Anniston PD reminds us that teen sexting is a Class A Felony. How quaint!

Don't forget, teens, if you take a naughty pic of yourself and send it to someone, you're a kiddie porn producer, and we will give as much time as a murderer. Yee-haw!

http://blog.al.com/east-alabama/2013/07/anniston_police_speaking_out_o.html

Anniston Police speaking out on dangers of sexting following teen girl photo case
By William Thornton | wthornton@al.com 
on July 26, 2013 at 9:34 AM, updated July 26, 2013 at 4:14 PM


ANNISTON, Alabama -- Anniston Police officials are speaking out about the dangers of "sexting" as they investigate a case involving a girl sending a nude photo of herself in text messages to friends.
Sgt. Chris Sparks said police learned about the case after the mother of a "very young teenage girl" reported the incident on Tuesday.

Police believe a teenage girl sent a nude photo of herself to friends sometime in May or June. Those friends, in turn, sent the photo to others.

"It's still being downloaded," Sparks said. "There's no telling how many people have seen it now."

Police are still investigating the case. Sparks said parents and children need to be aware of the ramifications of sexting. Besides potential embarrassment, the photo may "follow" them as they look for a job, he said. Parents should be interested in what their children are doing with their phones, understanding that "privacy ends as soon as you hit send.

"Once you send that image, you're disseminating child pornography, and that's a class A felony, the same as some violent offenses," he said. "If a person was convicted, they would have to register as a sex offender."

State of Alabama v. Thornal Lee Adams, alias

State of Alabama v. Thornal Lee Adams, alias (CR-08-1728, Oct. 2010)

Summary:

"The State of Alabama appeals the trial court's order declaring unconstitutional that portion of former § 15-20-22(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975 -- a part of the Community Notification Act ("CNA"), § 15-20-20 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 -- requiring an adult criminal sex offender to provide the Alabama Department of Corrections ("DOC"), at least 45 days prior to the offender's release from custody, "the actual address at which he or she will reside or live upon release", and dismissing the indictment charging Thornal Lee Adams with violating that section. We affirm."

The Alabama Court of Appeals ruled the practice of charging homeless registrants for "Failure To Register" violated Equal Protection (14th Amendment) and Cruel and Unusual Punishment (8th Amendment).

Since the Alabama Supreme Court denied certiori in this case, this decision sits as the highest decision in the state. So simply the act of being homeless is not enough to warrant a "failure to register" charge.

Read more in the link:

http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/alabama/court-of-appeals-criminal/08-1728.pdf?ts=1370466526

Huntsville looks to ban registrants from working as sales solicitors

This news is a little late in coming, but had I seen this days ago, I would have tried stopping it. I also see the city is attacking panhandlers as well.

http://itemonline.com/local/x1333761469/Door-to-door-solicitors-subject-of-city-rule-change

July 2, 2013
Door-to-door solicitors subject of city rule change
By Brandon K. Scott
Staff Reporter

HUNTSVILLE — The Huntsville Police Department does not have the authority through city ordinance to deny a permit to door-to-door solicitors with serious criminal histories like homicide, sex offenses or burglary.  The city requires solicitors to obtain a permit from HPD, but the police could only deny the request for untruthfulness on the application.

That is what led police chief Kevin Lunsford to introduce an amendment to Chapter 32 of the Code of Ordinances that regulates solicitation and peddling for public safety.

“So if they were just paroled out of TDC, if they were a sex offender or a burglar, we couldn’t deny them a permit to come to your house,” Lunsford said at the June 18 City Council meeting. “So that’s the main thing we started trying to address with this, and this gives us some avenues to deny them if they’ve had certain convictions in the last five years or so.

“It’s more clearly specified the times of day or night when they could and couldn’t. We don’t want them coming at all hours of the night.”

The rule change would prohibit solicitation between 8 p.m. or sunset (whichever comes first) and 9 a.m. Added language to the ordinance says the police chief could refuse or revoke a certificate if the applicant has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving a sex offense, drug trafficking, burglary, theft, or any violent crimes within five years of the application.

Police can also deny an applicant’s request if they have been under civil judgment for fraud.

Lunsford said the department has seen an increase in panhandlers along interstate corridors, so a change in the ordinance makes it an offense to engage in panhandling in a public place within the corporate city limits.

The City Council will consider voting on the ordinance at tonight’s regular session.