A teen, under investigation because of a consensual sext (sexual texting) to his 15 year old girl friend “may be forced to have an erection in front of police as evidence in the case” (thinkprogress.org). Because his girlfriend sexed him back he is charged of possession of child pornography and manufacturing pornography because he taped a video of himself (thinkprogress.org).
The teen’s penis has already been taken, but the police wanted to recreate the act in the video by forcefully injecting something in order to make the boy erect (think progress.org). Thank goodness, because of public outcry they did not!
Though I do not condone the actions of the teen, I don’t condone the intended actions of the police in question either. If the police did continue with their original plan, what the police wanted to do was illegal. First, the police would have violated the 4th amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. What is the purpose of recreating the act, if not to humiliate the teen? They claimed their cause of this search is to “to compare his erect penis to that in the video found on his phone” (same website). But, they already have the evidence of the video, what more tangible proof do they need to convict the teen? Were the police in question not sure if the got the right guy? If not they should be retrained, because the police are supposed to be very competent people, which most of them are. So the answer the police in question gave was not a very good reason.
Furthermore, they were going to violate a person’s privacy, which can be interpreted in the 9th and 10th amendments. By invading the teen’s private parts was not only humiliating and dehumanizing but a invasion of privacy, hence the name ‘private parts’! “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” -Joseph N. Welch, lawyer
Lastly, the police would have commited the same crimes they charged the teen with. That is manufacturing and possessing child pornography. According to “Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor” (www.justice.gov). In English,by taking a picture of or a video of the teen erecting (doing a sexually arousing act) is considered manufacturing child porno, and if they manufactured it, they would have possessed it.
Again, I am relieved they did not do it.