Trending
Dear Editor:
I am writing as a concerned citizen of East Liverpool. I just read a post that was shared to the public by The City of East Liverpool’s Facebook page. In that post are photos of a couple passed out in their vehicle, along with an incident report showing they had been arrested for public intoxication and treated for an overdose while there was a minor child in the vehicle.
My concern is that (city officials) posted on social media a photograph of this innocent 4-year old child. While I agree this was an unfortunate incident, I do not believe it is ethical or legal for them to publicly post pictures of this child with identifying information, without any efforts to protect the identity of the innocent victim.
I’ve been looking for the Ohio Revised Code that may pertain to this situation, but have not yet found anything that speaks directly to what occurred here. However, after reading ORC, Title 21, Chapter 2151.313, it’s apparent that even if this child had somehow committed a crime or was being investigated as part of the crimes committed by the adults in this case, his photographs would not be allowed to be released and displayed publicly by our law enforcement officers.
I have to believe that if we have laws that exist to protect the identity of minors who have committed crimes or who are associated with crimes committed by adults, that the identity of this child would also be protected under the laws of the state of Ohio.
According to the Revised Code, investigative photographs of a minor who has not committed a felonious crime have to be submitted to the juvenile court and cannot be released without the consent of the juvenile judge. Since the accident occurred Wednesday afternoon and this post was made the following day, I find it hard to believe that our city obtained permission from a judge to release the photographs to the public.
Within three hours of the city posting his image, it had been shared by over 4,000 viewers. Since the post lists the names of the adults and states that the woman in the photograph is the child’s mother, it was easy for readers who saw his picture to not only identify the child, but also post his full name and information about his living arrangements, family, etc.
Also, in the replies to the city’s post, a local EMT stated that they would lose their job and license if they posted those pictures on Facebook and asked if our police are not subject to similar rules. The city responded that the photos were not shared by the police department and that they are a part of public record that can be viewed by anyone who requests them from the court. The photos were later displayed on WTOV.com with a caption stating they were provided by the East Liverpool Police Department.
Is there nothing that can be done to help protect the rights of this innocent child?
Melissa McCauley
East Liverpool