Police dropped from topless tot complaint

HABitual
09-24-2003, 04:45 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/24/walmart.photo.suit.ap/index.html

A warning to parents: Keep your kids clothes on at ALL TIMES or the police will arrest you!

Note: I don't condone the actions of these police arresting her at all.

buzzard
09-24-2003, 04:58 PM
Oh, that's just so insane!! I guess now parents need to quit taking pictures of their naked babies on bear rugs. And they use the word "reasonable", that's just bs. Oh, I want to say more, but they'd ban me for what I want to say. :rant:

The G Man
09-24-2003, 04:58 PM
She wasn't arrested. She was interrogated by the police.

I find nothing wrong with the actions of the photo place or the police. Seems to me they handled things absolutely perfectly.

garry1221
09-24-2003, 05:37 PM
can we say insane??? completely nuts, now i guess parents can't let their little tots go outside in their wading pool to play, of course toddlers are going to play, and like any other toddler they're gonna say to themselves 'i don't like what i've got on, time to take it off' ... and god forbid a mother/father think it's cute and want to take a picture of it ... now if it were a public pool w/ a bunch of other ppl around, that's another story, but im guessing this was a private pool in their own yard, the photo ppl musta been on drugs or something, you know parents are going to take whatever pic they find cute or adorable, it's just insane and i believe my thoughts are the same as buzzard's so im gonna quit before i get banned as well

The G Man
09-24-2003, 05:43 PM
How are the photo people supposed to know its innocent? How do they know some stranger didn't snap the photo? You read in the papers everyday horror stories about what happens to children and in a great many of them there is always someone who at some point of time should have had a clue or should have triggered something to happen but didn't.

Bravo for the photo people. And bravo for the police. This woman should be smacked for suing them. As a parent I'd feel a whole lot better knowing folks were looking out for my kids.

The G Man
09-24-2003, 05:48 PM
Why don't you condone the actions?
Thats because he didn't read his own story. He thought the police actually arrested this woman, when they did not. She was allowed to leave.

You all agree on this ... except me.

buzzard
09-24-2003, 05:50 PM
How are the photo people supposed to know its innocent? How do they know some stranger didn't snap the photo? You read in the papers everyday horror stories about what happens to children and in a great many of them there is always someone who at some point of time should have had a clue or should have triggered something to happen but didn't.

Bravo for the photo people. And bravo for the people. This woman should be smacked. As a parent I'd feel a whole lot better knowing folks were looking out for my kids.

Yeah and you hear about innocent people being accused of being child molesters who didn't do anything wrong. It happens all the time when a kid gets pi--ed at someone and decides to get them in trouble, not realizing what the consequences of those lies will do to someones life. Just cause the woman took a picture of her kid in the swimming pool, she should be smacked? G Man, that's about the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. How come it's always the mothers fault anyway? Or, are you just playing devils advocate to find out how people will react to your comments?

Bring_Bak_Damphousse
09-24-2003, 05:58 PM
How are the photo people supposed to know its innocent? How do they know some stranger didn't snap the photo?
.

That`s actually a very good point, But I think if you`ve got 1 or 2 pictures of a topless kid running around a swimming pool, plus about 20 others pictures of various family events in most cases it shouldn`t be something worth investigating. It`s good to know that some people are looking out for the kids though. :dunno:

The G Man
09-24-2003, 06:05 PM
Yeah and you hear about innocent people being accused of being child molesters who didn't do anything wrong.
She wasn't accused of anything. She was asked about the photos and allowed to leave.

just cause the woman took a picture of her kid in the swimming pool, she should be smacked? G Man, that's about the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
No. She should be smacked for SUING them. She's just out to make a buck. Thats all.

How come it's always the mothers fault anyway? Or, are you just playing devils advocate to find out how people will react to your comments?
Um, I didn't see the father's name mentioned in the article.

HABitual
09-24-2003, 06:14 PM
Thats because he didn't read his own story. He thought the police actually arrested this woman, when they did not. She was allowed to leave.

You all agree on this ... except me.

Don't put words into my mouth. I don't condone the actions of the police because they had no evidence to proove the parent was abusing their kid. Just taking a picture is not proof enough. If it is then it should be illegal to take such a picture.

garry1221
09-24-2003, 06:16 PM
She wasn't accused of anything. She was asked about the photos and allowed to leave.


No. She should be smacked for SUING them. She's just out to make a buck. Thats all.


Um, I didn't see the father's name mentioned in the article.

she was allowed to leave, but she wasn't allowed to take the pictures which is just stupid, obviously what she told the police was enough for them to let her go on her way, with that IMO she had a right to take the pictures... wouldn't THAT be a story for the grandkids ....'and these are the pics that idiot at the photoshop thought were pervish and he/she called the cops on me' .... she should be applauded for suing, it's just downright stupid, it's one thing if the kid looked to not be having fun, but im guessing the pics had the child smilling and having fun in the water, however if the kid wasn't smilling or looked to be scared it's another story.....

The G Man
09-24-2003, 06:20 PM
Don't put words into my mouth. I don't condone the actions of the police because they had no evidence to proove the parent was abusing their kid. Just taking a picture is not proof enough. If it is then it should be illegal to take such a picture.
Again ... you will note that they did not arrest her as you stated in your initial post and which you still seem to be under the impression about. Instead employees at Walmart saw these photos and were significantly concerned about them that they called the police. What are the police supposed to do? Blow them off? No. They respond to the call and question the parent as to what the hell is going on. And thats it. Noone gets arrested. Nothing.

HABitual
09-24-2003, 06:23 PM
Again ... you will note that they did not arrest her as you stated in your initial post and which you still seem to be under the impression about. Instead employees at Walmart saw these photos and were significantly concerned about them that they called the police. What are the police supposed to do? Blow them off? No. They respond to the call and question the parent as to what the hell is going on. And thats it. Noone gets arrested. Nothing.

I realize in our society that most of us associate nudity with sexuality and this is why the police felt they had to get involved but realistically it's harmless and there should be more evidence of possible abuse before police try to get involved.

Dr Love
09-24-2003, 06:25 PM
It took place in Kansas, I wonder what AvFan#21 has to say about this.

I don't see anything wrong either, the police were seeing if there was child abuse. I think parents would feel good that the police actively look out for such things.

The G Man
09-24-2003, 06:26 PM
im guessing the pics had the child smilling and having fun in the water,
Well, you don't know. And neither do I. The folks at Walmart did though and it was enough to spook them into calling the police. So based upon THAT I'm gonna GUESS it is not so obvious that it was an innocent photo.

Let me ask you ... what are the Walmart employees supposed to do if they are suffieciently concerned about a photo such as this? It would appear from the response of the people here that they should do nothing.

And in the event they call the police, what should the police do? Again, it would appear to be the opinon of the people here that the police too should do nothing.

Peter Griffin
09-24-2003, 06:26 PM
I realize in our society that most of us associate nudity with sexuality and this is why the police felt they had to get involved but realistically it's harmless and there should be more evidence of possible abuse before police try to get involved.

But it's not harmless. It's harmless when they realized that it was a mother taking pictures of her kids, but what if it was a pedophile? I actually agree somewhat with Kosmo on this one.

The G Man
09-24-2003, 06:27 PM
I realize in our society that most of us associate nudity with sexuality and this is why the police felt they had to get involved but realistically it's harmless and there should be more evidence of possible abuse before police try to get involved.
The police were called by concerned citizens that there was something wrong and that a child may be in danger.

Given that, what would you suggest the police do exactly?

HABitual
09-24-2003, 06:30 PM
The police were called by concerned citizens that there was something wrong and that a child may be in danger.

Given that, what would you suggest the police do exactly?

Honestly I don't know but interrogating somebody without evidence is just wrong.

The G Man
09-24-2003, 06:32 PM
Honestly I don't know but interrogating somebody without evidence is just wrong.
Why can the police not question someone?

And actually there was evidence.

Dr Love
09-24-2003, 06:32 PM
She was questioned, not interrogated. Interrogated implies she was taken to the local precinct and questioned under survellance.

HABitual
09-24-2003, 06:32 PM
But it's not harmless. It's harmless when they realized that it was a mother taking pictures of her kids, but what if it was a pedophile? I actually agree somewhat with Kosmo on this one.

I realize the dilemma the police are in but, whether or not the parent(s) are paedophiles, it's still humiliating for them.

Sudz
09-24-2003, 06:33 PM
Don't put words into my mouth. I don't condone the actions of the police because they had no evidence to proove the parent was abusing their kid. Just taking a picture is not proof enough. If it is then it should be illegal to take such a picture.

So because they had no evidence they should not have responded to the call they got from the photo shop? The cops did their damn job. There was a complaint and they investigated because they have to. The women was interrogated and released when no evidence was found that the child had been abused. The cops didn't beat her, she wasn't sent to prision so what's the big deal. If the cops didn't respond to the call and the child was actually being abused you would be crying that the police were not doing their job, right? But since you can't cry that they were not doing their job, your crying that they did their job, right? This is just a money grab for the mother and I hope it get's thrown out. God forbid that someone has the nerve to look out for a child.

HABitual
09-24-2003, 06:34 PM
Why can the police not question someone?

And actually there was evidence.

If you think that the picture of the kid bein partially naked is evidence then I disagree. If that were the case then public nudity should be outlawed in all forms.

The G Man
09-24-2003, 06:34 PM
I realize the dilemma the police are in but, whether or not the parent(s) are paedophiles, it's still humiliating for them.
It's only humiliating for them now that they've brought it to the press.

The police are alerted to a possible felony pedophilia situation against a child and they should not be allowed to question the parents?

Peter Griffin
09-24-2003, 06:36 PM
I realize the dilemma the police are in but, whether or not the parent(s) are paedophiles, it's still humiliating for them.

I agree it's humiliating, but they have to deal with it. The cops were doing their job. Besides, who made this situation public? The parents...

Dr Love
09-24-2003, 06:37 PM
If you think that the picture of the kid bein partially naked is evidence then I disagree. If that were the case then public nudity should be outlawed in all forms.

We have no idea what the photo shows. The picture could, to a person who wasn't there when the photo was taken, appear to be something it isn't. Maybe the kid was being picked up and from the angle and the exact moment the photo was taken it looks like something it shouldn't.

The G Man
09-24-2003, 06:37 PM
If you think that the picture of the kid bein partially naked is evidence then I disagree.
Wha??? Um, how would it not be evidence???

Jewelly
09-24-2003, 06:58 PM
I think that if the mom or anyone for that matter was serious about taking kiddie porn pics they wouldn't take their film to WALMART or any other public photo-finishing place.

Ever heard of dark rooms, Polaroids and digital cameras? :rolleyes:

All around ridiculous incident imo.

Edit: Forgot to mention that I hope the parents get the pics back... Walmart pics up the bill. That's what Judge Judy would say. :p

Dr Love
09-24-2003, 07:03 PM
I think that if the mom or anyone for that matter was serious about taking kiddie porn pics they wouldn't take their film to WALMART or any other public photo-finishing place.

Ever heard of dark rooms, Polaroids and digital cameras? :rolleyes:

All around ridiculous incident imo.

People have done much much dumber though. Never underestimate the stupidity of humans.

ShootOut
09-24-2003, 07:07 PM
Dragone is seeking damages of $262,473 for medical expenses and pain and suffering.


Only 262,473$ for a police interrogation? I'd ask four times that sum!


Some people are just too reasonable... :o

Vyacheslav
09-24-2003, 07:59 PM
Just buy a digital camera and photo paper for the printer.

dempsey_k*
09-24-2003, 08:03 PM
Did anybody else's parents videotape them in the tub ? And get mad at them when they urinated in the tub at 2 years old ?

vitogor
09-25-2003, 01:09 AM
I think that if the mom or anyone for that matter was serious about taking kiddie porn pics they wouldn't take their film to WALMART or any other public photo-finishing place.

Ever heard of dark rooms, Polaroids and digital cameras? :rolleyes:

All around ridiculous incident imo.



I think Jewelly is right on. Also, here is some breaking news for you: topless 3-year-old girls look exactly the same as topless 3-year-old boys, except facial features and hair. I hope it's OK for parents to take pictures of their topless 3-year-old boys playing in the pool without making people suspicious :rolleyes:

On the other hand, we haven't seen the pictures in question, so we shouldn't judge anybody. I agree with Dr. Love, might have been a bad angle, might have looked like something it wasn't. The cops did the right thing- they got a complaint, they have to investigate it. Personally, I think some sitizens are overly concerned these days, those people should mind their own business. We see way too many ridiculous incidents because of that.

HABitual
09-25-2003, 02:36 AM
It's only humiliating for them now that they've brought it to the press.

The police are alerted to a possible felony pedophilia situation against a child and they should not be allowed to question the parents?

Assuming that there is abuse just because the child is naked is a broad assumption. It's not emough evidence of possible child abuse just because the child is naked. If that were the case then all the people wh o go to nudist resorts with their kids should be not be legally allowed to take pictures of their kids.

The G Man
09-25-2003, 03:34 AM
I think that if the mom or anyone for that matter was serious about taking kiddie porn pics they wouldn't take their film to WALMART or any other public photo-finishing place.
Happens all the time.

The G Man
09-25-2003, 03:37 AM
It's not emough evidence of possible child abuse just because the child is naked.
And you will note (AGAIN) that noone was arrested. The police did what they were supposed to do. The system worked.

HABitual
09-25-2003, 03:46 AM
Happens all the time.

I don't recall any incidence of a parent being arrested for posessing kiddie porn when they went to a Wal Mart or other commercial film developer. Care to enlighten me?

The G Man
09-25-2003, 03:50 AM
I don't recall any incidence of a parent being arrested for posessing kiddie porn when they went to a Wal Mart or other commercial film developer. Care to enlighten me?
Of course I don't have specific examples at my fingertips and I'm not about to go and google anything having to do with "kiddie porn" but take my word on it. One of the cases involved the guy taking the wrong film in to be developed. I distinctly recall it was one of those little drive thru photo booth places. If I find something on it though, I will let you know.

HABitual
09-25-2003, 03:53 AM
Of course I don't have specific examples at my fingertips and I'm not about to go and google anything having to do with "kiddie porn" but take my word on it. One of the cases involved the guy taking the wrong film in to be developed. I distinctly recall it was one of those little drive thru photo booth places. If I find something on it though, I will let you know.

Well, maybe it has happened but still assuming that there is child abuse just because the child is naked is an unjustified means to question the ability of the parent(s) to do their job.

The G Man
09-25-2003, 04:08 AM
Well, maybe it has happened but still assuming that there is child abuse just because the child is naked is an unjustified means to question the ability of the parent(s) to do their job.
What would you suggest the police have done different here? Aside from give the photos back that is? You seem to imply that they should not have spoken to the parents even.

HABitual
09-25-2003, 05:01 AM
What would you suggest the police have done different here? Aside from give the photos back that is? You seem to imply that they should not have spoken to the parents even.

I'm not sure what they should have done differently but it's without reasonable and probable grounds to think that a picture of a nude child denotes child abuse and why should they not give back the pictures? If there was no intended abuse then giving back the pictures won't hurt the child.

canadahockeygirl*
09-25-2003, 05:29 AM
It seems to me that 3 is old enough to have on a bathingsuit while playing out back in the pool.

Dar
09-25-2003, 07:38 AM
I see both ends of this story. The lawsuit is a drastic action and more likely than not an attempt to gauge money from the world's largest retailer, I mean, c'mon how much trauma can one person suffer from being questioned. The cops were simply doing their job, they are required to respond to any calls of the like, ESPECIALLY when it has to do with suspected child abuse.

HOWEVER, this woman has every right to file a complaint and at the very least demand that the employee(s) in question be removed from their job. If there were any indications of abuse or suspicious looking activity, do you not think that would have been published other than "their" lawyer claims. If the judge felt that there was any indication of this he would have dropped the case against Walmart as well as the police, but he didn't, he understood the cops position and duty and dismissed them, but somehow he feels there is enough of a case against Walmart (albeit extensive).

Just last week on America's Funniest Home videos there was a clip sent in of two young girls (looked to be between 2-3 yrs old) in a bathtub, fully exposed from the waist up where one of them put her head under the water when the other one went "oops, I pee peed". This was also the winner of a previous 10K show in the finals. Where was the outcry there? I mean you've got two young girls in the tub on video tape, sounds a hell of a lot more like something that can be interpreted as kiddie porn more so than a picture of a topless child splashing around in a back yard mini pool.

Just MO though.

Peter Griffin
09-25-2003, 07:47 AM
I mean you've got two young girls in the tub on video tape, sounds a hell of a lot more like something that can be interpreted as kiddie porn more so than a picture of a topless child splashing around in a back yard mini pool.

But then again, nobody knows what the picture looked like. It could of looked a lot more harmful than it actually was, but we'll never know.

Dar
09-25-2003, 08:32 AM
But then again, nobody knows what the picture looked like. It could of looked a lot more harmful than it actually was, but we'll never know.

Actually I've just done a search and there were two photos in question. One of the child "playing" in water in the back garden with the father in the shot and the other a picture of the child lying tummy down on a rug with her bare bum exposed. Neither were deemed to express any kind of abuse or sexual exploitation when the photos were passed to Saline County Attorney Ellen Mitchell and no charges were layed as against the mother.
It's not the first time Walmart has been sued for breach of privacy or embarrasement caused by the photo developing studios.
In 1998 a Minesota Supreme Court ruled against Walmart for violation of privacy when two women had photos developed of them joking around in the shower. The photos were never given to the women but later made their way around Moorehead State University Campus.
In 1993 a Phoenix woman sued and won a similar case were "explicit" photos of her were passed around a local bar, again developed by Wal-Mart.
In 1999 a woman aspiring to be a model discovered that Wal-Mart had printed topless photos of her and the developer later passed around the prints Southern University Campus in Baton Rouge, the woman was awarded $7,000.00 in damages.

Now, these may be of a different nature than the original ones we're talking about but they still show the level of incompetence displayed by some Wal-Mart photo developing stations. In the case in question, the developer took it upon himself to immediately contact the police instead of following the usual protocol of first contacting management to confer whether or not they are deemed to be suspicious.

Peter Griffin
09-25-2003, 08:52 AM
In 1998 a Minesota Supreme Court ruled against Walmart for violation of privacy when two women had photos developed of them joking around in the shower. The photos were never given to the women but later made their way around Moorehead State University Campus.
In 1993 a Phoenix woman sued and won a similar case were "explicit" photos of her were passed around a local bar, again developed by Wal-Mart.
In 1999 a woman aspiring to be a model discovered that Wal-Mart had printed topless photos of her and the developer later passed around the prints Southern University Campus in Baton Rouge, the woman was awarded $7,000.00 in damages.

Now, these may be of a different nature than the original ones we're talking about but they still show the level of incompetence displayed by some Wal-Mart photo developing stations.

They're completely different.

In the case in question, the developer took it upon himself to immediately contact the police instead of following the usual protocol of first contacting management to confer whether or not they are deemed to be suspicious.

Are you sure about that? Are you sure that it wasn't the manager that phoned the police? In any case, the Wal-mart staff felt that it was a situation that was beyond them and believed that the police needed to be contacted. I fail to see how this warrants a law-suit...

Dar
09-25-2003, 10:02 AM
I fail to see how this warrants a law-suit...

Not saying that. As I stated I felt that the lawsuit is nothing more than a attempt at riches on behalf of the mother.

avfan#21
09-25-2003, 10:55 AM
I don't know how the police operate in Habitual's world but here in Kansas, you have a complaint, you follow it up. period. The police in question did their job the way it is supposed to be done. The woman was brought in, INTERVIEWED not interrogated, two different words with two different meanings, at least in police work. There was no case and she was allowed to go on her way. Look folks, most cops take child pornography very seriously. As we all should. The questionable part in my mind is whether the photos would have been admissable if it had indeed been child pornography. Those of you who think that it would be stupid for someone to do that at a public photo development shop obviously haven't been in law enforcement. A vast majority of the people who get caught for these types of crimes are caught because of something stupid they've done. Around here it is commonly known that all photo places preview the first and last photos in a roll. Any nudity involved in those photos usually results in the film not being processed. Companies like Walmart pride themselves in their family atmosphere and I suspect that is one reason this was done. A conundrum to be sure, if this was your kid being photographed by some perv wouldn't you want the clerk to turn it in? I know I would.

HABitual
09-25-2003, 12:10 PM
I don't know how the police operate in Habitual's world but here in Kansas, you have a complaint, you follow it up. period. The police in question did their job the way it is supposed to be done. The woman was brought in, INTERVIEWED not interrogated, two different words with two different meanings, at least in police work. There was no case and she was allowed to go on her way. Look folks, most cops take child pornography very seriously. As we all should. The questionable part in my mind is whether the photos would have been admissable if it had indeed been child pornography. Those of you who think that it would be stupid for someone to do that at a public photo development shop obviously haven't been in law enforcement. A vast majority of the people who get caught for these types of crimes are caught because of something stupid they've done. Around here it is commonly known that all photo places preview the first and last photos in a roll. Any nudity involved in those photos usually results in the film not being processed. Companies like Walmart pride themselves in their family atmosphere and I suspect that is one reason this was done. A conundrum to be sure, if this was your kid being photographed by some perv wouldn't you want the clerk to turn it in? I know I would.

Where I come from the police the same way. The problem in this story is that there is the assumption a nude child equals child porn.

ginner classic
09-25-2003, 02:25 PM
What would you suggest the police have done different here? Aside from give the photos back that is? You seem to imply that they should not have spoken to the parents even.

I don't think the police hd any right to humiliate the parents at all. No they should not have talked to her. There must be some definition of what constitutes pornography? It would be obvious to any parent the nature of the pictures if they were in fact obvious....I think it is sick the degree to which western society has sexualized nudity. The police made the mistake IMO not the store. They should not have questioned her. I cannot believe she dropped the suit against the cops....I certainly would have carried on with it. The people in the store were doing their job, the police were just being foolish. Not giving the photos to her was also sick. It's her f___ing child! Just because she was not arrested does not make it OK that police interrogated her, especially for half an hour. Totally wrong.

Same rules apply to any defamation suit...you cannot even accuse someone of shoplifting unless you saw them pocket the item, never lost sight of them, and then watch them leave the store. These kinds of laws are there for the protection of people from false accusations, same should apply in this case.

If a storeoner did not like the look of me and accused me of shoplifting I would certainly sue them. I hope she wins.

Dr Love
09-25-2003, 02:32 PM
Where I come from the police the same way. The problem in this story is that there is the assumption a nude child equals child porn.

Again, we have no idea what the picture looks like, you're basing this all on an assumption. The police and WalMart were proactive, they should be praised, not blasted. If another picture goes through that is child porn and the same thing happens, the community will say "thank god that WalMart and the police acted the way they did."

dempsey_k*
09-25-2003, 03:23 PM
So I guess this means nobody else's parents videotaped them whizzing in the tub when they were 2 ? Amateurs.

Dr Love
09-25-2003, 03:45 PM
So I guess this means nobody else's parents videotaped them whizzing in the tub when they were 2 ? Amateurs.

There's a picture of me as a baby in the bathtub with my dog. That's two strikes right there.

Gee Wally
09-25-2003, 03:57 PM
The police were called by concerned citizens that there was something wrong and that a child may be in danger.

Given that, what would you suggest the police do exactly?

that's good enough for me...

As an admittedly very protective father of 3 little kids...

I'd much rather have somebody err for a moment on the side of conservatism and then clear it up later...

Oh.. I didn't read the story since my opinion on this type of thing wouldn't change.

garry1221
09-25-2003, 03:59 PM
Again, we have no idea what the picture looks like, you're basing this all on an assumption. The police and WalMart were proactive, they should be praised, not blasted. If another picture goes through that is child porn and the same thing happens, the community will say "thank god that WalMart and the police acted the way they did."


correct me if im wrong, but if im an employee of a photoshop and i see pics come through of a child playing in a pool, and before you say i don't know what the pics look like i'll say im just going by what the article says: which included a picture of her daughter playing topless in a swimming pool.

now everything i recall has always had a child happy, smiling, and giggling/laughing while PLAYING .... if it were anything else like most children the little girl in question, as many other children, would more than likely look sad, shaken, and scared, and there's a BIG difference in the faces of those two looks

also as i mentioned earlier, obviously the police didn't have reason to believe it was kiddieporn or anything sick and twisted like that because they let the mother leave,.... therefore they had in their minds that this was not a case of kiddieporn and the pictures SHOULD HAVE been returned, if there was still doubts in the cops minds about it then they shouldn't have let the mother go, the mother has every right to sue for pain and suffering, emotional distress, or what have you

avfan#21
09-25-2003, 04:05 PM
I don't think the police hd any right to humiliate the parents at all. No they should not have talked to her. There must be some definition of what constitutes pornography? It would be obvious to any parent the nature of the pictures if they were in fact obvious....I think it is sick the degree to which western society has sexualized nudity. The police made the mistake IMO not the store. They should not have questioned her. I cannot believe she dropped the suit against the cops....I certainly would have carried on with it. The people in the store were doing their job, the police were just being foolish. Not giving the photos to her was also sick. It's her f___ing child! Just because she was not arrested does not make it OK that police interrogated her, especially for half an hour. Totally wrong.

Same rules apply to any defamation suit...you cannot even accuse someone of shoplifting unless you saw them pocket the item, never lost sight of them, and then watch them leave the store. These kinds of laws are there for the protection of people from false accusations, same should apply in this case.

If a storeoner did not like the look of me and accused me of shoplifting I would certainly sue them. I hope she wins.


Again you confuse interrogation with interview, they are two separate things. Once a complaint is filed then the police HAVE to follow up. You come in willingly for an interview, and you don't for an interrogation. You can walk away from an interview at any time it is your right. If you feel you are being charged with a crime you have the right to remain silent. You have a right to an attorney at an interrogation. That's what Miranda laws are all about. As for defamation, no charges were filed so you can throw that out the window. You aren't being accused in an interview, they are testing to see if there is a case. Not knowing the consquences in which the photos were taken, especially with nude children in them, they are bound by law to follow up and find out what's up. You're hung up on accusation in which there was none, accusation means charges, and none were filed. The reason she dropped the suit against the cops was simply, she didn't have grounds. You won't be very successful in a lawsuit suing the police for doing their job. Believe me, 99% of the cases you ever heard about had cops walking on egg shells trying to maintain the rights of the individual. I dunno about Canada, but here it's stomped into your head. Rights and Liability are two things cops are drilled about almost daily.

I dunno whether I'll change your mind or not on this but they were by the book at least as far as Kansas law goes.

Dr Love
09-25-2003, 04:05 PM
Yes, the kid was playing, I realize that. But that's still not very descriptive. I've seen little kids play and it could look like anything. For example, one time a 5 year old boy took the head of a similar aged girl and pushed her head into his crotch. He had no idea what he was doing, but that didn't change the fact it looked wrong.

avfan#21
09-25-2003, 04:30 PM
correct me if im wrong, but if im an employee of a photoshop and i see pics come through of a child playing in a pool, and before you say i don't know what the pics look like i'll say im just going by what the article says:

now everything i recall has always had a child happy, smiling, and giggling/laughing while PLAYING .... if it were anything else like most children the little girl in question, as many other children, would more than likely look sad, shaken, and scared, and there's a BIG difference in the faces of those two looks

also as i mentioned earlier, obviously the police didn't have reason to believe it was kiddieporn or anything sick and twisted like that because they let the mother leave,.... therefore they had in their minds that this was not a case of kiddieporn and the pictures SHOULD HAVE been returned, if there was still doubts in the cops minds about it then they shouldn't have let the mother go, the mother has every right to sue for pain and suffering, emotional distress, or what have you


Wrong. I could have reasonable suspicion that your an international drug dealer and you couldn't be held. You have to be able to prove something without reasonable doubt to charge someone. I could go thru my entire county and tell you who the drug dealers are, but knowin and provin are two different animals. If you hold someone on the mere basis of suspicion you'd; 1. get your ass sued off 2. get your ass sued off. You can hold someone for a reasonable amount of time but then you gotta charge them or let them go. You can't say well we want you to stay here in the jail until we can prove you were a criminal. Jeezus Christ you guys watch too much tv. As for the pictures, they can be withheld depending on circumstances. It could be law that it's unlawful for anyone to be in possession of those types of pictures, parents or not. They could be filed away for a pending investigation, because they weren't totally convinced but didn't have enough background to go on? who knows?


Also three year olds who are having pictures taken of them for pornographic photos don't necessarily understand that being naked and having your picture taken can be a bad thing. I've been in investigations where the principle involved posed as they were asked. This isn't always a gun to the head thing. I was in on a case where one of the principles was considerably underage and was consenting to it, knowing full well what was going on and not bothered by it in the slightest. You just can't look and say yep that's the real mccoy.

dempsey_k*
09-25-2003, 08:34 PM
There's a picture of me as a baby in the bathtub with my dog. That's two strikes right there.

In the tub with the dog ? Eww. So hairy.