Sexting, which is defined as distributing pictures of teens caught, via cameras in cells, in compromising positions, such as stepping out of the shower or other nude situations, and distributed via text messages is a new term that is being hotly debated in Pennsylvania these days. 

Two 13 year old girls were photographed in their panties and bras during the summer of 2007.  From there, the camera picture was forwarded to countless people.  The girls, including the two photographed and the one who took the picture, insisted it was nothing more than a typical girl’s sleepover.  The truth is, there are few women who don’t have similar memories from their own teenage years.  Whether it’s skinny dipping in the pool after the parents have gone to bed or goofy pictures taken with two inches of goop on our faces, rollers in our hair and robotic movements because we’ve painted our toes and don’t want to disturb that hard work, we all have pictures similar to that in long-forgotten scrapbooks.  The district attorney in Allentown begs to differ.  The ACLU has now asked a federal judge to block his attempts in filing charges against these three girls.

George Skumanick, Jr. the D.A. in Wyoming County, has promised to file felony charges (including child pornography) against the girls unless they participate in an after school program and then probation.  The girls and their parents are more than a little upset.  There was no intent to distribute these pictures (it’s not known how they got out), nor are they in any way indicative of child pornography.  The parents and ACLU are accusing Skumanick of abuse of authority.

Another girl and her lawyer has since came forward and joined the lawsuit.  She was threatened with the same repercussions when pictures surfaced of her as she stepped out of the shower. 

The district attorney’s office says its only goal is to protect these girls and educate them on the probabilities of the photos being “out there” forever.  Their offer of no charges being filed provided they attend sexual harassment, sexual violence and gender role courses simply isn’t flying with many.  The D.A. then goes on to say, “If we were just out to be nasty about this, we would have just charged everybody.”  He says the pictures weren’t as innocent as the parents are insisting they are; of course, he can’t show them because he’d then run the risk of being charged with a felony for distributing, in his words, child pornography. 

There is a definitive need for laws to protect kids - even from themselves - when it comes to sexting; this, however, appears to be overkill.  In fact, there are questions now being raised as to whether or not pictures of girls in bikinis are next, especially since it’s been said the bras and panties weren’t any more revealing than most bathing suits that grace the beaches.

In typical fashion of a thirteen year old girl, one laughs it off and says it was “an old grandma bra”.

We knew at some point DNA would be collected during every arrest, just as fingerprints are.  There are currently twelve states that collect DNA anytime anyone’s arrested for any crime.  Washington is attempting to become one of those states and insists swabbing a cheek is no more invasive than collecting

.

fingerprints.  The law currently allows for DNA to be collected only after a felony conviction and some misdemeanors and only after either a search warrant is obtained or permission from the accused.  The two bills now being considered include one that allows the DNA collection before one’s convicted but after formal charges are filed.  The other bill, of course, allows DNA samples be provided by suspects at the time of arrest. 

The ACLU says it’s unconstitutional and is preparing for a court battle.  Part of the controversy has to do with minors.  No one has to be notified nor will police have to wait until a juvenile’s parents or lawyers show up before demanding - and collecting - the sample. 

The plan is, provided either or both of these bills are passed, to send it to a national database via the FBI for comparison against any open cases.  If there are no matches, the sample should be destroyed.   That sounds reasonable, although it’s worth mentioning fingerprint cards aren’t destroyed and are kept on file indefinitely at police departments across the country.  Fingerprints identify or clear people every day.  It’s not considered an invasion on any level.  So is it equal footing?  Should there be a clause that demands destruction of DNA samples if they don’t send up red flags?

And what about the costs associated with these samples?  In Washington State, a single DNA test costs over $80.00 to process.  One graph shows two million dollars spent on DNA testing in only two years should either of these bills be passed.

Lawyers with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers say it’s unfair to demand these samples, that they reveal too much and should be considered an unreasonable search and seizure. 

Regardless of what happens, Washington, as well as most other states, is facing financial cutbacks and growing backlogs of samples waiting to be tested.

Think back to the early and mid-90s, when personal computers were really beginning to pop up on secretaries’ desks and throughout homes across the country. There were many discussions and fears based on how personal computers would be the downfall of the human race. Of course, we know the internet has its shortcomings and even very real dangers, but the human race is still only threatened by - well, the human race. As a whole, society is sometimes very resistant to change and if it’s something that can be challenged through any kind of court battle, the lines and swords are usually drawn. The latest resistance comes out of Vermont as lawmakers ponder changes that affect the state’s DNA databank. Some are proposing DNA be collected from those charged with crimes, versus the current law that says only those convicted of crimes are prone to contributing their genetic data to the DNA banks. The ACLU has weighed in with concerns that people who haven’t had their day in court and who are presumed innocent risk having their rights violated if they’re forced to provide DNA for the databanks. Further, they say even those who stand to be convicted on lesser charges, including misdemeanors, also risk their rights being violated if they’re forced to supply DNA prior to any convictions. Concerns are mounting over what to do with all of these collections that could be forced from innocent people.

Believe it or not, I tend to agree with this reasoning. Once this begins, where does it stop? Who’s to say a lab technician can’t be paid to match a couple of samples in an effort to find adopted children or biological parents? The possibilities are endless and the repercussions could be major if every potential problem isn’t addressed now. With that said, I also understand the general public’s right to safety. This is another point the ACLU is making - why would the public need to be protected from someone who hasn’t been convicted of anything? And too, what really happens to DNA collected from those simply charged and arraigned but never found guilty? Would there be guidelines in place to ensure these genetic blueprints are destroyed? And who’s the babysitter? Who ensures any future guidelines are followed? It seems as though technology is moving at faster paces with each new day; unfortunately, the laws can’t be written fast enough to address these advances. Still, is this any reason to not incorporate every scientific advance we can as we study the mysteries of the universe? These are all questions that must be addressed. We’re doing a huge disservice to the rights American citizens count on if we fall short of underestimating the power of DNA and the consequences of forcing samples from anyone. Think of it this way: There are two people, with the same job descriptions and the same Monday through Friday workdays, with families, mortgages and car payments. Citizen A is arrested and charged with an armed robbery. During his processing of taking fingerprints and mug shots, his cheek is swabbed for a DNA sample. A week later, the real robber turns himself in and charges are dropped against Citizen A. He returns to his predictable and normal life, but now, he’s as different from Citizen B as he could possibly be. Citizen B continues living his life and not feeling as though he’s been invaded, while Citizen A must now live with the fact a part of what makes him who he is floats through a state-run lab with the potential of an insurance company winning some future court case that allows it to use any DNA any state has collected over the years. Meanwhile, Citizen B has no problem buying a life insurance policy just as Citizen A is denied coverage because of a false identification made years earlier. Had there not been a DNA sample on file, he could expect the same approval process as Citizen B.

Clearly, this is yet again another one of those social dilemmas that have no easy answers; and it will most likely be hitting a court docket near you in the very near future.

Courtesy of FBI

The FBI is in the process of providing new or revised guidelines used for identifying and questioning potential suspects. These guidelines have more than raised a few eyebrows, especially with the ACLU. The primary change would allow the FBI to investigate any American without what’s now considered “just cause”. The guidelines also allow investigations based on one’s race. Brian Roehrkasse, who is the spokesperson for the Justice Department, said “It is simply not responsible to say that race may never be taken into account when conducting an investigation. The reality is that a number of criminal and terror groups have very strong ethnic associations.” My first impulse was similar to how I would handle someone plundering around my life looking for something to gossip about: “Have at it. You’d be better off just asking me, though. I’ll tell you the truth and I can assure you, the truth is far more interesting and makes for better gossip than anything you dig up on your own.”

But, after a little more thought, I realize the repercussions are far greater than the lonesome housewife’s gossip and how she lives vicariously through her neighbors’ comings and goings. Basically, if instated, these laws will allow the same latitudes afforded the FBI when investigating possible terrorism suspects. Most of us are likely to have the attitude of it not affecting anyone who has nothing to hide. And I agree. For the most part.

I was searching for a bank online last night because it’s such a pain for my current bank to grasp the concept of what PayPal is for. I’m all for a security question or two, but my current bank wants to know everything about me up to and including my shoe size. So, I find a nationally known bank with a branch within twenty miles of the house (I live in the country). I like the rates and the commercials on TV make me laugh. I know…that’s never a good enough reason, but still….they make me laugh.

I go through the process, verify the security features they have in place and then I go to log in for the very first time so that I can transfer money to this new account. There was one final security hoop I needed to jump through. They’d been relatively painless up until now. Predictable “pick your security question” processes. This final screen pops up and imagine my surprise when the question is: “Our records show that XXX XXXXX is well known to you. Where is this person’s current residence?” This is followed by four options of cities and states. And one of them is ACCURATE!! This person their records say I know is my sister!! Neither of us go by our maiden names - she’s married and I kept my married name after the divorce years ago. Now, there’d been no reference to my sister at all during my application process. And then I thought well, maybe she’s found some way to play a prank on me. Then I realize how crazy that sounds because a.) she had no idea I was changing banks and b.) this is the same sister who brought her report from one of her labs to me yesterday to “fix” because the columns didn’t line up and she needed it imported into a PowerPoint presentation. Bless her heart - she had no more idea of what PowerPoint is than I do of the subject of her presentation. So I know she wasn’t playing a prank on me. At some point since she got married ten years ago, our names got linked in some fashion and the result was a security question to verify MY identity! Go figure. It gets better. I clicked the little radio button with the correct answer, the little hourglass does its dance and the page loads and says (No…I’m NOT making this up!): We’re sorry, your answer does not match our records. Please contact customer service during normal business hours.

Last time I checked, my sister and I lived within about ten miles of each other, and as far as I know, she hasn’t relocated to Evanston, Indiana. I managed to laugh at this irony and chalked it up to the systems only being as good as the humans who input the information.

Now here I am posting about the FBI’s new guidelines and how’re they designed to further protect us. Then I remember the mistake in the banking system and I can’t help but think we can only be protected to the extent of the accuracy of information any law enforcement agency has. If these guidelines are approved, they will go into effect October 1.

*Business Case & Criminal Case for Lawyers in US and Lawyers in Canada.

*Find Business Lawyers, Criminal Lawyers, Family Lawyers, Employment Lawyers, DUI Lawyers from our services.