12-9-2015 North Carolina:
Laws Against Online Luring Harm Children
North Carolina’s Supreme Court just upheld a law making it a crime for a former sex offender to use social media that minors also use—that is, any social media.
In New Hampshire a judge rejected the appeal of Owen Labrie’s conviction for using a computer to “lure” a fifteen-year-old girl into sex. If Labrie, the prep school senior whose rape trial made national headlines, had called the girl on the phone instead of making arrangements on Facebook and by text, he would not have been breaking the law. The computer-related conviction will put the nineteen-year-old on the sex offender registry for life; he could also serve years in prison.
And the district attorney in Cañon City, Colorado, is mulling over whom, among a hundred or so high school students caught trading naked pictures of themselves via smartphone, to prosecute on child pornography charges.
Laws such as these, against “electronic solicitation of a minor” and online trading of child pornography, are troublesome for many reasons. For one thing, they are easy to abuse in order to load on penalties when the state is frustrated by an acquittal or lesser conviction than it sought. That is what happened in New Hampshire, where Labrie was acquitted of felony sexual assault but found guilty of misdemeanor statutory rape.
For another, because we all increasingly—and kids almost exclusively—rely on social media to conduct our family, social, business, and, yes, sexual lives, enforcement of these laws would require NSA-like blanket surveillance and would seriously damage freedom of speech. Indeed, challengers to North Carolina’s law argue that it is an unconstitutional curtailment of sex offenders’ First Amendment rights.
And then there are the patent absurdities created by such laws—signs that legislators, in search of novel ways to torture so-called sex offenders, have abandoned consideration of efficacy or justice. In the case of underage sexting, for instance, a person is both offender and victim at the same time.
But here is the deeper problem: the online offender statutes—not to mention press coverage, social analysis, education, parenting advice, and general fretting that go with them—are built on nothing but fear.
The underlying assumption is that Internet communication is fundamentally different from other means of communication. But not just different, the laws suggest. It is more dangerous. Specifically, it is dangerous to children, and in a particular way: sexually. The stated intent of these laws is to protect children from “Internet predators”—even if those predators are themselves. But as a growing body of research shows, the Internet is not especially sexually dangerous for kids—not more dangerous than anywhere else.
Online sexual solicitation of minors is rare and getting rarer. A comparison of three successive national surveys of kids aged ten to seventeen found that those receiving such come-ons dropped 50 percent from 2000 to 2010, to just 9 percent. At the same time, “the proportion of such crimes committed by offenders who use the Internet to meet victims is quite small in comparison to sex crimes against children overall,” according to a 2010 study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health and Medicine. During the period studied, the mid-aughts, there were 615 arrests for such offenses. Meanwhile, an estimated 14 million young people aged twelve to seventeen were accessing social media sites.
The study is part of ongoing research on online sexual and criminal behavior conducted by the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center, considered a foremost authority on such matters. The researchers there also found that adults who meet minors online for sexual purposes “are not different or more dangerous” than those who seek sex with kids they already know, either online or on terra firma.
Contrary to the image of the grizzly fifty-year-old satyr scattering emoticons across the screen like a middle-schooler, hardly anyone is deceiving anyone about their age or sexual intentions. In fact, the only people routinely lying about their identities are vice cops lurking in chat rooms posing as thirteen- or fourteen-year-olds. In the 2010 study of adult-minor sexual contacts through social media, almost three-quarters of the cases originated with investigators in sting operations, closer examination of which frequently reveals entrapment. ..Continued.. by Judith Levine
December 9, 2015
The Online–Sex Predator Panic
November 6, 2015
Man arrested in child sex sting sues Orange County Sheriff Office
11-5-15 Florida:
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. — A man arrested in a child sex sting is suing the Orange County Sheriff’s Office on claims of entrapment.
Kenneth Hochstein’s attorney said deputies tried to entrap his client, who he said never had any intentions of meeting a 14-year-old girl.
After Hochstein’s arrest, he was not allowed to see his children and put on leave from his job as a federal corrections officer.
Sheriff’s Office video of the 2011 sex sting showed men who responded to a Craigslist ad which advertised a woman and her 14-year-old daughter for sex.
Hochstein inquired, saying he was interested only if the daughter was at least 18.
Attorney Patrick Megaro said Hochstein never intended to have sex with a minor.
“Every time the police suggested that he carry on any sort of sexual conduct with anyone under the age of 18, he specifically disavowed that,” Megaro said.
Megaro said once Hochstein showed up at the home to meet the woman, the undercover detectives told him it would be three of them and never mentioned the third was underage.
Hochstein was arrested, but a judge tossed out the charges a year later, saying the Sheriff’s Office failed to clearly communicate that there was a child involved.
“The way the police did this was using trickery and entrapping him,” Megaro said.
Hochstein was put on unpaid leave for a year during the investigation. The Department of Children and Families didn’t let him see his four children for two years.
He’s suing the Sheriff’s Office which he said severely tarnished his reputation. “No matter how much evidence that proved this man did nothing wrong, people are going to look at him as a child molester,” Megaro said.
Hochstein has no criminal history on record on central Florida. ..Source.. by WFTV.com
October 5, 2015
2 local men caught in Chris Hansen child-sex sting in Connecticut
He's BACKKKKKKKKKKKK10-5-15 Connecticut:
Two local men were arrested in a "To Catch a Predator"-style police sting over the weekend in Connecticut.
......., a 64-year-old from Brewster, and ...., a 32-year-old from Harrison, were arrested by Fairfield, Connecticut police during a sting run in conjunction with production of TV news reporter Chris Hansen's Kickstarter-funded project Hansen vs. Predator.
..... faces charges of enticing a minor, criminal attempt at second-degree sexual assault and criminal attempt at risk of injury or impairing the morals of a minor. ......... faces charges of criminal attempt at risk of injury or impairing the morals of a minor.
..... and eight others believed they were exchanging messages online with either a 13-year-old boy or a 12-year-old girl, including both sexually-charged messages and nude photos, The Connecticut Post reported. The "children" gave the men the address of a Fairfield home owned by one of Hansen's friends, and when they arrived were arrested.
According to Hansen vs. Predator's Kickstarter page, the former NBC news reporter plans to release episodes online. It says the new project will reflect changes in mobile technology, which allow predators to find children through social media.
..... is being held on $500,000 bond and is next due in Bridgeport Superior Court Oct. 20. .... is being held on $80,000 bond and is due back Oct. 28. ..Source.. by Matt Coyne
August 12, 2015
14-year-old raped during botched sting can sue Madison County school board
The 14-year-old girl who was raped during a botched sting operation in a middle school bathroom in north Alabama five years ago can sue the Madison County school board in federal court for deliberate indifference to the educational opportunities of young girls.
"These are highly unique and extreme facts that will hopefully never again be repeated," wrote the appeals judges in a lengthy, complicated ruling on exactly who is liable for sending an eighth-grade girl to catch a serial sexual harasser in the act.
A teachers aide hatched the sting operation to catch the boy in the act. But teachers arrived too late. Medical records show the girl was anally raped. She withdrew from Sparkman Middle and the boy returned after a stint at the alternative school.
The resulting lawsuit against the board was thrown out by the lower court, and brought back to life today by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"This is a unique case because the administrators effectively participated in (the boy's) sexual harassment by setting (Jane) Doe up in a rape-bait scheme involving (the boy) in order to 'catch him in the act,'" found the appeals court.
Today's ruling parsed two separate appeals and at least six different claims that had been argued before the court in Atlanta on May 19.
In the end, the court held the girl can continue to sue the Madison County school board, principal Ronnie Blair, former assistant principal Jeanne Dunaway and the former teacher's aide June Simpson in federal court.
The court did clear one assistant principal, Teresa Terrell. "Unlike Assistant Principal Dunaway and Teacher's Aide Simpson, there is no evidence Terrell acquiesced to or ratified the plan to use Doe as rape bait," wrote the court.
As for the board itself and the claims under the federal Title IX, the court writes that a jury could find unreasonable and even "patently odious" acts in regard to school policy, including the shredding of student discipline records, the assigning of disciplined students to unmonitored janitorial duty, the policy of having to catch students in the act of sexual harassment, and the lack of policy changes after this incident.
The Court notes that "the Board's knowledge of (the boy's) sexual harassment, its catch in the act policy, its orchestration of a sting operation using Doe as bait for (the boy's) sexual activities, and its failure to help Doe in any way was patently odious."
The Court cites poorly kept electronic records that prevented the board from tracking a serial offender. The Court, in particular, finds problematic the handling of the situation after the rape, from not changing the record-keeping practices to allowing the boy to return to school to not keeping records of the investigation.
"In addition, the Board made only one policy change: it discontinued a one-day sexual harassment training workshop for administrators at the Madison County Administrator Academy," reads the ruling. "Although Principal Blair believes the Board did not need to change any policies because 'we did as good a job I think as you could do under the circumstances,' a reasonable jury could disagree."
But the court rejected the more broad constitutional claims against the school board, claims involving the Equal Protection Clause, "which confers a federal constitutional right to be free from sex."
The court reasoned: "The Board could not have foreseen a rape-bait scheme that required an eighth-grade student to voluntarily subject herself to sexual harassment as a 'known or obvious consequence' of the 'catch in the act' policy or its training policies."
However, the appeals court took a different position on those same claims in regard to the individual employees. The ruling reversed the lower court and allowed constitutional claims to proceed against Blair and Dunaway, in part, the court held "because 'every objectively reasonable government official facing the circumstances' would know this irresponsible plan violated the Equal Protection Clause."
Blair did not know about the sting beforehand. But the Court writes: "The evidence shows Blair crafted and implemented Sparkman's sexual harassment and recordkeeping policies. A jury could find that despite these policies' glaring inadequacies that were exposed by (the boy's) rape of Doe, Blair did virtually nothing in response."
The ruling also addressed various claims under state law. The district judge, while throwing out all federal claims, had allowed negligence and wantoness claims to proceed against Dunaway and Simpson.
Dunaway had appealed this part of the ruling, arguing she had immunity as an agent of the state. The girl also appealed, arguing she should be able to sue Blair under state claims.
The appeals court today largely upheld those rulings. The court found that Blair did not act in self-interest and retains qualified immunity as a state agent.
But the court held that Dunaway cannot claim immunity from state claims because she "exceeded her authority by ratifying the rape-bait scheme rather than reporting CJC's sexual harassment to Principal Blair in accordance with the Policy Manual..."
But the court also touches on a key disagreement of fact, as it recounts the botched sting.
In January of 2010, teacher's aide Simpson told Blair about a rumor involving the same boy having sex in the school bathroom with another girl. Blair had investigated but said he lacked proof. Simpson said Blair told her he needed to catch students in the act. The boy was then accused of touching another girl's thigh on Jan. 13 and Blair placed the boy on janitorial duty.
The boy then began to proposition the girl for sex and had continued to do so until she complained to Simpson. On Jan. 22, Simpson suggested the sting.
From today's ruling: "Simpson said 'do you want to get (the boy)' in trouble and Doe said 'yes.' Simpson said, 'Do you want to—you have to go meet him so that we could set him up and get him caught because he's been doing this for a while.' Doe responded that she 'didn't want to go,' and walked to the locker room. Doe and her friend then sat in the locker room a few minutes and conversed. A few minutes later, Doe approached Simpson again and 'told her I would do it.' Simpson asked if Doe was 'sure,' and Doe said yes."
She took the girl to the assistant principal's office. Dunaway was on the phone with her husband.
Here they disagree. Simpson says she told Dunaway the plan and that Dunaway showed her pictures of floor tile on her cell phone. Dunaway says that Simpson did not speak to her, but stood in her office with her back to Dunaway while Dunaway was busy.
The girl withdrew from Sparkman Middle on March 26, two months after the sting, and moved to North Carolina. She is an adult now and the court allowed her to drop her father's name from the suit and proceed as Jane Doe.
Simpson no longer works for the system. She did not send an attorney to speak for her during the hearing in May before the appeals court. Dunaway became an elementary school principal and has since been moved to the central office.
The ruling notes: "The medical records from the examination were consistent with anal rape...For reasons undisclosed by the record, the Madison County District Attorney's Office never filed charges against (the boy)." ..Source.. by Challen Stephens
June 24, 2014
FBI rescues 168 child prostitutes, nabs 281 pimps, in weeklong sting
On Monday, the FBI announced the results of its most recent nationwide child prostitution sweep, Operation Cross Country. Here are the main numbers: Last week, in 106 U.S. cities, the FBI and local law enforcement recovered 168 juvenile sex-trafficking victims and arrested 281 alleged pimps, the bureau said. Over the course of the eight child prostitution stings since 2003, the FBI added, about 3,600 sexually exploited minors have been rescued, 1,450 people convicted, and more than $3 million in assets seized.
"These are not children living in some faraway place, far from everyday life," said FBI Director James Comey. "These are our children. On our streets. Our truck stops. Our motels. These are America's children." They were found in these 106 cities (See pic).
May 24, 2014
Child porn suspects hold positions of trust
The child porn sting that nabbed a seemingly unlikely group of people from the New York area -- police officers, paramedics, a Little League coach, a nurse, nanny and a rabbi -- doesn't surprise those who study the criminal and deviant mind.
The 70 men and one woman arrested for allegedly using computers to swap pornographic images of children quashes stereotypes about child predators and may alert society to the reality they already know, forensic psychologists say.
Sexual predators and pedophiles are of varied socio-economic status, race and gender and aren't the "lecherous trolls you would see on a playground," says Kim Gorgens, aclinical associate professor of forensic psychology at the University of Denver who has worked in the field more than 15 years.
"It's percolating to the level of public consciousness," she says. "What we see clinically is that it's fairly representative of the population. If you look at these pedophiliac predators, you couldn't pick them out of a crowd."
Steven Norton, a forensic psychologist in Rochester, Minn., says such shocking revelations about people in society considered to have high standing shouldn't be such a surprise.
"They like that standing -- being publicly this good person and in private this deviant person. They like the idea of that balance," he says. "With some people -- particularly those in good standing -- they have this idea they can fool people and get away with these really bad things and nobody would suspect them and that's part of the drive also."
Gorgens adds that in many cases, the positions of respect they hold in society are no accident.
"Serial pedophiliac offenders are drawn to roles where they have access and are in positions of trust and authority," she says. "They may have sought them out."
Law enforcement officials in this case have said child pornography is spreading. Norton agrees that the Internet has made it easier for predators to exchange images and build networks. ..Continued.. by Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
March 18, 2014
Local law enforcement refuses to turn over records on secret sex stings, despite questionable practices
PINELLAS COUNTY, Florida - Despite findings by 10 Investigates that officers and deputies may not have followed federal guidelines in trying to lure sexual predators during a recent sting, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office tells 10 News no discipline or action is expected.
The agency is also refusing to cooperate with 10 Investigates' public records requests for emails pertaining to the sting. The Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (PCSO) rejected a request for emails that did not pertain to open cases.
But PCSO said every email exchange from its four-day operation -- including from men who showed no interest in sex with underage children -- remained an open investigation, with arrests or prosecutions imminent. An agency spokesperson said there were no plans to close the cases anytime soon.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Polk Co. Sheriff's Office, and Clearwater Police Department also refused to provide requested chat logs pertaining to cases that resulted in no arrest or charges.
The January sting, dubbed "Operation: Home Alone," resulted in 35 arrests. But guidelines for the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force instruct undercover officers to "allow the investigative target to set the tone, pace, and subject matter of the online conversation." An alleged email chain obtained by 10 Investigates indicates law enforcement may be willing to push past boundaries to get "targets" to talk about sex with children.
READ: Redacted email chain submitted to 10 Investigates (WARNING - GRAPHIC)
Local defense attorneys tell 10 Investigates that "there's no question [law enforcement] blurs the lines." But the state attorney's office in Pinellas County failed to return multiple requests for comment. ..Continued.. by Noah Pransky
February 20, 2014
Former resident sues city, says son was targeted
2-20-2014 Pennsylvania:
Former city resident Leo Conway already got city officials to revise Carbondale's sex offender ordinance by threatening a lawsuit against them if they refused. But now he is taking legal action against the city and the mayor regardless, arguing that he and his son were singled out for enforcement under the old ordinance, forcing them to move out of their home and leave the city.
Mr. Conway, who now resides in Archbald, claims his son Patrick was among 15 sex offenders on Megan's List residing in Carbondale in 2012. Yet he says that his son was the only one targeted by Mayor Justin Taylor for enforcement under the city's sex offender ordinance. The law at that time restricted offenders from residing within 2,500 feet of areas where children gather, such as a school, child care facility, public park or recreational facility.
Patrick Conway had been convicted in 2009 of unlawful communication with a minor as part of a police "sting" operation. When Taylor learned that he was living in an apartment with his father across the street from a playground on Route 6, and just a short distance from an elementary school, he contacted the Conways' landlord about the violation and eviction proceedings began against them.
According to Mr. Conway, he met with Mayor Taylor about a dozen times and showed him documentation that a state Supreme Court decision in 2011 rendered Carbondale's ordinance as unconstitutional and therefore it should be changed. However, he says Taylor insisted that "his" law took precedence and he refused to budge.
Mr. Conway and his son showed up at a City Council meeting in August, threatening to sue the city if the sex offender ordinance wasn't changed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.
Having served as a magistrate judge in Wyoming County for 25 years before moving to Carbondale, Mr. Conway accused Taylor of "looking down upon" him and his son.
"We were very happy here," he related in his presentation to council. "But then the mayor told me, 'Pat has to go!' That was it."
"We have been defamed with the Conway name," he complained. "I could cry."
For his part, Taylor said at the time that it was his custom to check the Megan's Law website every year to ensure that all registered sex offenders were complying with the city ordinance, which had been enacted in 2007. When he came upon the case of Patrick Conway by pure chance, since the Conways were erroneously listed as living in Carbondale Twp., he said he took action in accordance with the existing statute.
Taylor also disputed Mr. Conway's contention that the two had discussed the matter on multiple occasions. He said said they spoke about it only once at the time of the eviction process, and then he didn't see Mr. Conway again until about two weeks before the council meeting when Conway showed up at his office to complain about a parking ticket.
After the August meeting, Taylor told the NEWS that the city solicitor would "conduct a thorough review of the matter."
The following month, council introduced an amended version of the city ordinance which loosened restrictions on registered non-violent sex offenders by removing the prohibition on where they can live in the city. The revised law was later approved by council and enacted into law.
The Conways' lawsuit alleges that the city acted in a "capricious, unreasonable and discriminatory manner," and that the actions taken against Mr. Conway and his son were done in retaliation for their speaking out against the ordinance, which is a violation of their right to free speech under the First Amendment.
The suit also contends that Taylor "publicly and recklessly" made false allegations against Mr. Conway's son in the aftermath of that meeting, by claiming that he had an extensive criminal record which included burglary, forgery and receiving stolen property.
Taylor acknowledged in an interview with the NEWS at the time that this information was inaccurate. He said the error was due to the fact that those additional crimes were committed by another Patrick Conway who resides in Pennsylvania, which he found while researching Mr. Conway's son and thinking they were part of his record. ..Source.. by Tom Flannery
January 6, 2014
Sex Sting Backlash
1-5-2014 Florida:
PENSACOLA, Florida - Two and a half years ago Escambia County deputies arrested 25 men in operation Blue Shepherd. Officials said the men were looking for sex with minors after chatting online. One of those men was Trey Gennette.
“Once you're labeled a pedophile that sticks with you for an eternity,” says Gennette. He's innocent in the eyes of the law--but his life has ground to a halt. This past fall his guilty plea was thrown out on appeal--the higher court saying investigators were the ones who were talking about sex with a minor--not him--Gennette thought he was chatting with a college age woman. He says he still hasn’t fully recovered.
“For nearly three years now there hasn't been much of an improvement if I wasn't a veteran probably very bleak, probably homeless,” says Gennette. When he’s not at school he spends much of his free time on the computer--fighting back against internet sex stings. He has built a couple of websites dedicated to the cause where he’s working with other men arrested in these stings. In most cases police post ads on adult sites like Craigslist saying they're adults--but once they start one-on-one chats the officer claims he's underage.
“In almost every instance it is the police who are doing the seducing, the alluring and the enticing,” says defense lawyer Peter Aiken. He works in Florida and specializes in defending men arrested in these stings. “The problem with the stings is they're catching 5% of the predators and they're destroying 95% of the lives of innocent men.” ..Continued..
December 19, 2012
Judge refuses to toss suit over La sex registry
12-19-2012 Louisiana:
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal judge refused Wednesday to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that seeks to have removed from the state's sex offender registry roughly 400 people who were convicted of soliciting oral or anal sex for money under Louisiana's "crime against nature by solicitation" law.
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ruled in April that the names of nine plaintiffs who were convicted of the same offense must be stricken from the registry. A separate suit, filed after Feldman issued his decision, says the ruling should be applied to anyone in the same position.
Louisiana Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell's office urged Feldman to dismiss the latest suit, arguing that a recent change in state law leaves the potential class members without any valid claims.
Feldman rejected that request after challenging Phyllis Glazer, a lawyer for Caldwell's office, to explain why the hundreds of potential class members aren't immediately entitled to the same relief as the nine plaintiffs who sued last year.
"Sometimes I wonder if anything the state has done in this case has passed the laugh test," he said.
Feldman expressed frustration at the pace of the process for deciding whether people already have a right to have their names removed from the registry
"I am incredulous and very concerned about why this process has been dragged out against the backdrop of politics for so long," he said.
The state Legislature amended the 200-year-old law last year so that anyone convicted of a "crime against nature by solicitation" no longer will be required to register. But the legislative change didn't apply to the nine original plaintiffs or roughly 484 other people statewide who already were registered.
Feldman's earlier ruling said state lawmakers had no "rational basis" for requiring people to register as sex offenders if they were convicted of violating the law. The judge said the plaintiffs wouldn't have had to register if instead they had been convicted of soliciting sex for money under the state prostitution law.
Several weeks after that ruling, state lawmakers changed the law again. Glazer said the change requires people to prove they didn't solicit sex from a minor before they can be removed from the registry.
"The Legislature made a concerted effort to provide relief to the people it applied to," she said.
Plaintiffs' attorney Bill Quigley said virtually all of the potential class members are people who were arrested in sting operations for soliciting sex from undercover police officers.
"It's never a minor," he said in an interview after the hearing.
Quigley said dozens of people already have gone to court since Feldman's April ruling and successfully petitioned to have their names removed from the registry, but many don't have the means to follow suit.
Feldman said he has tried to bring a "commonsense approach" to his review of the case.
"Equal protection of the law in not rocket science. It's commonsense," he said. ..Source.. by MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
August 22, 2011
Judge: ‘To Catch a Predator’ is entrapment
8-22-2011 National:
Man featured on show has case tossed out
A California man accused of being a sexual predator after a TV sting has had his case thrown out.
Joseph Roisman, now 26, appeared on the Dateline NBC show “To Catch a Predator” in 2006, where he was caught on tape showing up at a home to allegedly have sex with a 13-year-old girl that he had met on the Internet. As fans of the show know, that girl didn’t exist, and Roisman found himself in an awkward situation having to be confronted by the show’s host, Chris Hansen.
Roisman was part of a sting by the show working with volunteers from the group Perverted Justice, an organization which routinely poses as minors online, and when they are approached by adults looking to meet them for sex, they inform the police. This particular sting in Petaluma, California, resulted in 29 arrests and 27 convictions.
But Roisman managed to escape jail and go free, reports the Press Democrat, after Judge Arthur Wick ruled that the online conversations between Roisman and the virtual 13-year-old contained insufficient evidence and that Perverted Justice “lacked credibility” and “engaged in entrapment.”
Wick said, “The axiom actions speak louder than words clearly does not apply in this case.”
Roisman’s attorney, Stephen Turer, had argued that Roisman didn’t even believe the person he was chatting with was 13 years old due to the “sophisticated and mature messages” and that his intent was not to have sex when he traveled over 100 miles to meet her.
Roisman’s mother, Deborah Roisman, said “To Catch a Predator” made the past five years “a living hell” for her son, and that she and her family are planning to sue NBC, in part to recoup the $100,000 her and her husband spent on legal fees in their son’s defense.
Besides the arrest and spending a subsequent year in jail, Roisman was also dismissed from the Navy, where he was a cook at the time.
Roisman plans on petitioning the Navy to reinstate him into the service, saying, “I’m ready to move on with my life.” ..Source.. by Prescott Carlson
November 11, 2010
Wash. high court upholds attempted rape conviction
11-11-2010 Washington:
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Police may pose as children during Internet sting operations to catch sex offenders preying on children, the Washington Supreme Court said Wednesday. (See also: Concuring and Concurring)
The decision clarifies a 2002 ruling by the court on a similar case, finding that a defendant may be convicted of attempted rape of a child in a case where the alleged victim is a fictitious underage character created by the police.
Mitel Patel was convicted of attempted second-degree rape of a child after chatting with a Spokane police detective, who was posing as a 13-year-old girl named Kimberly, over an online instant message service in 2004. Patel agreed to meet the girl at her apartment for sex and was arrested by police when he arrived.
Patel argued that the state's statutes governing child rape and attempted child rape are contradictory, because a defendant's knowledge about a victim's age is irrelevant in the child rape statute but is relevant in the attempted child rape statute.
However, the court ruled that defendants may assert a defense, under the rape statute, that they believed the victim was older based on the victim's own declarations. Conversely, the attempted child rape statute focuses on the defendant's intent, regardless of whether the act is completed.
"Here was sufficient evidence to prove that Patel intended to have sex with a 13-year-old girl and took a substantial step toward doing so," the court said.
Four justices signed the majority opinion, and two justices signed a concurring opinion that found fault with language in one section.
Three other justices, led by Justice Richard Sanders, also concurred with the majority opinion. However, they disagreed with the way in which it was reached, saying it goes too far to rewrite current law on attempted child rape.
"As the saying goes, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it,'" Sanders wrote. "The statutes here are not broken, and the lead opinion has neither the authority nor the justification to 'fix' them." ..Source.. by AP
