ILNews

Judges disagree on statute's constitutionality

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an issue with great relevance given today's advances in technology and social networking, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded someone who uses a computer to download an electronic image and save it on a CD doesn't "create" a digitalized image under the child-exploitation statute. The majority also held the dissemination of matter harmful to minors statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant's conduct.

In Herbert W. Salter v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0808-CR-672, Herbert Salter appealed his 40 convictions of child exploitation as Class C felonies and five convictions of dissemination of matter harmful to minors as Class D felonies. Salter had been communicating with a 16-year-old girl from Delaware and received dozens of images from her of her naked or partially nude. Police also found images of nude children Salter downloaded from a nudist Web site and five images of his genitals, which he had sent to the girl.

At trial, Salter moved to have the counts dismissed, arguing the child exploitation and dissemination of matter harmful to minors statutes are unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. The trial court denied the motions and convicted him on all counts.

The Court of Appeals judges' unanimously agreed with Salter's argument on appeal that defining a person who uses a computer to download an electronic image and save it on a CD "creates a digitized image" exceeds the permissible scope of the child-exploitation statute. The judges examined Indiana Code Section 35-42-4-4, its history, and cases from New Jersey and Maryland to conclude a person who prints an image from a computer or who downloads it onto a computer doesn't "create" the image but just saves a copy of it, wrote Judge Patricia Riley. The Indiana statute is clearly aimed at people who create original images or who disseminate, show, or offer to show or send matter depicting or describing sexual conduct by a child under 16 years of age.

The state argued that the addition of the language "creates a digitized image of" to 35-42-4-4(b)(1) expands criminal liability to include a person who saves an electronic copy of a picture, even if only for personal gratification.

"With the advent of Facebook, MySpace, and websites dedicated to picture storage, such as Shutterfly and Snapfish, computer storage of pictures grows more common every day," wrote the judge. "To punish someone who saves electronic images on a CD but not someone who stores paper pictures in a filing cabinet would be to ignore the realities of modern American society."

Regardless of the language used, Salter didn't "create" any of the images underlying his child exploitation convictions, and by downloading them and burning them onto CDs, he only possessed the images. And because the girl was 16 when she took the photos, Salter can't be charged with possession of child pornography because the statute only extends to children younger than 16, wrote Judge Riley.

The appellate court left it to the state to evaluate the possibility of charging him with possession of child pornography based on the images downloaded from the nudist Web site.

The majority also agreed with Salter that I.C. Section 34-49-3-3, the dissemination of matter harmful to minors statute, was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. Indiana has an age of consent of 16-years-old, which means if the girl was in Indiana, she could consent to sexual activity with Salter; the statute in question defines minors as anyone under the age of 18. The majority found Salter had no way of knowing that sending pictures of his genitals to the girl would be considered harmful because under Indiana law, he could have been naked in front of her and had sex with her without violating a law, wrote Judge Riley. The statute doesn't give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that sending a picture of his or her genitals to a 16-year-old is forbidden. This issue questions why images like this are harmful to 16- and 17-year-olds when the legislature also allows them to view the same material in person during the course of sexual activity, the judge wrote.

Judge Riley also noted that because of the reversal of the number of convictions Salter faced, the appellate court recognized its decision will inspire opposition, but that should be voiced to the legislature and not the courts.

Judge Nancy Vaidik concurred with her colleagues in reversing Salter's child exploitation convictions, but believed his convictions of dissemination should stand. She doesn't believe the statute is vague, and it lists a minor as anyone under the age of 18 for purposes of the statute.

"Just because our legislature has decided not to criminalize adults having sex with sixteen and seventeen year olds does not mean that the legislature cannot enact a separate statute that protects all minors from harmful matter, including pictures of genitals," she wrote. "The fact that Salter may, hypothetically, have sex with a consenting sixteen year old does not change the fact that our legislature has decided to criminalize disseminating or displaying matter that is harmful to all minors, regardless of whether they have consented to receiving such matter."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT