Law&Crime Sidebar - ‘Nude Photos’ Scandal Prompts ‘Scathing’ Probe

Episode Date: June 15, 2026

What started as a private dispute between two of the highest-ranking officials in Wicomico County, Maryland, has exploded into a public fiasco. County Executive Julie Giordano is firing back against persistent rumors that nude photos of her were sent to a local sheriff’s deputy, while Sheriff Mike Lewis claims an official investigation could lead to further embarrassment for Giordano. Could this political scandal trigger serious criminal or civil legal consequences for those involved? Law&Crime's Jesse Weber breaks down the bombshell letters and the legal reality of revenge porn with trial and victim's rights attorney Daniel Szalkiewicz.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: $75 BONUS: https://chime.com/SIDEBAR Earn 5% Cash Back and 3.75% APY on Savings with Chime®. Thanks Chime for sponsoring this video!HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrime---$75 Bonus: *Terms apply, must open the new account and complete qualifying activities to earn the rewards, up to a maximum of $75.00, as described in the offer terms at https://www.chime.com/join/promos/get75/?promo_code=paid75/#terms.5% Cash Back: Cash back on eligible Chime Card purchases. Terms and limits apply.Savings APY: No min. balance required. For more information on Annual Percentage Yields, go to chime.com/disclosures.9x times national average: Comparison to national average rate on the FDIC’s National Rates and Rate Caps website, as of 06/08/2026.Split your pay: Must receive a qualifying direct deposit of $1 or more.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

I'm standing here, sitting here today, because I am absolutely disgusted, disgusted about what was published and circulated in the media. And frankly, I am angry. What started as a private dispute between two of the highest ranking officials in a Maryland County has now become essentially a public fiasco with the county executive and the sheriff basically going to war over allegations of nude selfies. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

If you're watching this, if you're putting things out on social media, if you're into content creation, you might be wondering, how are we able to share so many of these clips from all of these stories, these breaking stories so quickly? We use something called Opus Clip. Okay, this is an all-in-one AI editor that makes it so easy to cut, create, and upload videos across any platform. Through AI, Opus Clip generates B-roll, it reframes footage, and it even cleans up audio. And it is so easy.

Just visit opus.compro slash sidebar. you sign up, you upload. In a minutes, you have perfectly edited clips ready to go for TikTok, shorts, reels. Opus clip is really your one-stop shop. And having a tool like Opus clip means that our producers can get you viral courtroom updates instantly. This is the most powerful tool there is to share ideas and edit like a pro. So go to opus.pro slash sidebar to get a free week and then 50% off. Three years, I have been forced to address the same false allegations over and over again.

So let me be crystal clear. And I want there to be absolutely no misunderstanding about what I am saying. As the county executive of Wakamico County, I have never sent inappropriate photographs to a deputy, to a county employee or to anyone else. I never have. I never would, period. That's Wakamico County, Maryland County executive, Julie Giordano, absolutely. livid that she's once again having to address these rumors that nude photos of her somehow ended up in the hands of a local sheriff's deputy. Now, the allegations have apparently been circulating

for quite some bit for years, but things really came to ahead last week when Girdano called this last minute press conference and what followed could potentially blow a hole right through her loud denials. Could this lead to any legal consequences down the line? Who's right about the law? We're going to talk about it. So to get into this, let's go away. back for a second. We go back to 2022. That was the year that Girdana, who according to the county government website, was married with one child, ran for and was elected, the Wacomaco County Executive. That's essentially the county's mayor. The county website says she was the first woman elected to that role. The executive also works alongside one of the county's other high-ranking elected

officials. The sheriff, Sheriff Mike Lewis, was named the area's top cop in 2007. He's held the position ever since. Now, Wakamico County covers a large area. surrounding Salisbury, Maryland, south of the border with Delaware. But since Giordano took office, according to media outlets such as WBFF in Baltimore and WBOC and Salisbury, persistent rumors have circulated that she sent nude photographs to at least one sheriff's deputy. So these allegations have reportedly plagued Giordano for years, including a WBFF report, claiming that there was evidence that such images existed and had been shared. So the That catalyst for all of this kind of remains unclear, but both Giardano and Lewis, we're not sure,

I just have to mention this, they're both up for re-election this year. Something to keep in mind, okay? Now, things came to ahead last week on June 10th. This was when there was this news conference, kind of last minute, kind of like almost happened out of nowhere, and Girdano's fury at these rumors, at these allegations, was evident. These allegations are completely false. They are not based on facts. They are not supported by evidence.

They are nothing more than a deliberate attack on my character, my integrity, and my reputation. According to a WBFF report in Baltimore, Gierdano allegedly sent the letter to Sheriff Lewis addressing the photos. And Lewis replied apparently with his own letter. What makes this even more outrageous is that the story today was supposedly about letters. Yet the entire story became a vehicle to resurrect years-old rumors about alleged photos that have never surfaced because they do not exist. Let's be honest about what happened here. The letters were simply the excuse. They were the hook.

They were the masquerade used to drag these false accusations back into the public eye for one purpose to damage me politically and personally. This is fake news at its finest. For three years, I have repeatedly denied these allegations. For three years, I have asked for proof. For three years, I have requested that anyone, anyone making these claims produce these alleged photographs. And after three years, where are they? Where is the evidence? Where are the photographs? Where is the proof? The answer is simple. There are none.

Because as county executive, I have never sent them. What infuriates me the most is not that I have to stand here and defend myself again. What infuriates me is the damage this reckless reporting causes to innocent people. This morning, do you know what I had to do? I had to call my mom and my dad, who live in Baltimore, and tell them exactly what was said about their daughter. I had to call my sister. I had to sit down with my son and explain why his mother was being attacked in the news. Think about that for a moment. I had to explain to a child why people were spreading allegations about, his mother that I know are completely false. That is what irresponsible reporting does. That is what political hit jobs do. The people who push these stories do not have to

answer questions from a child. They don't have to explain to their parents. They don't have to live with the consequences. My family does. And as the only Republican female county executive in the state of Maryland, I cannot ignore the timing, the motivation, or the pattern. Every time these allegations begin to fade away, someone finds a way to drag them back into the headlines despite the complete lack of evidence. This is not journalism. This is not accountability. This is a desperate, desperate attempt to defame me. This is a desperate attempt to destroy my and ultimately it is a desperate attempt to distract from the tremendous, the tremendous progress that this county has made over the last three and a half years. While others are focused on rumors,

my administration has been focused on lowering taxes and improving public safety, strengthening our schools, investing in infrastructure, growing our airport, and moving Wakamaco County forward. The people behind this story want me distracted, they want me intimidated, and they want me silent. They don't know me because that's not going to happen. I will not, and I'm going to repeat this, I will not be bullied, I will not be intimidated, and I will not allow lies to go unanswered. I am standing here today to tell the people of Wakamico County what exactly I have been saying for the last three years. These allegations are false.

The alleged photographs have never been produced because they do not exist. And as county executive, I have never sent inappropriate photographs to a deputy or to anybody else. That is the truth. It was the truth three years ago. It was the truth today. And guess what? It'll still be the truth tomorrow. Thank you.

Gerda left the press conference. Didn't take any questions from reporters. When all of this first started to make waves, reporters reached out to Sheriff Lewis. Now, he apparently declined to comment, also declined to release these alleged letters. I would say, what was it? Within hours of Giordano's public statement, WBOC announced it had received the correspondence as part of a public information request and published it. So letting people decide for themselves who was telling the truth.

You got this letter on official Wakamico County, Maryland County, letterhead dated September 12th, 2024 was seemingly sent and directed to Sheriff Mike Lewis. Here's what it says. Quote, Dear Sheriff Lewis, after much deliberation, I am writing to formally request an investigation into the alleged sharing of pornographic images of me by one of your deputies. It is deeply concerning that a deputy would share such a photo and even more troubling that you have acknowledged possessing such an image. You mentioned this to a private citizen, a group of individuals in Annapolis, to which you added that the image was shared from a government phone and in a meeting with your chief deputy, the state's attorney, the assistant director

of administration, and myself, all without my consent. Since we last discussed this issue, it is my understanding that no investigation has been initiated by any member of your command staff, your deputies, or any outside agency. On February 13th, 2024, you told Matthew Leitzel, deputy director of administration that under Maryland law, revenge porn only applies in the context of an intimate relationship between the parties, while I agree. that no such intimate relationship exists between myself and the deputy in question, your interpretation of Maryland's revenge porn statute is incorrect. The law does not require an intimate relationship between the individuals for the prohibition

against distributing explicit images to apply. No member of the Wakamako County Sheriff's Office or any other law enforcement agency has permission to possess any visual representation of myself with my intimate parts exposed or whole engaged in an act of sexual activity. By the way, it might be a typo there. it being addressed later on in the sheriff's letter. I have never consented to the creation of any visual representation of myself with my intimate parts exposed or while engaged in an act of sexual activity. I have never provided anyone consent to distribute any visual representation of me

with my intimate parts exposed or while engaged in an act of sexual activity. This matter is straightforward. Either a deputy shared a nude photograph of me or they did not. If such an image has been shared, this constitutes a criminal act. Such conduct is a violation of Maryland criminal law. See Maryland annotated code criminal law section 3-809, as well as potentially federal law. And we'll talk about that. Any deputy involved in sharing or distributing these images must be held accountable and should face criminal charges. As the sheriff of Wakamico County, you are responsible for upholding the law within this jurisdiction. I ask that you request an investigation into this matter, as I know your office is conflicted and pursue charges against the deputy responsible as you have

knowledge of this alleged criminal act. I am prepared to cooperate fully with any investigation. Thank you for your attention into this matter. My personal attorney and I look forward to an update on the situation by the end of the month. Sincerely, Julie Girdano, County Executive. So when these rumors, these allegations started circulating about these letters, sources told local news stations that Giordano had been sent a cease and desist letter to keep her from sending nude photos to sheriff's office employees. And we'll talk more about that in a second, but it seems that some of the details might have been lost in translation because Sheriff Lewis's response on October 4th, 2024, it didn't mention the words cease and desist, but it was pretty scathing. Okay, here's what it says,

quote, County Executive Giordano. On September 30th, 2024, I received an email copy of a letter from your office authored by you in which you formally requested an investigation into the alleged sharing of portographic images of you by one of my deputies. Since we last discussed your sharing of, quote, nude selfies to one of my deputies, neither you nor anyone else requested an investigation be initiated into the possible dissemination of these, quote, pornographic photos. Photos, of course, that any viewer could quickly discern were self-generated, self-created, and ultimately self-distributed. You stated in paragraph four of your letter that no member of the Wakamico County Sheriff's Office or any other law enforcement agency has permission to possess any visual representation of myself. with my intimate parts exposed or whole, I think you meant while engaged in an act of sexual activity.

You further go on the state, I have never consented to the creation of any visual representation of myself with my intimate parts exposed or while engaged in an act of sexual activity. I have never provided anyone consent to distribute any visual representation of me with my intimate parts exposed or while engaged in an act of sexual activity. Perhaps you should have thought about that before you sent those selfies from your phone. In your words, this matter is straightforward. You have a choice to make, Madam County Executive. As a key witness to the nude selfies, I stand fully prepared to testify as to how a deputy

requested permission to enter my office and shut my door. While standing next to my desk, the deputy proceeded to scroll through multiple nude selfies of you, clearly taken by you, now being shockingly displayed on my deputy's cell phone. These nude selfies were never forwarded to my cell phone, and I've never been in possession of these self-created pornographic images. But one can only wonder how many others have been seen or been forwarded, perhaps by you. you these same photos. As for visual representation of you engaged in sexual activity, I have never claimed to see that video. As you mentioned in paragraph six of your letter of request, I am

conflicted and my agency is unable to conduct an investigation into this matter. I am more than willing to request an official investigation into where these pornographic images nude selfies originated. I will make the request through the Maryland State Police or the Office of the State Prosecutor. Once the investigation commences, it will likely result in the issuance of a search and seizure of your cell phone, personal, and government by investigators to conduct a complete forensic examination to confirm that the same photos shown to me did in fact originate from one of your cell phones

or a previous cell phone owned by you. All deleted messages, photos, and emails are fully recoverable despite one's best attempts to destroy them. Of course, once the investigation is concluded, you will no longer be able to deny to your own administration or to the citizens of Ocomico County that these photos not only

exists, but so do your text messages, phone logs, and other video evidence detailing your activities and life as Wakamico County Executive. As a sheriff of Wakamico County, I'm deeply hurt and embarrassed that a fellow elected official would bring such disrepute onto a county where I was born and raised. Our citizens deserve better. My personal attorney and I look forward to a written response from you outlining what investigative measures you would like for me to take to secure an outside agency to fully investigate these serious allegations. Please respond within 14 days, two weeks. I eagerly await your response. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Michael A. Lewis, Sheriff Wacamaco County, Maryland. All right, a lot to think about here.

A lot to make sense of. My mind's blown with this. Let me bring on right now a special guest. I'm joined by Daniel Sokowitz, who's a victim's rights and trial attorney would know a lot about this. First of all, Daniel, I got to tell you, I don't think I've seen correspondence between elected officials like this. I don't think I've ever seen correspondence between a county executive and a sheriff, let alone allegations of revenge porn. But like this back and forth letter to letter, have you ever seen anything like this? No, I mean, I read this letter from the sheriff and it is absolutely mind-blowing that he would put something like this in writing on official letterhead besides the fact of how incorrect he was under the criminal law, the concept that he would then go

ahead and blame someone that claims that they're a victim of non-consensual pornography is absurd, and then using official letterhead to do so. I mean, what's crazy is if you read the bottom of the letter, it says, please now consult with my private attorney. So clearly, he understands that there are potential ramifications. He's using both the public office and his private attorney in order to try to, it seems like, in my view, harass a victim of a sexual assault. Let's talk about this for a second. So under the law, let's start with Maryland law. Even if, someone wasn't in an intimate relationship with another person. And even if someone took photos of themselves, because there's a back and forth about how the photos were allegedly obtained

by the sheriff's deputy, if that's true. But what's the rule? You don't have to be in an intimate relationship with somebody to go forward with a revenge porn claim. And you don't even, you could have taken, voluntarily taken the photos yourself. Does it matter about whether or not you sent them to anybody? It does not at all. So Maryland has a fairly standard revenge porn criminal statute. It is somebody distributes the intimate images with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threatened, or coerce the person that took the photographs.

Now, there is a section to it that says that the person could not consent to the distribution and also that they had a reasonable expectation that the images would remain private. There is nothing in this statute that says that the person who received the images had to be the intended recipient. That person had to be the one that received them and then shared them. It's not here. It doesn't matter why you took the images. It doesn't matter who you shared them with candidly. The concept that somebody potentially shared these images without your consent and they did it with an intent to cause harm to the victim is what makes the criminal.

So there's no reasonable expectation of privacy that's eliminated. if you send the photo to someone else. Because the argument would be, hey, you put it out there. You can't blame anybody else for what happens. It's like someone stole it off your device or stole it off the cloud or sent it improperly themselves. Just the idea of if you sent it,

you don't have a right to claim that you're a victim of anything because you put it out there. That's not true. That is 100% correct. Otherwise, these statutes would be absolutely meaningful. It's akin to the fallacy that a married person could,

a husband could not rape his wife. The mere fact that you're married to someone doesn't mean you consent to sex. The mere fact you share your intimate image with an individual does not mean that you consent then for it to be shared with the entire world. Let me ask you this federal, when they mentioned the federal, a potential federal crime. Is that the takedown act? That would be. So when this letter was sent, there was no federal crime in existence at the time.

So presumably they were referring to the civil statute. that came into play, which was 15 U.S.C. 6851, which only allows for a civil lawsuit. However, recently, to take a down act was enacted that now makes it criminal for someone to share someone image without their consent as well. What is going on here? Because you have these letters back and forth from 2024. We're hearing about it now. What happened in the last two years? Because it was boiling up. You know, there's talk about you want to have an investigation. Okay, there's going to be a search warrant. your phones, there's going to be back and forth. What do you think happened in the last two years?

Yeah, I mean, I think we need to look at this response to begin with from a report from a crime that took place by Sheriff Lewis. The concept that you would put in writing that, okay, you've been a victim, but now it opens up the door for me, another political individual within a community or an investigator to gain access to all your personal devices, all of your deleted information. This is a form of intimidation. It's not accurate. It's not actually a true statement necessarily what he's saying, nor is it somebody that's ever trained to represent victims or be a law enforcement of victims of sexual assault

should ever be saying to someone that is filing a report and claiming that they're a victim, even if they don't believe the allegations. There is a reason that in most states, the sharing of someone's intimate images without their consent is deemed a sex crime. It's handled by specially trained police officers in New York City. SVU, just like you see on the television show. When the civil statute was passed at a federal level, it was passed under the Violence Against Women's Act because there is the understanding that to share someone intimate image without their consent is a form of sexual abuse. And now you have a sheriff

who is telling somebody that it's okay, you can make the report if you want, but it's going to ruin your life. That is essentially what he's telling this individual. So I don't understand how the public could ever have trust that anybody would take their claim seriously when somebody like Sheriff Lewis was willing to put this in writing and send it to a victim. Now, what has happened since 2024? Unfortunately, it actually seems as though this letter served as a deterrent to Sheriff Menford to be. We have not heard about an investigation. It is very possible to count the executive chose not to go through with the process of filing a criminal complaint.

And it seems as though these letters came out as base of a foil request. later on in response to her actually denying now that these images ever existed to begin with. I mean, she was adamant during that news conference that she never sent nude photos as a county executive. I don't recall if she was as adamant as saying she never took them, but I thought it was interesting that she held this press conference. What did you make of that? You know, I think unfortunately there was still a stigma in society for individuals that choose to take intimate images of themselves. The concept that she herself were first, to these images of pornographic within her initial letter sort of shows that there's almost a shame

involved with this and that people believe it could impact your political career in the future. And we've actually seen it impact individuals' political career when this comes out. I think a lot of it has to do with potentially the shame associated with that you're of a certain age and you're still sharing these images and the acceptability within society. Nowadays, unfortunately, it's almost like a first state or a second base where someone will share their intimate images. There is a level of trust that exists, and that's why a lot of these laws have come into existence. So I believe that part of it is her trying to protect what she sees as her reputation. We don't know how, if these images did exist, and it seems though they may have,

how the sheriff obtained them. There are many ways that perpetrators are able to obtain these images from someone's devices, whether through a hack, whether through a third party. We had a case in New Jersey where someone was gaining access to his co-worker's phones, pretending that he was out and then airdropping intimate images of other people to his own phone and sharing them online. So we don't know all the facts. And I will also say that this criminal statute is very narrowly tailored. So there is a possibility when this deputy shared with the sheriff the images, he didn't do it with the intent to cause harm. He did it maybe because he just wanted to show off that he had these images. All that being said, it doesn't make the conduct right. And it doesn't

mean that Girodano should feel shamed about what took place in this situation. And look, those are the allegations. We're trying to sort out what exactly happened. I thought this part was interesting from her letter. You have acknowledged possessing such an image. You mentioned this to a private citizen, a group of individuals in Annapolis, to which you added that the image was shared from a government phone, and in a meeting with your chief deputy, the state's attorney, the assistant director of administration, and myself, all without my consent. It does make me wonder how she knew this.

I mean, assuming this is all true that he had these conversations. By the way, he rebutted that he personally had the image like he, you know, he said it was shared to him. How do you think she knew or allegedly knew that he had these conversations? Oh, you have to imagine people talk. I mean, people talk about anything small, especially within small political communities and parties. There's no doubt in my mind. It somehow got back to her through somebody that actually was either present at the time or there were rumors going through the process. So I believe she had to have received her from a third party who knew from their own personal knowledge or heard it through the rumor mill.

I mean, that's normally how individuals find out about this. Are we learning about this now because it's politics because it's election season? Yeah, I mean, I read this and I said they have to be part of different political parties. I mean, that was my view, but it looks as though they're actually part of the same party. But this is definitely politics at its dirtiest. Both individuals were using official letterhead to send correspondence back and forth on private matters. But this is definitely politics. So according to reporting from WBFF out in Baltimore, earlier this year,

Wakamako attorney Andrew Illuminati, what a last name. Andrew Illumani told their investigative team that the county wouldn't be releasing these letters because it was, quote, an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Also cited them as being part of an investigatory record. Then on Wednesday, WBFF reports that Illumani seemingly changed his mind, the records because of, quote, public interest, wrote in correspondence with WBFF, reporter Gary Collins, quote, the sheriff has confirmed that there is not an open investigation being conducted by his office, and the matter has not been referred to an outside agency for investigation.

Additionally, given the public attention this matter is receiving due to Mr. Collins' story, the records are a matter of public interest. The sheriff's office confirmed that there are no preservation notices to cell phone companies. there is no known evidence that images still exist, and that there is not a cease and desist letter or any other letter from the sheriff instructing the county executive to cease sending semi-nude, nude, or pornographic photographs of herself to sheriff's deputies, quoting from Mr. Collins' article.

Daniel, what do you make of that decision to reverse course here to release these letters, and what do you make of the rationale behind doing so? I don't believe there's any law that should have protected the release of these letters. It's clear that they're being done on agency letterhead. There is an indication. There is no investigation that was open at any time. While I understand it involves a private matter, the parties did choose to use, again,

the office of the county executive letterhead and the sheriff's office letterhead. I think there is a public interest in the back and forth. And actually, I think there should be a public interest in the response from the sheriff's office. It moves up to me. County executive Giordano should have actually turned around and said, yes, I was a victim and I want my story to be heard so other people would not have to be victimized as well. Because if this is how a county executive is being treated, I cannot imagine how other normal citizens or everyday citizens are walking into the precinct and being treated by the sheriff's office at this time. What's also actually very interesting about the timing of all of this back in 2024 is it seems as though the images were originally released around February.

because in county executive Giordano's letter, she claims that in February 13th, 2024, she was informed that under the Maryland Revenge Poorn Statute, there needed to be an intimate relationship. But these letters are dated September and October. So clearly something was going on for at least six to eight months that led her to actually try to follow up with an additional investigation. That's an interesting point.

Look, you have a court, according to reporting from the Baltimore Sun, Executive Giordano, Sheriff Lewis, they have a rocky working relationship for years. Sheriff Lewis apparently told the son, I have not always had a good relationship with my county executive. For the last year and a half, I think we both have worked very hard to get along for the betterment of Wakamico County. WBF's investigative team, Spotlight on Maryland, reportedly texted Giordano to ask if she ever had, quote, any sexual or otherwise intimate relationships with any member of the Wakamiko County Sheriff's Office. and she reportedly texted back. This conversation is over. Talking to you is literally not even worth my time.

I'll wait and hear from the attorneys. Oh, by the way, this whole texting conversation is off the record. I was literally trying to help you see the entire picture, but it's obviously not worth my time. And when Spotlight in Maryland reportedly texted back that they never agreed to be off the record, Girodano reportedly said all of your questions will be answered in the letters. What do we make of that?

I view it as a further invasion of privacy, whether or not Giordano had a sexual relationship with anyone within the department is really nobody's business. That that's the private concept of it. And again, nothing takes away from the concept that she believed an image of her or several images of her that she took and intended to remain private or being shared without the sheriff's office and throughout the sheriff's office. So, yes, I mean, there's some protocols that you should always have in place when you talk to the media about talking off the record to begin with. and there should be strict understandings back and forth. Do I think it was an appropriate question by them? While they may have been curious, I think there probably could have been a more delicate way to ask her.

And I would understand why she believes that her privacy is being invaded even more. What do you think is going to happen now? Not much, unfortunately. I believe that given all this took place back in 2024, there's probably statute of limitations issues. If there were any criminal actions to begin with, there's a potential for a civil lawsuit against the issue. sheriff that it originally shared or the deputy had really shared these images. There is no civil

tort that you can bring against someone who views images. I mean, the First Amendment does protect that. So the concept that at least Sheriff Lewis viewed the images, you can't really hold them responsible for that. But you can hold it responsible for the person to meet available the images to begin with. Do I think there's going to be more back and forth over this? Yes. I do think there are more facts that we're not being made aware of. I do hope just again for the sake of everyone else within the county that the police officers take a deep look into how they handle this situation and reconsider how they would respond in a normal situation because this response just causes more and more victims to go forward and is why these laws were put into place to begin with.

Yeah, it's a it's a weird one. Very public now. Daniel Sagoitz, thank you so much for taking the time. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Appreciate it for having me on. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please, Subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, X Instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.