Hottinger: Law didn't anticipate cell phone photo case

If teen convicted, judge would have flexibility on sex offender registration
By RUSS ZIMMER • Advocate Reporter • October 8, 2008

NEWARK -- A 15-year-old girl is accused of distributing nude photos of herself to other minors, and one state legislator is questioning whether she should be labeled a sex offender.


The Licking Valley High School student was arrested Friday after school officials discovered the materials and brought in the school's resource officer for a police investigation.

After spending the weekend incarcerated, she pleaded deny Monday to both charges: illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, a second-degree felony; and possession of criminal tools, a fifth-degree felony.

The child pornography charge for a convicted adult requires a Tier II sexual offender classification, but for a juvenile of this defendant's age, the judge has flexibility, said Jennifer Brindisi, a spokeswoman for the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation.

"There's a part of juvenile section of Senate Bill 10 (Ohio's version of the federal Adam Walsh Act) that says if the child is a first-time offender and age 14 or 15 that the judge can decide not to make her register," she said.

State Rep. Jay Hottinger, R-Newark, wrote the state's Megan's Law bill, the predecessor of the Adam Walsh Act, and said this case was not something the legislature envisioned.

"Clearly it was in an illegal act," he said Tuesday. "Clearly it was an unacceptable act, and there needs to be consequences from that, but we need to make sure the punishment is a reasonable punishment."

Licking County Prosecutor Ken Oswalt, who declined comment ahead of a written statement to be released today, had been visiting high schools in the county and educating teens on the consequences of such an action. Licking Valley High School was one of those stops.

During assemblies, Oswalt talked about the dangers, both in personal embarrassment and contribution to child pornography on the Internet.

He said in April his office had received about 20 cases involving questionable cell phone pictures. None were charged pending their adherence to a plan crafted with their families.

Licking County Assistant Prosecutor Erin Welch said Monday the investigation into the incident remains open, including exploring whether charges will be filed against the minors who received the photos.

If the prosecutor's office elects to bring those teens into court, they could be facing a different section of the same charge pending against the sender of the pictures and classification as sex offenders, as well.

According to Ohio law, 2907.323(A)(3) states anyone possessing material that shows a minor in a state of nudity is guilty of a fifth-degree felony. The violation also might qualify the juvenile as a Tier I sexual offender, which requires annual registration for a decade.

The section of the law the girl, who is a foster child, was charged with allows parents or guardians to take photos of their unclothed children for a list of acceptable purposes but does not provide an exemption for the child themselves.

Hottinger said the portions of the juvenile section of Ohio's Megan's Law, enacted in 2002 and replaced Jan. 1, were crafted to resemble their adult counterparts for good reason.

"What we're aiming at was a growing problem that we were seeing amongst juveniles and that was they were committing some very serious adult-like crimes," he said.

Brindisi said the Adam Walsh Act reduces much of the discretion allotted to judges in Megan's Law and transformed sex-offender classification to an offense-based system.

"It's pretty black and white," she said.

If the girl charged Monday is classified as a sexual offender, Brindisi said as a juvenile in this instance she would not be subject to publication on the public Web sites maintained by the Licking County Sheriff's Office or the state but would have to register for 20 years as the law states.

A status conference in her case is scheduled for Oct. 20. She is on house arrest and may not have a cell phone or access to the Internet without adult supervision and for no purpose other than school work.

Licking Valley Schools Superintendent Dave Hile said board policy calls for notification of certain staff members if a student or other individual labeled as a sex offender is on school grounds.

Calls to State Sen. Tim Schaffer and the girl's defense attorney were not returned.

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20081008/NEWS01/810080302
------------------------------------------------

Let ruin a kids life, due to making immature decisions... thats a great idea.

if it was a boy they probably would

possession of criminal tools?

Come on... You can't make a mistake a KID made last their whole life. I know when I was in high school I was doing all kinds of stuff, I had girls in the locker room and bathrooms doing a whole lot more than just looking at their pictures. Kids have sex wether people like it or not and it wasnt an adult showing pics to a kid, it was a kid with other kids.

yea, i read it a couple of times and i don't see the 'black and white'
yes she distributed to minors...but shes a minor herself
if it were an adult i could see the problem.

yes she should be punished...suspension from school or something along those lines, but registered sex offender?????

if the pictures were of herself

and she took them

then she did not commit a crime (or should not be considered a crime)

no one else was involved they should mind their own business

i may of missed it but they found the pictures in her possession can they prove she distributed them

this is a bit stupid on the part of the adults

if she is convicted it is going to open a big can of liberty infringements

it was not a smart thing for her to do agreed but she is a minor and any punishment and record there of should be removed at age 18

and what sexual act was performed

so a naked body is sex now

interesting

and

scary

From experience they do not remove the criminal background of a minor... and in fact a judge can look at the criminal background of you when you when you were a minor, but they can not use it against you when you are an adult. It can bias their opinion though. Being labeled a sex offender is the worst thing that you can be labeled and it would not be good for this girl.

another thought

these photos are being reviewed by who and how many


are they kiddie porn viewers now

and should they be registered

after all she is a kid and they have naked pictures of her


hhhhmmmmmmmmmmm

That is a great point! lmao.

if they give her adult punishment as a kid

does that make her an adult

being eligable to drive smoke and drink vot join armed forces

just a thought

but hey

what do i know

She committed a crime when she sent the pics via a cell phone.

I don't like the idea of letting her off because she is a girl.

But I don't think kids being kids, making stupid decisions, should be criminalized. It's crazy to charge these kids as sex offenders at all.

If there was a third party, say a girl took pictures of another girl in the school shower without her knowledge, and then distributed them to others yes charge the girl who took the pics.

The sex crime registry, while well intentioned, just isn't working. You have kids, Romeo and Juliet types on the same lists with violent criminal offenders.

That isn't right.

Criminal offenders, violent child abusers, kidnappers and child molesters should not be on a registry. They shouldn't be allowed out of prison. Ever

*edit* I need to add this. This country seems to be deep in morals police types. Is it the influence of the church? Personally I think so but I am not going to try to prove it.

I have an Aussie friend that frequently remarks on the U.S.'s sort of split personality when it comes to sex. Sex sells products, citizens spend huge amounts of money on porn, swinging and sex sites among the most visited on the web but...the shame on you you are going to hell types are out there doing crap like this.

Sometimes I think the shame on you types are just that way because they need to get laid themselves. Who knows?