SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in favor of a Virginia man who, as a teen, was once ordered by a lower court to be photographed while masturbating in the presence of armed police officers.
That warrant was ostensibly part of an ongoing sexting investigation into the then-teen, Trey Sims, who had exchanged explicit messages with his then-15-year-old girlfriend. Her mother reported the incident to the Manassas City Police Department in January 2014.
Eventually, the detective assigned to the case, David Abbott, obtained a signed warrant to take photographs of Sims' naked body—including "the suspect's erect penis"—so that he could compare them to Sims' explicit messages.
[...] The 4th Circuit ruled that Sims' lawsuit against the estate of the now-deceased officer who had led the sexting investigation, David Abbott, could move forward. "We cannot perceive any circumstance that would justify a police search requiring an individual to masturbate in the presence of others," two of the 4th Circuit judges wrote. "Sexually invasive searches require that the search bear some discernible relationship with safety concerns, suspected hidden contraband, or evidentiary need."
The case will now be sent back down to a federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday December 08 2017, @10:17PM (11 children)
From TFA:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Friday December 08 2017, @10:44PM
So nothing to be gained from that estate, why not move this to the Judge/Magistrate that signed such a warrant?
Why are these people never held liable?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday December 08 2017, @10:46PM (9 children)
Sure, the pedophile detective did properly ask for a warrant, for a change.
Let's talk about the judge who actually signed the warrant ...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @10:58PM (6 children)
Back up a bit... Some (not all) cops have/had pre-signed warrants they simply needed to finish filling out themselves. This was reported about 20 years ago.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Friday December 08 2017, @11:08PM (2 children)
Any judge that would pre-sign a blank warrant should be removed immediately.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday December 09 2017, @02:01AM (1 child)
Um, and jailed right? At what level do the abridgment of civil rights constitute a felony? Or is there a level?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday December 09 2017, @02:19AM
I would suggest jail, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday December 08 2017, @11:10PM
Blank warrant vs Minor assault warrant ... both should get the judge thrown out of a court, preferably through a high window, with optional "Go to jail" mat to cushion the fall.
(Score: 5, Funny) by frojack on Saturday December 09 2017, @12:23AM
And the practice was stopped back then. (If it ever actually existed).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Saturday December 09 2017, @12:49PM
One more reason to hold the judge responsible. Because if judges are held responsible for the content of warrants that bear their signature, then they might reconsider if they really want to pre-sign them.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday December 08 2017, @11:04PM
Indeed, the judge that authorized the sexual assault of a minor under color of law should at the very least be named and shamed.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 08 2017, @11:51PM
Let's talk about the judge who actually signed the warrant ...
Seriously! At a minimum it's a dereliction of duty.
This is the entire reason we make judges sign warrants in the first place!