My point was that whether he got the pic from: the Signal chat, snapping a nude of Kayla, or Kayla sending him a nude is irrelevant if there is evidence that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and that he wasn't permitted to share it
Well, true, but the totality of the circumstances include where he got it from and what the expectation was. If he got it from a public Locals posting, there clearly wouldn't be an expectation of privacy, or at least not a reasonable one. That doesn't appear to be the case. Obviously if he snapped it, consensually or not, I think it would presumptively be expected to be between them.
Once you have it in an online group having group sex with each other, I think that seriously dilutes any expectation. Would four people having access to it reasonably expect it to be private? Eight? Twelve? At what point does it become completely unreasonable to expect everyone receiving it to keep it private?
Aaron's getting bad legal advice if he didn't think Geno and Keanu would be forced to appear.
It's actually rather unusual for such an utterly trivial offense. One person sending one picture to one other person who then deleted it? This is what they're using the kind of law usually used to get witnesses for real crimes like murder or dealing large amounts of drugs?
I'll note the case upholding the constitutionality of this law (against a rarely won facial overbreadth argument) involved the defendant breaking into the computer accounts of his estranged ex, threatening to publish, being told this was a criminal offense by the victim, and then disseminating it to 45 people. Every step of this process involved a separate crime other than just the dissemination crime.
So he attacked the only way he could, with an overbreadth charge, that is, the statute is so vague (it actually isn't) that it violates due process by chilling far too much First Amendment speech for its purpose, i.e. not narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. This is essentially asking the court to throw out the statute in its entirety so that it can't be used against anyone, even someone like Casillas, the defendant, who had inarguably behaved criminally and in a constitutionally unprotected way.
This case is just not anywhere close to other cases the statute has been applied, to constitute a felony.
I'm not expecting this to set a precedent, but I think the prosecutor is construing the statute in a recklessly expansive manner and it would be disturbing if this law means what she thinks it does.
