Quick question...

[Citicop]

I believe state statutes vary from sexual exploitation to legal.

Of course, I may be wrong. This is just my interpretation.

There is NO PLACE in the United States where that conduct is legal.

I quote US Code, Title 18:

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN

Sec. 2251. Sexual exploitation of children

(a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or
coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other
person to engage in, or who transports any minor in interstate or
foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United
States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit
conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such
conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (d), if such
person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be
transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual
depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed, shipped,
or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including
by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported
in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.

Even in the absence of an applicable State Law, the Federal Law criminalizes it, and I would also be shocked if you could produce a state statute making this acceptable.

I would have thought you might have known that, having conducted background investigations for the military and security clearances...

-Citicop

[smoke63b]

Now who has the red face?

Good info Citicop!

[Paniero]

There is NO PLACE in the United States where that conduct is legal.

I quote US Code, Title 18:



Even in the absence of an applicable State Law, the Federal Law criminalizes it, and I would also be shocked if you could produce a state statute making this acceptable.

I would have thought you might have known that, having conducted background investigations for the military and security clearances...

-Citicop

Before we dwelve into legalese and unnecessary verbiage in order to prove a point and complicate matters, realize that the poster stated that he immediately deleted the pictures that he took. This alone shows that he was aware that he may be treading in illegal territory, and not wanting to take a chance, decided to stop.

This action alone does not make him a lesser applicant.

However, the USC posted does not address this issue. Looks like you googled the wrong regulation. :rolleyes:


TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN

Sec. 2251. Sexual exploitation of children

(a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or
coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other
person to engage in, or who transports any minor in interstate or
foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United
States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit
conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such
conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (d), if such
person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be
transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual
depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed, shipped,
or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including
by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported
in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.


The guy wasn't engaged in interstate tranportation of child porn. He took a picture of his girlfriend. Child pornography is primarily addressed under federal law, while age of sexual consent is solely a state issue.

[Citicop]

No, genius, I guess YOU didn't read it. It's the right regulation.

Allow me to direct your attention to this part:

if that visual depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means

...think the camera he used had ever been shipped from one state to another or internationally? Almost certianly. And pictures of a minor are covered in the above statute too, regardless of the relationship to the photographer. Even if he could have legally had intercourse with her, taking a nude, sexual photo remains child pornography...

If there is anything further I can teach you on this matter, plaese feel free to ask.

Citicop.

[codered]

By all means Paniero, please continue to argue your case.

[mobrien316]

No, genius, I guess YOU didn't read it. It's the right regulation.

...think the camera he used had ever been shipped from one state to another or internationally? Almost certianly. And pictures of a minor are covered in the above statute too, regardless of the relationship to the photographer. Even if he could have legally had intercourse with her, taking a nude, sexual photo remains child pornography...

If there is anything further I can teach you on this matter, plaese feel free to ask.

Citicop.

Excellent burn!

I'd send you some green but I already did. I'll have to owe you one.

[w1zard]

Paniero: This line right here:

if that visual
depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed, shipped,
or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including
by computer

pretty much disallows any minor sexual material explicit or not and gives a prosecutor all he needs to burn your butt. Gotta pay attention to the words in these, they are tricky.

And this:

if such visual depiction has actually been transported
in interstate or foreign commerce

protects any movement of these pictures throughout the United States and foreign countries from ANY type of feature invented yet or not.(ie: teleporters, you get the point) So they'll never have to touch this law again.


Matt, that right there might disqualify you automatically for actually taking the pictures. You didn't attempt to distribute these photos which is good, but you did take them. I hope you see the point. As ROS said, you'll have to check with the department and see how strict they are with this. If you had sex with this minor and since she is within your states statute, having intercourse with her shouldn't haunt you in the hiring process.

[Paniero]

No, Citycop is right. I misread the USC.

I still think that his actions don't amount to something that he should mention in an interview, IMO.

[Kimble]

No, Citycop is right. I misread the USC.

I still think that his actions don't amount to something that he should mention in an interview, IMO.

Paniero,

Your credibility on this forum, particularly in this thread, has already been tainted, if not completely deminished. I highly doubt anyone will heed the advice you're giving (particularly if they're wise enough to realize EVERY verified LEO member responding to this thread is contradicting you).

[RO56]

Before we dwelve into legalese and unnecessary verbiage in order to prove a point and complicate matters, realize that the poster stated that he immediately deleted the pictures that he took.

Using your justification, I should be able to commit armed robbery, just so long as I take the the money right back and apologize to those I have offended? :rolleyes:

This action alone does not make him a lesser applicant.

Breaking the law does make him a lesser applicant, no matter how you attempt to justify otherwise.

Not only that, but actions taken that, while perhaps not a violation of a particular statutory law, are considered morally or ethically wrong also makes you "a lesser applicant".

Contrary to your opinion, background investgations don't stop at the computerized criminal history stage, simply because an applicant has never broken the law.

I still think that his actions don't amount to something that he should mention in an interview, IMO.

While not offering the information upfront might not initially sound like the best thing to do, in most every case, it is. If you attempt to hide questionable activities (e.g., taking nude pictures of your underage girlfriend), but later in the the BI process it comes to light, your status quickly changes from "applicant" to "liar". Like it or not, that's how it works.

Essentially, you're telling the investigator that it's up to you to decide whether or not these past activities should be considered unacceptable character traits by the department when, in fact, it's not your decision - it's the department's decsions.

Failure to disclose legal but morally/ethically questionable activities from your past during the BI investigation is a sure-fire way to get the boot from the process.

In addition, it might negatively affect you even if it doesn't specifically come up. For example, you might be asked quesitons on a related subject matter during the polygraph, and even though you're not asked directly (yes/no) about your activity, your thought process starts thinking about those actitivies and, because you're worried or unsure or questioning yourself in your mind, you appear deceptive to the polygraph process.

Point being: there might be just enough brain activity to put just enough doubt in your mind (on a related question) that results in a polygraph examination containing deceptive leanings.

Besides ... I'm still waiting for you to tell me which department you work for, and how many BI's you have successfully traversed with your extensive background in child pornography, marijuana use and patronage of prostitutes.

And if I can quote a fellow RP'er: "I think your real problem is that you have no common sense."

[CamoShark]

Note to self.... dont argue laws with Verified LEO's....check. Impressive work guys, very interesting.

[RO56]

Note to self.... dont argue laws with Verified LEO's....check. Impressive work guys, very interesting.

There's nothing wrong with arguing about law with Verified LEOs, just so long as you're not making things up or relying upon opinion instead of verifiable facts.

LEOs here have been known to be wrong ...............................................























.......... maybe. :D

[w1zard]

Note to self.... dont argue laws with Verified LEO's....check. Impressive work guys, very interesting.

It's not the laws you should be worried about, don't argue with the LEOs period unless you know your cause is absolute! As soon as you start argueing the rest are going to be all over you like Oprah on a bucket of extra crispy.