Possession of Sex Dolls that Look Like Children

[qwaspolk69]

My question involves child abuse or neglect in the State of: any state

I am not sure where to post this. Is does not apply to me directly but to an article I read on a debate site. The article spoke of a Japanese company that sells life like sex dolls that look like children. One of the posters stated that the authorities could get a list of the customers and arrest all the customers. This person was rebutted with the fact that there is no crime in someone buying a sex toy. Repulsive as this may be that someone would use a child doll for sex, I am unaware that it is illegal to buy one in the US. This person stated when asked what they would be arrested for would be the child porn they "inevitably" have on their computers.

Many users rebutted that the police could not simply have reasonable cause to go into someone's home or computer because they buy a sex toy that looks like a child. This person continues to refute that and state as an example for reasonable cause for police to search is if they see drug paraphernalia in a car, they could search a car. It was argued that is different because drug paraphernalia is illegal - sex toys are not illegal.

My question is - could LE use this list - if they somehow got a hold of it legally from the company - to search for child porn? Would there be any reason they could legally get this list of customers?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6811046.html -- This was the article in debate.

[Taxing Matters]

Just having the sex dolls would not be probable cause to search for child pornography. Logically there is nothing about having a sex doll that leads to a conclusion that the person must also have child porn. However, if the dolls resemble real children (have the appearance of an actual living child) that could be a problem for the owner of the sex doll. As with everything in this area, the details matter a lot.

[qwaspolk69]

Just having the sex dolls would not be probable cause to search for child pornography. Logically there is nothing about having a sex doll that leads to a conclusion that the person must also have child porn. However, if the dolls resemble real children (have the appearance of an actual living child) that could be a problem for the owner of the sex doll. As with everything in this area, the details matter a lot.

That is why I posted the article. That is what started the debate. Someone thinks solely having a child like sex doll would give probable cause for a search warrant. Or to get the list of customers from this company. Most said that there would be no probable cause for arrest for child porn solely because someone bought this child doll from this company.

I find it pretty disgusting. But I did not see how this was illegal in any way. Nor would allow an arrest for child porn. Could they have child porn if they are buying child sex dolls? Most likely. But the sole purchase if the doll cannot lead to searching for child porn.

[jk]

You do realize the result of a debate is not an answer to the underlying question don't you?

While the possession of the doll would not likely provide probable cause for a warrant there is nothing preventing the police from asking the company for a list of buyers and nothing preventing the company from providing that list.

[qwaspolk69]

You do realize the result of a debate is not an answer to the underlying question don't you?

While the possession of the doll would not likely provide probable cause for a warrant there is nothing preventing the police from asking the company for a list of buyers and nothing preventing the company from providing that list.

Yes I know what a debate is. But I just wanted a legal perspective as only one person thinks the cops could get the list and they would all ultimately have child porn. I just was trying to find a quick legal perspective.

The underlying question was not would they have child porn. The question was would this protect children. Someone threw in the comment about "oh yeah let them buy the dolls then arrest them for child porn." A lot of people did not feel that parallel could be drawn solely on purchase of a sex toy.

[budwad]

Whether or not a search warrant could be issued against someone who would buy a sex toy that looked like a child would also depend on other facts and it would be up to the judge that reviews the affidavit. Anyone who would get gratification from such a toy probably has a propensity or is involved in child porn. The fact that the toy, of itself is not illegal, leads to no conclusion that a person purchasing it is not a pedophile.

If a person purchased a box of strychnine at the hardware store and someone they know was poisoned with strychnine, do you think that there will be a knock on the door?

[Taxing Matters]

Whether or not a search warrant could be issued against someone who would buy a sex toy that looked like a child would also depend on other facts and it would be up to the judge that reviews the affidavit. Anyone who would get gratification from such a toy probably has a propensity or is involved in child porn. The fact that the toy, of itself is not illegal, leads to no conclusion that a person purchasing it is not a pedophile.

If a person purchased a box of strychnine at the hardware store and someone they know was poisoned with strychnine, do you think that there will be a knock on the door?

Your strychnine analogy is not the same thing. In that case, the police (1) know a murder was committed using that poison and (2) have evidence that a person who is presumably a suspect had purchased it. Naturally the purchase of the poison would be sufficient probable cause to believe that the poison might be found in a search of the suspect’s home. And sure, if the police had evidence that a suspect bought child porn that would be enough for a warrant to search the suspect’s computing devices to look for that porn. That would be the situation that matches your analogy here.

[qwaspolk69]

Your strychnine analogy is not the same thing. In that case, the police (1) know a murder was committed using that poison and (2) have evidence that a person who is presumably a suspect had purchased it. Naturally the purchase of the poison would be sufficient probable cause to believe that the poison might be found in a search of the suspect’s home. And sure, if the police had evidence that a suspect bought child porn that would be enough for a warrant to search the suspect’s computing devices to look for that porn. That would be the situation that matches your analogy here.

That is what I thought. The more likely scenario would be if someone purchased child porn or if they got caught in a sting that would allow them to get busted for child porn. As disgusting as it may be, the life like child doll is merely a sex toy and does not indicate a crime is occurring in regards to child porn. Yes we could assume they probably have child porn but I was approaching this in a legal view.

[budwad]

Well give me and your view of this legal matter a break. I would start wiping my hard drive if I were you. What BS. As if this was something that an innocent person would even be thinking about.

[qwaspolk69]

Well give me and your view of this legal matter a break. I would start wiping my hard drive if I were you. What BS. As if this was something that an innocent person would even be thinking about.

Seriously? I posted the article that was referenced on the page. It was on a debate page. One of the admin posted the article with the question: "Would this save children or is this a bad idea?" Something to that affect was the debate. Among the replies someone posted to the effect of "Sure let them buy the dolls, then arrest everyone of the customers." Multiple comments stated that there would be no legal basis for these people to be arrested simply for buying a sex toy. Disgusting as it is, this is all that these are - sex toys. Then that person, when asked what would they be arrested for, replied "Well for the child porn they assumedly have." The commenters stated that there is not probable cause to get a warrant for child porn when all they did is buy this disturbing doll.

Sorry that you do not ever debate random issues I suppose? I do not nor would I ever look at that disgusting stuff. It was simply to find a legal point of view on could the police in the US be able to get a warrant to search for child porn solely because someone bought a sex doll that looks like a child?

As if I would really be posting this on a public forum if I even attempted to view such disgusting stuff as child porn or any porn. How about you can give me a break about that question?