Ohio Cops Release Photos of Adults Nodding Off on Heroin With Child in Back Seat
No concern displayed about child's right to privacy.


Police in East Liverpool, Ohio, pulled over an SUV they say was swerving in the road, found a driver and a passenger allegedly nodding off on heroin, with a 4-year-old sitting in the backseat, and decided to post photos of the three on the city's Facebook page.
According to police, the driver told them he was taking the woman in the car with him to the hopsital. The four-year-old in the backseat was the woman's child. The driver was charged with driving while intoxicating, stopping in a roadway, and endangering children, while the passenger was charged with not wearing a seatbelt, public intoxication, and endangering children.
Police claim they posted photos of the incident online to show "the other side" of heroin use. "We feel we need to be a voice for the children caught up in this horrible mess," the post read. "This child can't speak for himself but we are hopeful this story can convince another user to think twice about injecting this poison while having a child in their custody."
The explanation comes off as hypocritical given how uniformily police officers, their bosses, and their unions tend to fight the release of images and videos showing the "other side" of police brutality. They use excuses like the fact that an investigation is open, or that the cop or even his victim deserves the right to privacy. Yet no one at the East Liverpool police department apparently thought to think about the 4-year-old's right to privacy.
Eventually, a judge granted custody of the child to relatives in South Carolina. The city shared a screencap of a post from someone announcing the decision. In the screencap, the woman laments that there's not a "DELETE BUTTON For This 4 Year Olds Memory for The Past 3 Weeks and This Horrific Event That has Gone National News with His Little Face Exposed." The administrators of the city of East Liverpool's Facebook page either lack the self-awareness to understand their role in making the boy's face national news, or don't care. If heroin users had unions as powerful as cops, the photo may have never seen the light of day.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Great. More Ohioans.
On my outrage at police meter, this is about a 3.5
Hilarious. Where was this concern for privacy when when Reason sloppily serviced Gawker. Guild tribalism it's a hell of a drug. New reason tag line FUCK THE PIGS. MOAR GUILD.
I came here to say "yeah, only journalists have a constitutional right to violate people's privacy with impunity." But you already covered that ground.
How are you supposed to have any expectation of privacy sitting in public in a car?
The driver was charged with driving while intoxicating
What are you, on drugs?
public intoxication
Riding in a car is "public"? So I guess that means the only place you are technically allowed to be intoxicated is at home. Probably with all the doors locked and blinds drawn just to be safe.
"The driver was charged with driving while intoxicating"
Yes, the driver was Appalonia.
The kid kept looking at the camera. Clearly he wanted to be on the Cops' facebook.
AND A NEW MEME WAS BORN!
Facebook is still around, huh?
And if they'd have left the kid at home how exactly as much opprobrium would be being heaped on them right now.
Can't hire a babysitter either since then they'd be getting pummeled for *planning* to take drugs while parents.
Don't shoot fucking heroin when you have a kid. The fact that this isn't intuitive to libertarians is why libertarianism is the laughingstock of political movements.
True. Also true: legal drugs means better quality control and less ER.
Right you should snort it or smoke it.
They already have a website for this much much better http://thatguysonheroin.com a great site showing Baltjmore's finest. No need to show an innocent kid's face as a deterrent--you have lady on the bus licking drugs off the bus floor among the many treasures.
I just wasted an hour on judgemental maps thanks to that site:)
I've wasted hours there too. Living 20 min outside this shit hole city, you really do see this shit down there. I no longer go there ever after dark if at all.
Why does a 50 year old woman have a 4 year old.?
I'm pretty sure an average 4 year old can speak. You can actually have conversations with them.
I go the British news sites because they don't hide pictures of events and people the way us ones do. Have we gotten so sensitive that a picture of a kid is verboten? Or is it because cops are involved?
The recent trend of "pixelating" the face of any child shown in a photo really makes little sense. Few people will recognize an adult, or even a teenager, from a photo taken at age 4. The memory of this whole incident, of the police taking him from the vehicle and of where he was (unclear from the article) during the subsequent three weeks, is indeed likely to leave its scars. The fact that his image was published on a website isn't.