Nanny Cams/child pornography

[pkbites]

I’m looking for some legal precedent on this. Specifically Wisconsin.
A PI friend of mine told me about a precarious situation he and one of his clients found themselves in.

They were concerned the baby sitter (teenager) may be being mean to their child so they had him set up some “nanny cams” in common areas of the house. To their horror things were far worse than they thought and it turned out the kid was being sexually abused.

The sitter, of course, has been fired, but the client wants prosecution. But they are concerned with the video as technically it’s child pornography. My friend has been dealing with his lawyer so he has been getting actual legal advice. They intend on going to the Sheriff before the end of today.

This story sounds like an urban legend, but I assure you it isn’t. I would think this isn’t the first time something like this has happened. Any cites are greatly appreciated.

[chacoguy]

For it to be considered porn, it needs be shown that the intent of the filming was for sexual stimulation. IANAL

[Johnny_L.A]

@chacoguy

For it to be considered porn, it needs be shown that the intent of the filming was for sexual stimulation. IANAL

That’s what I was going to say.

[Musicat]

@chacoguy

For it to be considered porn, it needs be shown that the intent of the filming was for sexual stimulation. IANAL

Cite?

[Johnny_L.A]

@Musicat

Cite?

IANAL, and don’t necessarily know where to look; but I did find this [emphasis mine]:

The representation in books, magazines, photographs, films, and other media of scenes of sexual behavior that are erotic or lewd and are designed to arouse sexual interest.

**Pornography is the depiction of sexual behavior that is intended to arouse sexual excitement in its audience. **

<snip>

In 1957, the U.S. Supreme Court, in ROTH V UNITED STATES, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498, stated that obscenity is “utterly without redeeming social importance” and therefore is not protected by the First Amendment. **The Roth test for obscenity is “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient [lewd or lustful] interest.” **

[Derleth]

Being accused of creating child pornography, on the other hand, knows no such restrictions:

You go on vacation to San Diego and take more than 100 photos of your three daughters, ages 5, 4 and 18 months. You also take seven or eight shots of your girls playing together at bathtime. Then you return home to Peoria, Ariz., bring your memory stick into Walmart for processing, and lose custody of your children because an employee finds the photos, decides they are pornographic, and alerts the police.

That is what Lisa and Anthony Demaree say happened to them last year. Accused of sexual abuse, they were not allow to see their girls for several days, and did not regain custody for a month while the state conducted an investigation, their lawyer told Arizona Republic reporter Dustin Gardiner.

I’m sure there have been other cases like this, but I can’t find them easily at the moment. No charges were brought but, in some respects, the damage had already been done.

[Colibri]

Since this concerns a specific legal situation, it’s best suited to IMHO.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[TriPolar]

I don’t see how the couple in the OP are any different than the photo lab who notifies the authorities.

[Flyer]

@TriPolar

I don’t see how the couple in the OP are any different than the photo lab who notifies the authorities.

I don’t know about you, but I would NOT want to assume that the relevant DA is that sensible. There’s an awful lot of unpleasantness in store for anybody who guesses wrongly.

[TriPolar]

@Flyer

I don’t know about you, but I would NOT want to assume that the relevant DA is that sensible. There’s an awful lot of unpleasantness in store for anybody who guesses wrongly.

Then they can engage an attorney. But the answer is not to hide evidence of a crime of this nature.

[pkbites]

@TriPolar

I don’t see how the couple in the OP are any different than the photo lab who notifies the authorities.

Because the photo lab didn’t intentionally set up the camera.

Update: I’ve heard nothing from my friend yet, so I don’t have any new info.

[TriPolar]

@pkbites

Because the photo lab didn’t intentionally set up the camera.

Update: I’ve heard nothing from my friend yet, so I don’t have any new info.

The camera wasn’t set up for the purpose of capturing pornographic images. No more so than the lab set up their processing equipment for that purpose.

[alphaboi867]

@pkbites

Because the photo lab didn’t intentionally set up the camera.

Update: I’ve heard nothing from my friend yet, so I don’t have any new info.

Say a gas station owner set’s up cameras in the back room because she think’s her employees are stealing stock. Then one night the clerk rapes 13 yr old girl in said backroom. Could the owner be arrested for making child pornography? Just like in the OP’s example it’s somebody setting up a camera to detect employee miscoduct, not thinking it would capture criminal sexual misconduct. If the owner (or the couple) don’t go to the police could they be charged with a crime for not reporting a crime?

[Wesley_Clark]

Any law enforcement or judicial official who isn’t a by the book moron is going to realize that isn’t CP. the problem is can you trust the police or prosecutors to have common sense to understand making evidence of abuse is not the same as creating a trophy of abuse? I don’t know. I would hope the majority do, but have no idea what minority % do not.

Never underestimate overaggressive morons.

[MandaJo]

@Wesley_Clark

Any law enforcement or judicial official who isn’t a by the book moron is going to realize that isn’t CP. the problem is can you trust the police or prosecutors to have common sense to understand making evidence of abuse is not the same as creating a trophy of abuse? I don’t know. I would hope the majority do, but have no idea what minority % do not.

Never underestimate overaggressive morons.

Does that mean you let a child molester go unreported?

If my child were molested by the babysitter, and I found out that not only had my neighbors known about his tendencies, but had photographic evidence of his crimes and had withheld that information for fear that an overzealous legal system might possibly cause problems for them . . . I can’t imagine my reaction.

[Wesley_Clark]

@MandaJo

Does that mean you let a child molester go unreported?

If my child were molested by the babysitter, and I found out that not only had my neighbors known about his tendencies, but had photographic evidence of his crimes and had withheld that information for fear that an overzealous legal system might possibly cause problems for them . . . I can’t imagine my reaction.

Based on your name I’m assuming you are a woman. As a woman you really don’t understand what it is like for men living in a society where everyone wants to throw the term ‘sex offender’ around as loosely as possible. Men generally don’t understand the feelings and fears women have about rape, but women probably don’t understand how men feel about being falsely labeled a sex offender. Women really don’t have to worry about that happening to them.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@pkbites

Update: I’ve heard nothing from my friend yet, so I don’t have any new info.

Your “update” is that you have no new, updated information?!?

[Oakminster]

Your friend has a lawyer, presumably licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction and knowledgeable in this area of law. What exactly is it you want from us?

[emeraldia]

This does sound like an urban legend. Whatever it is, it seems very silly to me. It’s obviously not child pornography and no D.A. in the world would ever file charges against your friend for it. I don’t care about the photo processing cases. What do you think an attorney is going to recommend to your friend? “Oh… well… you’re going to have to destroy that evidence. Yeah, it’s illegal. In fact, if it weren’t for attorney client privilege I would be obligated to turn you in.” Come on. Call the police, it’s going to be OK.

[emeraldia]

@Wesley_Clark

Based on your name I’m assuming you are a woman. As a woman you really don’t understand what it is like for men living in a society where everyone wants to throw the term ‘sex offender’ around as loosely as possible. Men generally don’t understand the feelings and fears women have about rape, but women probably don’t understand how men feel about being falsely labeled a sex offender. Women really don’t have to worry about that happening to them.

I agree with your sentiment, but it would be absurd to think a D.A. would file charges in this case. (assuming the OP’s friend is telling the truth (and/or the OP is telling the truth.))