You might be asking, if you saw the news segment above, "did I really hear that?" Could the Commonwealth of Virginia really have planned to take pictures of a minor's engorged member (having first chemically induced the engorgement)? You might also ask, if you're a New Yorker, "could anything like that happen here?"
As for the Virginia incident, the situation does seem a little murky, but the lawyer and the guardian ad litem for the minor clearly say it happened. The Washington Post has said so, as well. The Manassas (Virginia) City Police Department, the agency investigating the minor's alleged crime (which supposedly involved 'sexting'), did issue a press release denying the story. But after the uproar caused by the original story, the Washington Post published a Follow-up article quoting a police official as saying "We are not going to pursue it" and further stating that the police department intended to let the warrant expire. That surely would indicate that the original story was true.
It's not surprising that the police would ultimately get cold feet in this affair, quite apart from the unpleasant publicity. Given that the accused in the Virginia case is only 17, the creation of the proposed photo - as noted by the guardian ad litem in the first Post piece - would actually appear to constitute the production of child pornography. For instance, under Virginia law 'child pornography' is defined as "sexually explicit visual material which utilizes or has as a subject an identifiable minor." 'Sexually explicit visual material', in turn, includes any "visual representation which depicts . . . sexual excitement" in a minor. Add the fact that the whole point of the police exercise proposed here was to 'depict sexual excitement' in the minor defendant, et voilà...
However, it won't astonish anyone familiar with Virginia that the police set out to make the picture in the first place. The term 'trans-vaginal ultrasound' is still closely associated with the Commonwealth; and Just last year, Virginia made a desperate attempt - ultimately unsuccessful - to revive its law forbidding 'crimes against nature'. (A 'crime against nature' would include most sex acts between two persons that cannot lead to pregnancy).
There's no real reason why the same scenario couldn't arise in New York, though. In fact, something somewhat similar has already happened here, as we'll discuss below.