- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 14
-
Sparkle (0)
The Demaree family is suing Wal-Mart for failing to tell Anthony "A.J" Demaree about their "unsuitable print policy." In a separate complaint, they are also suing Arizona, the Arizona Attorney General and the City of Peoria.
The Demarees are the Arizona family who took 144 photos to be developed at a Wal-Mart but instead of getting their pictures back, their children were taken away from them for a month on suspicion of kiddie porn.
After Walmart turned the photos over to police, the Demarees were not allowed to see their children for two weeks. They did not regain physical custody for a month while the state investigated, according to their lawyer, Richard Treon.[...]
Treon said the images in question were part of a group of 144 photographs taken mostly the family's vacation in San Diego. He said there were seven to eight bath- and playtimephotos of the girls that showed a "portion or outline or genitalia."
AZCentral.com
At the time, their daughters were ages 5, 4, and 1½. The lawsuit against Arizona, Peoria and the state Attorney General's Office claims employees from each entity defamed the Demarees by telling friends, family members and co-workers that they had "sexually abused" their children by taking pornographic pictures of them.
The lawsuit against Wal-Mart charges the company is at fault for not disclosing their "unsuitable print policy" which allows Wal-Mart to turn any photos over to law enforcement.
Once news of the Demaree's case hit the media, the majority of televison news anchors and radio talk show hosts I listened to were incredulous that Wal-Mart reported the pictures in the first place, and that the authorities then took a month to investigate the case. Commenters on the blogs I read about the situation had a similar reaction, but while they completely support the family's lawsuit against Arizona officials, there was a more divided reaction to the lawsuit against Wal-Mart.
From a post by The Agitator,
don’t think Wal-Mart should be getting sued. Wal-Mart didn’t arrest them, take their kids from them, or put them through hell trying to put
their family back together. Big Chief
I have to agree that there’s little case against Wal-Mart. The store employees who called police are no different than someone who calls the police because they see someone openly carrying a gun, in a state where that’s perfectly legal. KB Craig
From a post by FreeRangeKids,
While I think the whole thing is incredibly ridiculous and sad, the failing wasn’t really on the part of the WalMart employee, but rather CPS, the DA, the AG, and whatever other government officials were involved. Photo processors, like teachers, are mandated reporters, and if there’s even a hint that something is child abuse, it’s supposed to be reported. Yes, the WalMart employee should have used better discretion because, DUH–kids in a tub!!, but it wasn’t WalMart who prosecuted here, it was the DA. The WalMart employee was only doing his/her job. Kari
I’m going to disagree with Kari on the WalMart processor merely making a mistake. I agree that authorities should have known better, I think it’s also imperitive mandatory reporters are properly trained. Walmart has an obligation to make sure they are. The mandatory reporting is for children engaged in sexual activity, not just any nude child in a tub. toyfoto
While employees at photo labs are mandated reporters in some states, in Arizona, they are not. From the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network.
At the heart of the issue is Wal-Mart's policy on "unsuitable printing." The Demarees are claiming that Wal-Mart did not adequately publicize this policy. In fact, if you search "unsuitable printing policy" on Walmart.com, you're not going to find anything.
However, you'll find what you are looking for in the Conditions of Use in Terms of Use which lists all the things you agree not to do when you are a customer of Wal-Mart's photo department. The "unsuitable print policy" is number 8.
What does this incident say
