Weather Alert: High Wind Warning expires at 10:00 PM on 5/26, issued at 4:19 AM Aneth, UT | Bluff, UT | Bonanza, UT | Cisco, UT

Police issue warrant over halloween pictures


Story Comments Share
Updated: 10/30/2009 10:26 am | Published: 10/29/2009 11:00 pm
Police (ABC 4 News)
Police (ABC 4 News)

WEST JORDAN, Utah (ABC 4 News) – No one would ever think that taking photos of their child would actually get them in trouble with the police, but this was not the case of a West Jordan mom who got her house ransacked and her computer confiscated for taking photos of her five year-old daughter dressed as the Little Mermaid.   

The mom was pulled over on her way home from dropping her daughter off at school. She was escorted by police to her home where she was told they had a search warrant.

She said about twelve police officers were standing in her house and going through her belongings.

“All of a sudden, you have 12 people standing in your house going through everything you own,searching and questioning your character.”

Police ransacked her home and even confiscated her work computer; but she said the biggest surprise came next, when police told her that the Walmart employee had said the photographs were a “present for him,” meaning the victims’ husband.   

The mom said the comments and allegations of sexually exploiting her five- year-old were completely untrue.Her husband said that they were not only degrading, but shocking.

The husband defended his wife, saying, “She is very protective, sometimes even overly protective.”

So the question raised is,what were these pictures of?

 “She was dressed up in an Ariel wig with lipstick on, a little school uniform, and she was posing and being silly,” the mom explained.

West Jordan Police said,in order for it to be child pornography, it must be considered both offensive and sexually implicit. They said this after the detectives and prosecuting authorities reviewed the photos and drafted the search warrant.

The police also said, “we try to be as considerate as we can of everybody's rights, while also trying to protect the community and the victims.”

Walmart responded with the following statement, “We recognize that this is an emotional matter for everyone involved, as well as a sensitive situation that we take seriously. we believe our associates acted appropriately in notifying authorities who then made the decision whether to investigate."

The parents gave an important caution,” Be incredibly carefully, when you go get those developed, you may be put through the same hell that we went through.”

Story Comments Share
5 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of ABC4

sfstateofmind - 11/1/2009 12:28 PM
0 Votes
"IMplicit" or "EXplicit" - this is a key difference! The text says "it must be considered both offensive and sexually implicit", which means "1. Implied or understood though not directly expressed: 2. Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent:" The TV clip says "sexually explicit" which means "a. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. b. Describing or portraying nudity or sexual activity in graphic detail." This entire story is SO outrageous, I secretly think it's not real - is this a hoax?

granpee - 10/30/2009 10:28 AM
2 Votes
You have to wonder what this world is coming to. As a grandparent I don't know how my kids survived. In this sexually driven world it seems like law enforcement could better spend their time and resorces, there are real sick people out there that needs help(sounds like wal-mart employees a few)and yet the cops waste time with simple innocent items. I think someone cries child and sex in the same sentence it gets in the computer or on paper and that's all it takes, no person involved after that knows anything about it. Someone reads the paperwork and without thinking about it starts the ball in motion. I'll bet the cops searching the house didn't even know why, they were told to look for porn so that's what they did. In the meantime this poor family is devastated, and you can't take that back. I think Utah people should have a little more open minds instead of puffed up heads and egos. And Wal-Mart WHAT ARE YOU TEACHING YOUR EMPLOYEES???????????

JustMom - 10/30/2009 4:48 AM
1 Vote
This is exactly why I am getting the hell out of Utah; I can only imagine the horror of going through this sort of thing with my little one. Heaven forbid that I would want photos of my daughter to remember fond times; ya know, those kodak moments you get on a nano-seconds notice; but in Utah, you elect' most times, just not to take photos because it might lead you to having a sex offender status. Though, I have an 18 month old; I also have a 27 year old daughter; and back in the day when you could actually put your baby on a bear-skin-rug with a bare tooshie and take a picture without fear of being called a sexual preditor; those were considered innocent photos then; but now, that would be considered; exposing a minor in sexual material... What is wrong with society today; to think every photo taken; regardless of the intent, may have an element of "Sexual Violation" in it? Maybe instead of looking at the parents in this case; the authorities should look at the employee that reported the photos; because it sounds to me like the employee may have a sexual preditor personality; where they were seeing beyond the simplicity of the photograph. As far as I am concerned; Utah has taken their sex offender laws WAY TO FAR! because there is a difference between pure nature and sexual intent; and rather than weigh the difference; they weigh the slightest risk and call everything sexual material. I was weighing the option of relocating from Utah; but had not made up my mind' Until Now.. It's totally time to Get Out Before I become the Next Victim of Utah's really screwed up laws. Fact is, I'd rather leave Utah than give up my, nearly 30 year old, black and white, bare-skin-rug photos of a bare butt and a big ear to ear grin. I'm going back down south where the Law is clear cut; they castrate the real sex offender and leave the parents with cute photos alone!

MikeRidgway - 10/30/2009 1:04 AM
1 Vote
So what were police looking for? They already had the "incriminating" photos thanks to the "informants" at Wal-Mart right? Did they have to do the search because the photos that were processed at Wal-Mart didn't constitute the commission of a crime, so they went on a fishing expedition hoping for something more explicit? This is outrageous. Nine-twelvers and tea party people, show that you're good for something and protest this. Mike Ridgway Tooele, Utah 801-438-4139

daisdnconfuzd - 10/29/2009 11:48 PM
2 Votes
This is so shocking, frightening, and yet so stupid. A kid in a mermaid costume is now "Kiddie-Porn?" Who is training these Wal-mart employees on what to look for and how to spot the difference? The same thing happened to that couple in Arizona a few months ago only their kids were put into foster care for a month while it got sorted! All because the parents took pictures of them playing in the bathtub and took the photos to a Wal-mart! Where is the voice of reason in these people's heads? Why didn't the cops ask more questions of the clerk, maybe look at this family's past orders. This just stinks of Gestapo tactics, and really if this can happen to this nice family at a Utah Wal-mart, who's to say it couldn't happen to any one of us? I know where I'll never take my pictures... well, I doubt I step foot in there again for that matter. This is ridiculous. My stomach aches for these people.
ABC 4 Poll
Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.