocatively.' D promised to prosecute both girls on felony child-pornography charges if they did not agree to his conditions. D showed Jane Doe the photograph of her daughter Nancy. The photograph, more than a year old, showed Nancy Doe wrapped in a white, opaque towel. The towel was wrapped around her body, just below her breasts. It looked as if she had just emerged from the shower. Neither of these two photographs depicted any sexual activity. Neither showed the girls' genitalia or pubic area. D had refused repeated requests to provide Ps' counsel with copies of the pictures. D asserted that he could be charged with a child pornography crime for sharing a copy. The minors insist that they did not disseminate the photographs to anyone else, but that another person sent those pictures 'to a large group of people' without their permission.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co