"Why don't you have a seat over there..."

[mr_pikachu]

I'd like to briefly quote a recent LA Times article on the subject.

The temporary restraining order issued last week by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Melvin Sandvig is a logical legal step taken to its fear-induced extreme. Attorneys asked Sandvig to prohibit McClellan from loitering near minors in the Santa Clarita Valley, which he had visited and to which he planned to return, and to stop him from posting pictures of minors on the Internet without the consent of their parents. Instead, Sandvig ordered McClellan, who has committed no crime, to stay 10 yards from every child in California. Restraining McClellan from Santa Clarita would have been understandable, if constitutionally unsound. Restraining him from the entire state is even less supportable.

In short, the prosecutors asked the judge to keep McClellan away from minors in Santa Clarita (for which I still don't see the basis, but at least it's not the entire state) and to prohibit him from posting pictures of kids online without parental consent (which I thought was against the law anyway; perhaps this is the initial offense that triggered everything? Still need to check). The judge instead chose to bar McClellan from going near any child in all of California, an over-the-top measure that the prosecutors weren't even seeking.

Still trying to find out what evidence the prosecutors presented in trying this case in the first place...


EDIT: Apparently taking pictures as McClellan has done isn't illegal after all:

The man who runs it, 45-year-old Jack McClellan, has never been convicted of a sex crime, which means he can attend any family-friendly events where children are present, and take all the pictures he wants for his Web site.

Which brings us back to the central point. What illegal act has he committed? Granted, this article was published in March, so maybe he's done something since then... but it seems like I should have been able to find something by now if that was the case.