Of course it’s child porn if it actually shows stuff. And of course he isn’t going to be charged. Unless the DA/ASA is a moron - which his lawyer should know.
Teenagers have been charged with possession of child porn for having nude pictures of THEMSELVES. This is when they want to get the kids for something. The state (generally) doesn’t go around charging victims of crimes with crimes just cause they technically could. The priority here is getting the child molester.
DAs are elected in Wisconsin. Imagine how this story would play out in the media or anywhere at all ever.
Never underestimate what an over-zealous District Attorney is capable of. One DA pretty much single-handedly completely and utterly destroyed a relationship between my half-brother and his dad (my father too). A really sad, personal story that I really don’t feel comfortable airing out here in public but yeah, DAs can really fuck over innocent people.
Don’t mean to hijack but what the hell is a “PI friend”?
“politically incorrect”, “physically impaired”, “Pacific Islander”?
Private Investigator.
:smack:Oh, right. Duh. I think I should have figured that one out myself.
Carry on.
Can’t find the cite right now but turning such materials over to the police or DA in a timely manner (without keeping copies of course) releases you of any criminal liability. At least in my state.
*The state does not like making it easy to find cites about the law here in NJ. It’s partivlcularly hard to do so on my phone.
I was just looking to see if there were any precedents on cases like this. Thanks to those that offered or attempted to offer actual cites instead of opinions and speculations.
He doesn’t want to talk to much about whats going on for obvious reasons, but they have an appointment tomorrow to speak with someone in the DA’s office.
I picked up the phone yesterday morning to *“first camera install I’ve had in 3 years and guess what happens…!” * Back in the 80’s and 90’s he and I used to install cameras all the time (mostly for businesses trying to detect theft and drug use) to supplement our income as police officers. That was before cameras got so small and cheap and folks could do them themselves. I made a ton of money renting out my equipment and time lapse VCR’s. Then the technology jumped and the market dropped. Very few PI’s I know do many camera installs.
Anyway, with the nanny cam thing I would have thought there would have been more instances of something like this happening and was looking for some actual case law.
At the top of this thread there is a thing we at the SDMB call an “OP”.
Inside that OP there are details about the thread. This particular thread starts out with this line:
"I’m looking for some legal precedent on this. Specifically Wisconsin. "
So, I’m going to go out on a limb here and take a wild guess: the poster is looking for legal precedents on this, in Wisconsin.
Sometimes it’s very tricky to figure these threads out, but I think I got this one right.
And don’t forget that the one for your state is an ambitious partisan hack of dubious intelligence. “Caveat Pkbites”, as they say in Latinvia.
Here’s the exact text of wisconsin law on the issue (emphasis mine):
Whoever does any of the following* with knowledge of the character and content of the sexually explicit conduct** involving the child may be penalized under sub. (2p):
(a) Employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of recording or displaying in any way the conduct.
(b) Records or displays in any way a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct. *
The situation you describe fails the “with knowledge …” requirement.
Right, but it doesn’t matter if I understand. I mean, if a bus is barreling down on a kid, there’s a chance that my attempt to snatch him out of the way will lead to my maiming or death. But I still have a moral responsibility to risk it because there is a near certainty that he will die otherwise.
In the same way, if you have proof that the neighborhood babysitter is child molester, and it is nearly certain that he will molest other children, you have a moral responsibility to step forward, even if it means taking a very small risk that you will be unjustly accused and an even smaller risk that you will be unjustly convicted. That sucks. But I don’t see “But I didn’t want anyone to blame ME and there are a few cases in the news where something sorta not really like that happened” as a reason to let a child molester go.
It doesn’t matter how horrible the worst case scenario would be, or if I can imagine it. It’s still a slight risk vs a huge known damage to uncountable children.
It would take far more than dubious intelligence to prosecute someone for this. You’d have to be like aggressively out of your fucking mind.
Well I’m a man, and I agree with Manda JO.
Does anyone really think that “being fired” is adequate punishment for child sexual abuse? Since I don’t know how the system works, I (as the parent) would go straight to a lawyer to see how I could compel the PI to hand over the recording so I could go about starting the process to get the bastard babysitter in prison.
I don’t see law enforcement deciding on their own that this is child porn, but I can see that being the nanny’s defense. But IANAL.
Indeed.
I don’t think anyone here would have to look very hard to find glaring examples of someone being willfully and agressively out of their fucking minds in any context.
That said, and IANAL and all that. The camera wasn’t set up with the intent of recording CP. Nor was it set up where CP would have been a forseeable outcome. Everything should be fine with turning the recording over to the DA in a timely manner.
The flip side. Concealing or erasing the recording is guaranteed to bring down grief upon him. Destroying/tampering with evidence. Accessory after the fact. Impeding/interfering with an investigation. The list goes on.
WTF are you talking about? My friend is working with the parents on this.
And as a licensed PI he is required to report a felony, which he has done. He, his clients, and a sheriffs investigator are having a meeting with an ADA tomorrow about all this.
Wouldn’t the absence of case law just mean that so far, no DA has been insane enough to try to prosecute the parent/nanny cam operator who came to them with evidence?
Steven Powell (and many other stories if you wish to google), who is one of the most unlikeable humans you’ll ever hear of, was convicted of voyeurism but not of child pornography even though he had pictures of neighbor kids bathing in his bathtub. The State could not demonstrate that they were taken for a “sexual nature” and as such they didn’t have a case. So if there is not intent for sexual intent by the viewer/filmer/audience, there can be no charges (and believe me there was incredible pressure to throw the book at this guy in every way possible).
[I realize that this is just one case that exemplifies what many others upthread have said. But I don’t want to quote anyone or tie their username to a search term.]