On-line Sexual Predators

By, Danielle Roberts, Kristen Roch and Holly Varner
Law and the Internet
Georgia State University College of Law
Fall 2005

Many links to documents, opinions and statutes are PDF files and require an Adobe reader. If you need to download a free copy of Adobe Reader, click the button.

Adobe Reader Button



Table of Contents

Introduction
Hypothetical
How Does an On-line Sexual Predator Work?
What are Internet Companies Doing to Help?
What is an On-line Sexual Predator?
How do the Sexual Predators get Children to Meet Them Off-line?
Who's at risk? Profile of a typical child victim of Internet-related sexual molestation.
Federal Law Governing Online Sexual Predators.
Congress' Early Attempts End in Failure.
Current State of Federal Law.
The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA).
18 U.S.C. § 2422(2005).
18 U.S.C. § 2423(2003).
18 U.S.C. § 2425(1998).
The Child's Safety Act of 2005.
State Laws Governing On-line Sexual Predators.
Table of State Laws and Cases.
Sex Offender Registries.
Sex Offender Registry Map.
Georgia Law
O.C.G.A. § 16-6-5.
Spivey v. State
Pierce v. State
O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.
State v. Brown
O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.1.
The Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 1999.
O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.3
What is the appropriate punishment?
Community Action and Resources.
Conclusion
Endnotes

Introduction

Sexual predators on the Internet. This is a danger we can not see, but one we face every time we log on.

A sexual predator enters an online chat room and waits. He waits for the right child to enter the chat . . . and the right child always will. After a few moments a 13-year-old girl enters and happily starts to chat about her school, her friends and her interests. This is when the sexual predator reaches out --"I love Usher, too!" The girl, excited to make a new friend, bites - and the conversation begins. The predator may begin by masquerading as another young girl, or a cute boy. Some predators tell their victim how old they are; they act as a sympathetic ear. In the end, his goal is the sexual exploitation of this child. This is a real danger, with 24% of teen girls admitting they have met online acquaintances in person.[1] See "Amy's Choice"[2] for a real life account. According to the United State Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1 in 5 (or 19%) of all young Internet users surveyed had received unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year. This forum focuses on online sexual predators of children.[3]

The motives of an online sexual predator are often very different from those of a cyberstalker. A cyberstalker typically seeks revenge for a real or imagined wrong, often having a romantic or sexual fixation on their victim. An online sexual predator is actively seeking sexual relationships with children. Additionally, approximately 1/3 of all cyberstalkers are female, while online sexual predators are almost always male.[4] 

One reason children and teens are drawn to Internet communication is because it provides a certain amount of anonymity. This is the same reason sexual predators are increasingly using the Internet to find their victims. A child never really knows who they are communicating with on the Internet (unless they are a known friend or family member), because of the way the Internet works a child may believe they are communicating with someone "just like them" but in reality they are sharing their secrets with an adult pretending to be a child.

How Does an On-line Sexual Predator Work?

Commonly, a sexual predator will contact a child in a chat room, using an instant messaging program or through e-mail. Teens often use these resources as online peer support and predators go to these areas looking for vulnerable victims who are trying to deal with their problems. Predators lavish time, attention and kindness on their victims, something thee victims may feel they are not getting from their parents. They are up on the latest trends and music.[5] A predator will engage a child in conversation and gradually ease their inhibitions. Then they will gradually introduce sexual content into conversations. Some predators work faster than others, but those who are immediately sexually explicit are often cyberstalkers. Sexual predators usually work slower, trying to gain the trust of their victim.[6] Young adolescents are the most vulnerable victims. They are more likely to take risks online without considering the consequences.[7] Most of the time, these children incorrectly assume that the Internet provides them anonymity. For a simplified explanation of how easy it is to get a child's personal information, see "Tracking Theresa."[8] Also, with children and teens becoming more interested in blogging, sexual predators are often invited into the personal life of a child.[9]

What are Internet Companies Doing to Help?

After some major negative publicity Yahoo received following a Texas news station's expose' on older men and young teenaged girls in a one of their chatrooms, Yahoo decided to rethink its chatroom design.  Since spring of 2005, Yahoo will not allow anyone under eighteen to chat on their on line site.[10]  Interestingly enough, this change in policy was not due to a police sting operation, but instead was based on a civil lawsuit filed on behalf of a molested twelve year old and massive advertisement withdraws.[11] It is important to remember while debating over how congress can or should be more proactive in certain areas, sometimes the best way to effectuate drastic changes is to call in the media.

This issue is gaining national attention through news programs such as "Dateline."

What is an On-line Sexual Predator?

A cursory search of the term "sexual predator" will quickly locate many recent cases where pedophiles and other adults have lured children into meeting them off-line where they then molested them. Thankfully, there are even more cases when such attempts to lure a child have brought about the attention of law-enforcement groups. Cyberpredators, just like their off-line counterparts, usually aren't the predictable, somehow funny looking, scary monsters in trench coats we imagine lurking in a dark alley. Many are the kind of person you would be inviting to your home as a guest, and often have. Offenders may be ministers, doctors, teachers, lawyers, welfare workers, journalists, Boy Scout leaders, softball coaches, etc. They are almost always men. They are often articulate and well educated. They come in every shape, size, and color imaginable. They are just as likely to be rich, middle class, or out of work. The important and scary thing is that they have one thing in common: they want your child. 

Predators often don't see themselves as predators. They see themselves as loving companions to the children they molest. To them, this isn't a crime, it's a seduction. As such, these offenders often carry on these relationships for extended periods of time. Predators have been known to wait more than two years, collecting data on a particular child, before striking. Contrastingly, however, it is also not uncommon for meetings to be set up in a matter of hours.

Before the Internet became commonplace in every American home, predators had to physically go to a location where children where known to be in order to find victims. Now, the offender can enter a chatroom and just sit back and listen. He may pick out a particular child that appears vulnerable, or he may approach every other on-liner that fits his profile (age range and gender). The anonymity of the Internet has removed the danger a pedophile used to face when cruising for his victims. An offender can gain a great amount of personal knowledge about his potential victims just by just eavesdropping in a chatroom. Kids often share personal information about their lives in chatrooms or on profiles. The predators use this information to gain your child's trust and friendship. For this reason, there are numerous on-line volunteer organizations encouraging parents to be more involved and proactive in their child's Internet activities.

How do the Sexual Predators get Children to Meet Them Off-line? 

They begin by striking up a conversation with the child, trying to create a relationship of trust and friendship. They often masquerade as another child or teenager, typically of the opposite sex unless the child has indicated homosexual interests. (The child may or may not know the "seducer's" real age by the time they meet face-to-face.) If the seduction is one that progresses over time, phone calls may start at this point. Sometimes gifts are sent to the child as well, which may include a Polaroid camera and film. After the barriers of caution have been lowered, they may begin gradually introducing sexual topics, often with the use of child pornography to give the child the impression that other children are regularly involved in sexual activities. Again, it is not atypical for an offender to jump to sexually explicit talk only minutes after the first introduction. These offenders are less likely to try and wine and dine the child victim before asking for an in person meeting. Both the slow and more aggressive predators will then begin to approach the child's own sexuality and curiosity by asking questions about their own experiences and willingness to try sexual acts.

Who's at risk? Profile of a typical child victim of Internet-related sexual molestation.

Most Internet victims are between the age of 12 and 15 and live in the suburbs or rural areas. Often they are very sheltered and naive, or, at the other extreme, they are willing to take very serious risks. Typically, they have very few off-line friends and pretty much stick to themselves. They are looking for love, affection or acceptance and some are coaxed into a face-to-face meeting with the sexual predator, many believing that the predator is their own age. Boys are usually tricked into a meeting or are willing to meet because of a curiosity about sexual acts and/or homosexuality. On the other hand, girls are tricked into face-to-face meetings due to their belief that they are in love with and will marry the predator some day. Sexual predator web awareness sites such as Web Aware, list several factors in determining what type of child may be more at risk. An at risk child may be one who spends an excessive amount of time (over 1 1/2 hours, not including homework) on the Internet every day; and is involved in "high risk" activities on-line such as sharing personal information on-line, sending photos of themselves to strangers on-line and frequently visiting chatrooms. Children who are more at risk on line tend to have less of a balanced home life outside the Internet and tend to be more secretive about their on-line activities. Tools that can be used to communicate with victims are varied and sometimes unexpected to the parent who allows their child access. Parents should watch to see if their child has a personal web page, an instant messenger (IM) account, a wireless device, and even a Sony Playstation 2 (because this gaming station connects to the Internet).  Parents also should stay active in their child's life, know who their friends are, and if they suddenly have new people calling for them or sending them packages. Overall, protecting a child from on-line sexual predators can be done with many of the same practical parenting tips that are necessary in protecting children from other dangers in the real world.[12]  

Return to top of Introduction.
Return to Table of Contents.

Federal Law Governing Online Sexual Predators.

Congress' Early Attempts End in Failure.

Beginning in 1996, Congress has passed several laws addressing sexually explicit materials and sexual predators found on the Internet. The Communications Decency Act (CDA)[13] passed in 1996. The CDA represented Congress’ first attempt to regulate children’s access to sexually explicit material on the Internet by making it illegal to put “indecent” content on the Internet where kids could find it. However, the CDA was unanimously declared unconstitutional in 1997 in Reno v. ACLU for “broad suppression of speech addressed to adults”; the term “indecent” was found to be too vague.[14] Next came the Child Online Protection Act (COPA).[15] As a modified version of the CDA it required commercial websites to verify proof of age before allowing a user access to sexually explicit material considered obscene for minors. Like the CDA, COPA was immediately challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil liberty organizations, and, in 1999, a permanent injunction was ordered against its enforcement.[16] On May 13, 2002, in ACLU v. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court directed a lower court to re-examine its ruling that COPA was unconstitutional.[17] On March 6, 2003, the court again found that COPA was unconstitutional.[18] On June 29, 2004 the Supreme Court kept in place the 1999 lower-court ruling against the enforcement of COPA, but ordered the lower court to consider whether recent advancements in filtering technologies could protect children more or less effectively than the criminal sanctions specified in COPA.[19] Congress enacted the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in 2000.[20] CIPA took effect in April 2001, requiring schools and libraries receiving federal technology funds to install pornography-blocking software on their computers. The American Library Association filed suit alleging the requirement of blocking software in libraries was unconstitutional on its face. On May 31, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania agreed.[21] The U.S government appealed that decision, and on June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court overturned the district court's ruling.[22]

Federal laws have also been enacted to protect children from predators who attempt to lure them into an off-line meeting for the purpose of performing illegal sexual acts or coercing them to provide sexually explicit photos of themselves. In April 2003, Congress passed a law that provides wiretapping authority for seven sexual offenses, including child pornography and the sexual exploitation of children. Part of a broader child protection bill entitled the Protect Act of 2003, which also mandates the Amber Alert system for abducted children, this law expands federal law enforcement agencies’ wiretapping abilities to catch online predators before they get their hands on innocent children.[23]

Current State of Federal Law.

There are five federal statutes that govern this area of law, and one statute making its way through Congress.

The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) states that a commercial website collecting personal information from a child under 13 years old without the consent of a parent is breaking federal law.[24] The Act requires sites to provide parents with notice of their information gathering practices, obtain verifiable parental consent, allow a parent to choose whether information is shared with third parties and provides parents with access to and the authority to change or delete the private information their child provides.

The Federal Trade Commission, created by Congress in 1914, enforces a variety of federal antitrust and consumer-protection laws and is responsible for taking action against practices that are unfair or deceptive. The FTC's authority extends to the Internet, which, like other media, can be used to deliver fraudulent content. Beginning April 21, 2000, the FTC became responsible for enforcement of COPPA.  This act promises to put parents back in charge of their children's information on-line. It gives them the tools to control who collects personal information from their kids, how that information is used, and whether it is shared with third parties. This Rule implements one of the Commission's top goals -- protecting children's privacy on-line. Key elements of the Rule requires sites to provide parents notice of their information gathering practices, obtain verifiable parental consent, allow a choice of whether information gather is shared with third parties and provides parents with access to their child's provided information and the authority to change or delete it.[25] In order to promote this new Rule, the FTC created websites geared to both adults[26] and children[27] to educate them of their rights. Here is a list of frequently asked questions which explains the power and scope of COPPA.

In theory, the idea of COPPA, combating sexual predators world wide, is brilliant. Realistically, however, the enforcement of international violations may prove to be a considerable challenge. The jurisdictional hurdle may require that a criminal's home nation have some type of reciprocal relationship with the United States. Further, according to COPPA foreign run websites must comply with COPPA if they are directed to children in the U.S. or knowingly collect information from children within the United States. The difficulty of proving these requirements also may result in legitimate obstacles.

18 U.S.C. § 2422 (2005) prohibits anyone from using the mail to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any person under age 18 to engage in prostitution or any unlawful sexual activity. It has been interpreted to also include the Internet.[28] When using undercover agents as a tool in the fight against Internet predators, the defense of entrapment will likely be brought up during the prosecution of some of these cases. In order for such a defense to be successful the defendant must first admit to the commission of the crime and then meet a two-prong test that requires the defendant to show both that 1) there was government inducement and 2) that the Defendant was not predisposed. A defendant is not entitled to an entrapment jury instruction unless there is evidence BOTH of lack of predisposition and of government inducement in the criminal conduct.[29] The Supreme Court has noted that the underlying purpose of the entrapment defense is to protect an otherwise un-predisposed defendant from governmental coercion.[30]  Entrapment, therefore, focuses on the degree of government involvement in the crime and whether the defendant was predisposed to commit it.[31][32]  Stated another way, entrapment raises the issue of whether the criminal intent originated with the defendant or with government agents.[33] This obstacle of an entrapment defense is easily avoided by instructing officers to never initiate contact with a suspected predator. By allowing a predator to make his move on the child/agent, the possibility of a defendant arguing government inducement is greatly diminished. Additionally, once an arrest has been made, specially trained agents may be able to search the defendant's computer history and find evidence of other chats or encounters the predator has had in the past to combat any defense regarding the defendant's lack of predisposition to such crimes.

In U. S. v.Criswell the 6th Circuit determined the sentence enhancement for unduly influencing a minor to engage in sexual activity did not apply where the "victim" was an undercover agent posing as a minor, in a case in which the defendant was found guilty of using wire communications to induce or coerce an individual under the age of 18 to engage in sexual activity and attempting to transport a minor in interstate commerce with the intent to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (2005) and 18 U.S.C. 2423 § (2003).[34]

The lower court was not alone in its decision that sentence enhancements under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2A3.2(b)(2)(B) are applicable in attempted criminal sexual abuse when undercover agents pose as a child on-line.[35]  The 11th circuit has detailed how these enhancements should apply to attempted crimes and demonstrates how the sentencing guidelines have been specifically amended to encompass the definition of a victim to include an undercover agent - allowing such criminals to be subject to sentencing enhancements.[36] The amendment to the sentencing guidelines in 2000, which included the broader definition of a victim, appears to have been ignored by the Criswell court. One reason the Court may have failed to apply the sentence guidelines, may have been the prosecutor's inability to meet the requirement of showing that the victim was unduly influenced by the predator. While the guidelines have been amended to include undercover agents, the elements of the crime still remain the same and the government must still be able to prove both intent and completion of the crime as charged.[37]  Some argue that the need to prove actual undue influence on a victim was nullified when the amendment expanded the scope and definition of victims to include undercover agents. In so much as the commentary language of the sentence guidelines required a completed act of sexual abuse on a victim before the sentence enhancements applied, both that requirement as well as the actual undue influence element must be deemed null and void. If an agent may be a victim according to the standards, then a completed act of sexual abuse against that victim is extremely unlikely to occur. To allow the expanded definition, yet still demand the old elements would be paramount to canceling the existence of the sentence enhancements for this type of offender. 

An additional portion of the sentencing guidelines apparently overlooked by the Criswell Court is U.S.S.G. § 2A3.2(b)(3).  In addition to failing to follow the 2000 amendment of the guidelines in applying sentence enhancements when the victim is in fact an undercover agent under § 2A3.2(b)(2)(B), the court also completely failed to consider subsection 2A3.2(b)(3) of the same guidelines. Subsection (b)(3) states, "If a computer or an Internet-access device was used to (A) persuade, induce, entice, or coerce the victim to engage in prohibited sexual conduct; or (B) facilitate transportation or travel, by the victim or a participant, to engage in prohibited sexual conduct, increase by 2 levels."[38] If including the police officer in the definition of a victim, it should have been possible for the court to apply this enhancement, since the defendant did in fact use his Internet access to encourage the victim to engage in prohibited sexual contact. If intended to increase the punishment for the criminal act of enticing a minor, the enhancements need to be uniformly applied to all predators, both those who were successful and unsuccessful in their enticement. 

Courts have been similarly troubled when interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (2003) which states that it is a violation of this law for any U.S. citizen to travel abroad to engage in sexual acts with a child. This law applies even if the sexual acts do not occur in the United States. It is also illegal to transport a child within the United States for the purposes of engaging in sexual acts with the child.[39]  The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri found that a person can not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2423 if the "victim" is an undercover officer. [40]

18 U.S.C. § 2425 (1998) prohibits someone from using the Internet to send personal information about a minor in order to entice, invite or persuade a child to meet for sexual acts, or to help arrange a meeting for someone to perform sexual acts with a child.[41] The 11th Circuit, in U.S. v. Taylor, held that the defendant violated this statute when he posted personal information of a 12-year-old girl on an Internet bulletin board, encouraging readers to go to her home and engage in sexual acts with the child. His posts indicated that the child was a willing victim to pedophiles.[42] In conjunction with this law, 18 U.S.C. § 1470 (1998) declares a violation of federal law to knowingly send or attempt to send or transfer obscene material to a child under age 16.[43] 

The Child's Safety Act of 2005 is currently making its way through Congress. On September 14, 2005 it passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support, and is waiting for a vote in the senate. It improves on Jacob's Law and Megan's Law. It creates a national comprehensive sexual offender registry system with improved information transfers between states when a sexual offender moves from one state to another. The Act would also increase penalties for sexual offenders who fail to register.[44] [45] 

Return to top of Federal Laws.
Return to Table of Contents.

State Laws Governing On-line Sexual Predators.

As exemplified in the table below, virtually every state has enacted a law making it illegal to entice a child over the Internet for sexual purposes.  Some states rely exclusively on a general enticement statute. These statutes do not specifically state that the activity is illegal if it occurs using the Internet, but they make any activity or conduct that would entice a child for sexual purposes illegal.[46] Only three states do not have a general enticement statute or an on-line enticement statute.[47] Many of the statutes that do exist have been enacted within the last few years and there is not a wealth of case law interpreting them. In fact, many states do not have a reported opinion interpreting these statutes.[48] Of those statutes that have been interpreted, courts seem to agree that these statutes do not violate the free speech provisions of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (or any State Constitution), the fact that the "victim" is an undercover officer does not prevent conviction, and defendants convicted must register with the state sexual offender registry.[49]  See the following table for the statutes and cases.

Click State Name for State Constitution.
State Name Statute Citation Case Citation Case Summary
Alabama Ala.Code § 13A-6-110 (2002).
You will need to navigate through the table of contents, there is no direct link.		 . There has been no reported opinion interpreting Ala.Code § 13A-6-110 (2002).
Alaska 2005 Alaska Sess. Laws 11.41.452 This bill was signed by the Governor August 30, 2005.  It will become effective November 28, 2005.  The bill was previously Senate Bill 140.  . Alaska's on-line sexual predator's bill will not become effective until November 28, 2005. All previous cases were adjudicated in the federal system.
Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3554 (2005).  State v. Hazlett, 73 P.3d 1258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).  In a case where the court examined several statutes regarding the exploitation of children, the court did not find Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3554 (2005) void as amended.
Arkansas Ark.Code Ann. § 5-27-603 (2005).
(You will have to navigate the table of contents. This website is difficult to navigate, and often does not work properly. Make sure to go to Title 5, Subtitle 3, Chapter 27, Subchapter 6 to find section 603).		 State v. Brooks, --- S.W.3d ----, 2005 WL 256478 (Ark. 2005). Trial court improperly transfered case from jurisdiction where defendant lived, and made Internet contact with victim, to place where "victim" (who was an undercover officer) lived. This case has not yet been reported, but will be. The citation has not been provided yet.
California Cal. Penal Code § 288.2 (2005). People v. Hsu, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cal. Penal Code § 288.2 (2005) making it a crime to use the Internet to distribute obscene material to a minor for the purposes of enticement or sexual gratification was not void for vagueness, did not violate the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, was not "overbroad" so as to violate the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, and was a "content based" restriction on speech, and therefore permissible under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-1002. (Computer dissemination of indecent materials to a child); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-305 (2005) (general statute on enticement of a child) (you will need to navigate through the table of contents, there is no direct link to free access to these statutes or to the Constitution.) edTitle("§ 18-3-305. Enticement of a child", "http://statcont.westlaw.com") . There are no reported opinions interpreting Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-1002. All reported opinions regarding Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-305 (2005)have not involved use of the Internet. Colorado routinly uses the federal statute to prosecute those cases.
Connecticut Conn .Gen. Stat. § 53a-90a (2005).
(You will need to navigate the table of contents.)		 . There are no published opinions interpreting Conn .Gen. Stat. § 53a-90a(2005). One unpublished opinion State v. Signore is avaliable from Westlaw at 2001 WL 1682396 and LexisNexis at 2001 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3569.
Delaware Del. Code Ann. tit. 11 § 1112A (2005).  . Del. Code Ann. tit. 11 § 1112A (2005) has not been interpreted in a published opinion. An unpublished Superior court opinion did indicate that Del. Code Ann. tit. 11 § 1112A included Internet solicitation. (In re Porter, 2005 WL 2813931).
District of Columbia D.C. Code Ann. § 22-3010 (2005).   In re Doe, 855 A.2d 1100 (D.C. 2004).  Defendant was convicted in the federal system of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) (2003). Defendant argued he had not committed a "reportable offense" and should not have to report as a sexual offender. Court noted that if he had been prosecuted in D.C. he would have been charged under D.C. Code Ann. § 22-3010 (among others) because he enticed two minors over the Internet to have sexual relations with him. Defendant was ordered to register as a sexual offender.
Florida Fla. Stat. ch. 847.0135 (2005). Karwoski v. State, 867 So. 2d 486 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). (Note: you must log into LexisOne to view this case. Registration is free.) Statute was not overbroad, and did not violate free speech provisions of State or Federal Consistutions. That the victim is an undercover police officer does not preclude conviction.
Georgia O.C.G.A. § 16-6-5 (2005). (general enticement of a child statute); Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 1999,O.C.G.A. 16-12-100.2.  Spivey v. State, 619 S.E. 2d 346 (2005). (Note: you must log into LexisOne to view this case. Registration is free.) Defendant's conviction for criminal attempt to entice a child for indecent purposes fell within the definition of "criminal offense against a victim who is a minor" under sex offender registration act, subjecting defendant to registration requirements. The fact that no child victim was involved in the police Internet sting operation did not preclude application of sex offender registration requirements under registration statute.
Hawaii Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-756 (2005) (Electronic enticement of a child in the first degree); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-757 (Electronic enticement of a child in the second degree).  . There are no reported opinions interpreting Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-756 (2005) or  Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-757.
Idaho
 Idaho Code § 18-1509A (2005).   State v. Glass, 87 P.3d 302 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003). This case does not deal specifically with a prosecution under Idaho Code § 18-1509A, rather a prosecution under Idaho Code §§ 18-306 and 18-1508 (2003). The facts, however, lend themselves to a prosection under § 18-1509A where the defendant contacted a 14-year old "victim" using the Internet to entice the "victim" to meet with him for a sexual encounter. That the "victim" was an undercover officer did not affect the prosection.
Illinois 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/11-6 (2005).  People v. Arndt,
814 N.E.2d 980 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).		 Defendant was not allowed to use defense of "entrapment" when being prosecuted under 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/11-6 (2005). That the "victim" was an undercover officer did not affect the prosection, a person can not be prosecuted under the statute unless they believe they are communicating with a minor. The statute was not overbroad, and did not violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Indiana Indiana Code § 35-42-4-6 (2005).  LaRose v. State, 820 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Indiana Code § 35-42-4-6 was narrowly drawn, survived strict scrutiny and did not violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 
Iowa There is no Iowa statute specifically dealing with on-line enticement of a child, nor is there a general enticement statute for sexual contact with a child. In the Interest of B.S.L., No. 05-1098, slip op. (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2005). In this affirmation of termination of parental rights of a father, the court took into consideration the relationship the father had with a 16-year-old girl. The father met the girl on the Internet, moved her to Iowa and began a live-in sexual relationship with her.
Kansas There is no Kansas statute specifically dealing with on-line enticement of a child, nor is there a general enticement statute for sexual contact with a child. A person can, however, be charged with "Attempted Indecent Liberties with a Child" under Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-3202(2) and 21-3503(a) (2005). (Note: you will have to navigate through menue, there is no direct link to the statutes.) State v. Jones,21 P.3d 569 (Kan. 2001). That "victim" was actually an undercover officer did not preclude prosecution. Entrapment is not avaliable as a defense when police merely afford defendant the opportunity to commit the offense he planned to commit.
Kentucky Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 510.155 (Banks-Baldwin 2005). . Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 510.155 has only been effective since June 20, 2005. As of November 15, 2005 there were no reported opinions interpreting the statute. Previously there was no statute dealing with on-line enticement of a child.
Louisiana La. Rev. State. Ann. § 14:81.3 (2005). . La. Rev. State. Ann. § 14:81.3 was passed June 29, 2005.  As of November 15, 2005 there were no reported opinions interpreting the statute.
Maine Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A § 259.  . There has been no reported opinion interpreting Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A § 259. 
Maryland Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law §§ 3-324; 11-207 (2004). § 3-324 is the solicitation of a minor statute.§ 11-207 is the child pornography statute, which also encompasses solicitation of a child. Moore v. State,882 A.2d 256 (Md. 2005). Provision of Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 11-207 prohibiting a person from using a computer to knowingly transmit or receive a minor's personal information for the purpose of engaging in sexual conduct of or with a minor does not cover computer contact with an adult "victim" posing as a fictitious minor. In a concurring opinion, Judge Battaglia noted that Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 3-324 would cover contact with "adult" vicrim such as an undercover police officer.
Massachusetts There is no specific statute dealing with on-line enticement of a child, however, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 § 2 (2005), makes it a crime to entice a crime to entice or take away a person from the house of his parent or guardian or elsewhere, for the purpose of prostitution or for the purpose of unlawful sexual intercourse. Matter of Romm, 15 Mass. Att'y Discipline Rep. 505 (1999). Attorney suspended indefinitly from the practice of law when attorney pleaded nolo contendre to charges stemming from using Internet to solicit sex from and to send obscene photographs to undercover deputy sheriff posing as minor.
Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws. § 750.145d (2005). People v. Meyers,649 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). Defendant pled guilty to soliciting a child to commit oral sex, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws. § 750.145d (2005). That the person Defendant actually solicited was an undercover officer did not matter. Violation of this law requires Defendant to register as a sex offender.
Minnesota Minn. Stat. § 609.352 (2005).  State v. Coonrod,652 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). The fact that the "victim" was a fictitous person created in a sting operation did not preclude prosecution under Minn. Stat. § 609.352 (2005).
Mississippi Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-27 (2005). (You will have to navigate the table of contents to get to the statute, there is no direct link.) . There has been no reported opinion interpreting Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-27 (2005).
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.151 (2005).  State v. Bullock,153 S.W.3d 882, (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). This case affirms a conviction not based on Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.151 (2005), but on §§ 564.011 and 573.023. The facts, however, would have called for a conviction under 566.151 had it been avaliable at that time. The fact that the "victim" was an undercover officer did not preclude prosection.
Montana Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-625(1)(c) (2005). . There is no reported opinion on this issue.
Nebraska Neb. Stat. § 28-320.02 (2005).  . There is no published opinion interpreting Neb. Stat. § 28-320.02 (2005).
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. § 201.560 (2004).  .. There is no published opinion interpreting Nev. Rev. Stat. § 201.560 (2004).
New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 649-B:3 (2005) and N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 649-B:4 (2005). (Note:  The New Hampshire State Government on-line Information Center and the New Hampshire General Court have not updated their on-line statute information since 12-09-2004.  To make sure the statute linked is correct, please consult the paper copy of New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, Wetlaw, LexisNexis or a similar research system. State v. MacMillan, 872 A.2d 1031 (N.H. 2005). The court found the undercover detective's testimony of the contents of Internet chat admissible. If the proper procedure has not been followed to allow the wire tap recordings into evidence, the officer must testify from his or her personal recollection of the conversation. 
New Jersey N.J. Stat. § 2C:13-6 (2004). NJ legislature website with access to statutes was unavaliable as of November 15, 2005.  Link is to version of statute marked up with amendments from 2004 when the law was last amended. In re R.B., 870 A.2d 732 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., 2005). Defendant who violated N.J. Stat. § 2C:13-6 (2004) did have to register as a sex offender. The elements necessary to prove child luring are: (1) the accused attempted to lure or entice a child into a motor vehicle, structure, or isolated area; (2) the child is under the age of 18; and (3) the accused had a purpose to commit a criminal offense with or against that child. The act of child luring is complete with the attempt to lure or entice a child with a criminal purpose.
New Mexico 2005 New Mexico Laws Ch. 295 (S.B. 415) (2005). This session law will replace NM ST § 30-37-3.2. (Note: you will need to navigate the table of contents for the statute and the State Constitution.) . New Mexico enacted the applicable statute in 2005. The previous statute was held unconstitutional. No new case law was avaliable as of publication of this research guide.
New York*
 NY Penal Law § 235.22 (McKinney 2003).   People v. Foley, 731 N.E.2d 123 (N.Y. 2000). NY Penal Law § 235.22 (McKinney 2003) did not violate free speech provisions of the Federal Constitution, it was not overbroad, nor was it vauge.  Statute did not violate the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. It did not matter that the "minor" was actually an undercover police officer.  Each case should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
North Carolina N.C. Gen. Stat. §. 14-202.3 (2005). State v. Quinn, 603 S.E.2d 886 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004). Defendant was charged and convicted of statutory rape, and not charged under N.C. Gen. Stat. §. 14-202.3 (1996), however the facts of the case indicate defendant could have been charged under N.C. Gen. Stat. §. 14-202.3.
North Dakota ND Cent. Code § 12.1-20-05.1 (2005). State v. Backlund, 672 N.W.2d 431 (N.D. 2003). Defendant who used his computer in MN was subject to prosecution in ND.  ND Cent. Code § 12.1-20-05.1 (2005) does not violate Commerce Clause, nor the free speech provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions.  Statutory sexual offender registration and notification provisions did not violate double jeapardy provisions of State and Federal Consitutions.
Ohio Ohio Code § 2907.07 (2005). (You will have to navigate through the table of contents, there is no direct link to this statute.) State v. Tarbay, 810 N.E.2d 979 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).  Ohio Code § 2907.07 (2005) did not violate the free speech provisions of the Federal Constitution, it was narrowly tailored to acheive a compelling interest. Evidence that defendant drove to arranged meeting place, on day he agreet to meet victim for purpose of a sexual encounter that had been set up on the Internet was sufficient to convict defendant. 
Oklahoma Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1040.13a (2005). . There have been no reported opinions interpreting Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1040.13a (2005).
Oregon There is no Oregon statute specifically dealing with on-line enticement of a child, nor is there a general enticement statute for sexual contact with a child. . There is no reported opinion on this issue.
Pennsylvania 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6318 (2005). Note: The complete Pennsylvania statutes are not avaliable on the Internet. The above link is to an unnofficial source for PA statutes. Please check Westlaw or LexisNexis.  You will need to scroll past the table of contents to read the statute. Commonwealth. v. Moran, 823 A.2d 923 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). Court held that sentence of 108 - 540 months incarciration with five years' probation consecutive to the prison sentence [where: Count 2 (statutory sexual assault, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §3122.1) is to run consecutive to Count 1 (involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3123(a)(7)), Count 5 (sexual abuse of children, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6312(b)) is to run consecutive to Count 2 (statutory sexual assault, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3122.1), and Count 9 (possession of child pornography, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6312(d)) is to run consecutive to Count 5 (sexual abuse of children, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6312(b)).] was proper, and the trial court's modification of the sentence was proper where the modification was only to clarify the trial judge's original intent in sentencing. [Note: statutes are not  linked because the complete Pennsylvania statutes are not avaliable for free on the Internet in any official or reliable form.
There is no Rhode Island statute specifically dealing with on-line enticement of a child, nor is there a general enticement statute for sexual contact with a child. . There is no reported opinion on this issue.
South Carolina S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-342 (2005).  .. There are no reported opinions interpreting S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-342 (2005).
South Dakota S.D. Codified Laws §§ 22-22-24.4 (2005);  22-22-24.5 (2005). .. There has been no reported decision interpreting S.D. Codified Laws §§ 22-22-24.4 (2005) or  22-22-24.5 (2005).
Tennessee Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-528 (2005). (You will have to navigate through the table of contents, there is no direct link to the statute.)
This case was decided November 4, 2005. It will be reported, but a citation had not been assigned as of November 15, 2005.		 This is an ineffective assistance of council case stemming from a 1997 conviction for statutory rape.  Although defendant was not charged under  Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-528 under the facts of the case he could have been. This case has been included in this research guide because it provides insight into the mental condition of an on-line sexual predator.
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 33.021 (Vernon 2005). . This bill was effective June 18, 2005. As of November 15, 2005 no reported opinion has interpreted this statute.
Utah Utah Code Ann. § 76-4-401 (2005).  State v. Ansari, 100 P.3d 231 (Utah Ct. App. 2004). Utah Code Ann. § 76-4-401did not have inconsistent terms, and was upheld against defendants Constitutional arguments.  Clause 1 of statute does not require state to affirmatively prove absense of attempt, conspiracy and solicitation.
Vermont Vt. Stat. tit. 13 § 2828 (2004).  . There has been no reported opinion interpreting Vt. Stat. tit. 13 § 2828 (2004).
Virginia Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3 (2005). Brooker v. Commonwealth,587 S.E.2d 732 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). Evidence was sufficient that defendant violated Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3 (2005). when on multiple occasions he used the Internet to send pictures of his genitles to a person he believed to be a minor, after asking the person he believed to be a minor if they wanted him to remove his pants. That the "minor" was an undercover officer did not matter.
Washington Wash. Rev. Code §  9.68A.090 (2005). . There is no published opinion interpreting this statute.  There are several unpublished opinions not included in this research guide because they are prohibited from being used as primary authority.
West Virginia W.V. Code § 61-3C-14b (2005). . There has been no reported opinion interpreting W.V. Code § 61-3C-14b (2005).
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. § 948.075 (2005). In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Engl, 698 N.W.2d 821 (Wis. 2005) In this case, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that an attorney's violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.075 warranted a public reprimand. 
Wyoming Wyo. State. Ann. § 6-4-303 (b)(ii) (2005). (Note: you will need to scroll down to the statute.) Adams v. State, 117 P.3d 1210 (Wyo. 2005). Presence of a minor victim is not required for violation of conviction for violation of Wyo. State. Ann. § 6-4-303 (b)(ii); it was not a violation of the best evidence rule to admit printout of Internet communications beween defendant and victim.

* NY has temporarily disabled access to the State Constitution on-line. Click to return to table.

Sex Offender Registries.

Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offenders Act requires all states to create a sexual offender registration program or forfeit 10% of their federal funds for state and local law enforcement.[50] All fifty states have complied with this law. In 1996, Megan's Law amended section (e) of this law to require states to notify the community when a sexual offender moves to the area. The law does not mandate how states are to notify communities, but does recommend that states create websites with sexual offender information. There was a great deal of debate as to whether these state laws would be retroactive, meaning that those who had already been sentenced would be required to register. In 2003 the Untied States Supreme Court determined that Jacob's Law (and Megan's Law contained therein) were not punitive, and therefore its retroactive application did not violate the ex post facto clause.[51] Additionally, defendant's who have been convicted of violating federal or state on-line sexual predator laws are required to register, just as if they had committed another sexual offense.[52]

 After both Jacob's Law and Megan's Law passed, every state created a sexual offender registry. There is also a National Sexual Offender Registry. Many of these registries focus primarily on sexual predators. These registries can provide a parent or a child who is communicating with someone on-line that ability to check if that person is a registered sex offender. The registries also allow citizens to determine if there is a registered sexual offender living in their neighborhood. Virtually every site includes a disclaimer or a terms of use notice informing the user that the information contained in the site is not to be used for harassment of the individuals listed in the registry. Those using the registries should note that the people contained therein are not wanted for any crime unless otherwise indicated. Click on a state to go to that state's sexual offender registry. From a registry, click the back button to return to the research guide.

Map of United States

Washington Oregon California Idaho Nevada Arizona Utah New Mexico Colorado Wyoming Montana North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Louisiana Arkansas Missouri Iowa Minnesota Mississippi Tennessee Kentucky Illinois Wisconsin Michigan Michigan Indiana Alabama Ohio Florida Georgia South Carolina North Carolina Virginia West Virginia Maryland Maryland Delaware Delaware Pensylvania New Jersey New Jersey New York New York Virginia Michigan South Carolina North Carolina Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Alaska Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii Connecticut Connecticut Rhode Island Rhode Island Massachusetts Massachusetts Vermont Vermont New Hampshire New Hampshire Maine
Click here for Washington, D.C.

Georgia Law.

Because this paper is written for a class at Georgia State University College of Law, it seemed appropriate to take some time to speak specifically to Georgia Law.

There are several Georgia statutes directed at sexual predator behavior, whether it occurs on-line, in person, or in a combination of the two. In O.C.G.A. § 16-6-5 Enticing a Child for Indecent Purposes, (a) [a] person commits the offense of enticing a child for indecent purposes when he or she solicits, entices, or takes any child under the age of 16 years to any place whatsoever for the purpose of child molestation or indecent acts.[53] The statute further details that (b) [a] person convicted of the offense of enticing a child for indecent purposes shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years. Upon a first conviction of the offense of enticing a child for indecent purposes, the judge may probate the sentence; and such probation may be upon the special condition that the defendant undergo a mandatory period of counseling administered by a licensed psychiatrist or a licensed psychologist. However, if the judge finds that such probation should not be imposed, he shall sentence the defendant to imprisonment. Upon a second or third conviction of such offense, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five years. For a fourth or subsequent conviction of the offense of enticing a child for indecent purposes, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 20 years. Adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence for a conviction of a third, fourth, or subsequent offense of enticing a child for indecent purposes, including a plea of nolo contendere, shall not be suspended, probated, deferred, or withheld.[54] In Spivey v. State, the defendant was convicted in the Superior Court of Houston County of criminal attempt to commit child molestation, criminal attempt to entice a child for indecent purposes, and computer pornography and child exploitation, for which the trial court ordered him to register as sex offender. The defendant appealed on the grounds that his convictions did not subject him to the sex offender registration requirements. Spivey was arrested as part of a police Internet "sting" operation, in which an adult male police officer posed as a 14-year-old girl looking for pen pals on the Internet. Spivey responded to the posting, and the two began corresponding and chatting on-line. Spivey sent explicit sexual messages to the fictitious minor, and eventually arranged a meeting at a skating rink frequented primarily by children. After confirming that Spivey sent the messages, the police arrested him at the skating rink when he arrived for the meeting. The court held that the defendant's convictions for criminal attempt to commit child molestation and criminal attempt to entice a child for indecent purposes fell within the definition of "criminal offense against a victim who is a minor" under the sex offender registration act, thus subjecting the defendant to registration requirements, and that the statute was devoid of any limitation to completed offenses against victims who are minors, but instead included any convictions for criminal offenses against a victim who is a minor. The fact that no child victim was involved in the police Internet sting operation resulting in defendant's conviction for criminal attempt to commit child molestation and criminal attempt to entice a child for indecent purposes did not preclude the application of sex offender the registration requirements under registration statute, since the statute's broad language explicitly included any criminal offense consisting of criminal sexual conduct toward a minor, solicitation of a minor, or any conduct constituting sexual offense against a minor, and imposition of such limitation would have been contrary to the legislative intent of statute, which was to protect the community by notifying it of individuals who may have posed a threat. Defendant's conviction under the computer pornography and child exploitation act also subjected him to registration requirements under the sex offender registration statute. The act created felony liability for those using on-line Internet service in the commission of unlawful sexual offenses against children, which fell within definition of a "criminal offense against a victim who is a minor," under the sex offender registration statute.[55]

The defendant in Pierce v. State was convicted after a jury trial in the Superior Court of Houston County of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and enticing a child for indecent purposes. Alleged past sexually explicit conversations that the teenaged female victim had with other people on Internet were irrelevant, and evidence of conversations was inadmissible, where, even if the victim had sexual conversations with others, such evidence would not have supported an inference that the defendant could have reasonably believed that she consented to his crimes of enticing her for indecent purposes and contributing to her delinquency.[56]

O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100 outlines the crime of Sexual Exploitation of Children. The code section provides that it is unlawful to produce or assist a person in producing child pornography, for a parent to permit someone to engage in sexually explicit conduct with their child in order to produce child pornography, to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of performance, for a parent or guardian to permit someone to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of performance, to create, reproduce, publish, promote, sell, give, exhibit, distribute or possess with the intent to distribute child pornography, to advertise child pornography, to bring child pornography into the state of Georgia, to control child pornography. It provides for the forfeiture of property used in or gained from the production of the material. Violation of this statute is a felony which carries 5 year minimum, 20 year maximum sentence, and a $100,000 maximum fine. If the person is an immediate family member, there will be no fine. The law mandates that if a person works in a photo lab and has reasonable cause to believe that something is child pornography, they must report it to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. A photo lab technician must report all suspected child abuse to the proper authorities.[57] Many argue that making these technicians mandated reporters places the general public at risk to be turned in the Department of Children and Family Services for capturing special and private moments of their children. The best example of a home snapshot that had so many worried about the enforcement of this law, is a young toddler in a bath. What parent hasn't snapped a shot of their baby in a tub filled with bubbles, or as they run away down the hall from you, so happy to finally be free of their diaper.  Would innocent photos meant to capture a child's youth require a parent's name to be turned over to an investigating agency?  Most major retail photo finishers do have a policy that deals with this issue. Walmart.com reserves the right to disclose any content posted by you or any other customers as necessary to satisfy any law, regulation or governmental request, or to edit, refuse to post or to remove any content, in whole or in part, that in Walmart.com's judgment are unsuitable or in violations of their Photo Center Terms of Use[58] or the Site Terms of Use.[59] Most other photo labs have similar policies.[60] However, this, just like most individual judgment calls are only as effective as the person working at the lab's counter. The technician's ability to make decisions as to what photos to turn over and which ones to ignore will be based on the level of training and importance this issue is deemed by their employer. They are immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred for developing the film. Failing to report is a misdemeanor.[61]

In one case the Court of Appeals of Georgia found  the digital code of images that produced pictures when interpreted by software amounted to a "visual medium," within the meaning of a statute making it unlawful to distribute any "visual medium" which depicts a minor engaged in any sexually explicit conduct, and thus, the defendant reasonably should have known that he could be prosecuted for sexual exploitation of children by the electronic transmission of "computer processed and generated images depicting a lewd exhibition of the genitals and pubic areas of minors," as set forth in the indictment. Electronic transmission constitutes a method of distribution as contemplated by the statute making it unlawful to "distribute" any visual medium which depicts a minor engaged in any sexually explicit conduct.[62]

O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.1 makes it a felony to electronically furnish obscene material to minors. This code section describes how one commits the crime of electronically furnishing obscene materials to a minor. Violation is a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.[63]

The Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 1999 prohibits use of the computer, Internet or on-line service for the purposes of child pornography, enticing a child or a person believed to be a child to commit any illegal sexual act, and making obscene Internet contact with a child. A person commits the offense of computer pornography if such person intentionally or willfully: (A) [c]ompiles, enters into, or transmits by means of computer; (B) [m]akes, prints, publishes, or reproduces by other computerized means; (C) [c]auses or allows to be entered into or transmitted by means of computer; or (D) [b]uys, sells, receives, exchanges, or disseminates any notice, statement, or advertisement, or any child's name, telephone number, place of residence, physical characteristics, or other descriptive or identifying information for the purpose of offering or soliciting sexual conduct of or with an identifiable child or the visual depiction of such conduct.[64] A person commits the offense of obscene Internet contact with a child if he or she has contact with someone he or she knows to be a child or with someone he or she believes to be a child via a computer on-line service or Internet service, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chatroom, e-mail, or on-line messaging service, and the contact involves any matter containing explicit verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexually explicit nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse that is intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of either the child or the person, provided that no conviction shall be had for a violation of this subsection on the unsupported testimony of a child.[65]

 The statute also prohibits the intentional or willful use of a computer on-line service or Internet service, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chatroom, e-mail, or on- line messaging service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, or attempt to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child or another person believed by such person to be a child to commit any illegal act described O.C.G.A.in Code Section 16-6-2[66], Code Section 16-6-4[67], Code Section 16-6-5[68], or Code Section 16-6-8[69]. In subsection (g), in an attempt to circumvent the argument that conviction under this statute is not proper if the "victim" is not a minor, the code specifically states that "the sole fact that an undercover operative or law enforcement officer was involved in the detection and investigation of an offense under this Code section shall not constitute a defense to prosecution under this Code section".[70]

O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.3 incorporates definitions from O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.1[71] and O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2.[72] The staute outlaws obscene telephone contact with a child, which it defines as a person under age 14. A person 17 years of age or over commits the offense of obscene telephone contact with a child if that person has telephone contact with an individual whom that person knows or should have known is a child, and that contact involves any aural matter containing explicit verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexually explicit nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse which is intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of either the child or the person, provided that no conviction shall be had for this offense on the unsupported testimony of the victim. Violation is a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For the first conviction, if the defendant is under 21, they are guilty of a misdemeanor (or the judge may grant probation with special conditions). A second or subsequent conviction is a felony -- minimum 1 year incarceration, maximum 5 years incarceration.[73]

Return to top of State Laws.
Return to State Laws and Cases Table.
Return to Sexual Offender Registries.
Return to Sexual Offender Registries Map.
Return to Georgia Law.
Return to Table of Contents.

What is the appropriate punishment?

Through the years, courts have imposed severe restrictions on the individual liberties of convicted sexual offenders by way of probation conditions. These conditions have included mandatory lifetime counseling, as well as time and subject restrictions on an offenders use of the Internet. Courts in Georgia routinely subject these defendants to "Addendum  B" sex offender conditions that prohibit the defendant from working, volunteering, or having any direct association with any organization directed at children, such as boy scouts, any educational facility, neighborhood parks, little league teams, etc. Additionally these offenders are prohibited from initiating any contact with children under the age of 16 for any purpose. The history of these decisions has shown that court order restricting a predator's access to children, whether mandated by state statute or not, are constitutionally valid.

Return to Table of Contents.

Community Action and Resources.

States, counties, and cities, both large and small, are beginning to take the fight against sexual on-line predators into their own hands. They are fighting with information. Nationally, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children created a Cyber Tipline. This allows a child or anyone who believes that a child has been targeted by an on-line sexual predator to report the situation.[74] The United States Department of Justice has created the National Sex Offender Public Registry. While this registry is not just for those offenders who have been convicted as an on-line sexual predator, it would allow a child or a parent to search for the name of an "on-line friend" to determine whether that person has been convicted of a sex crime.[75] On the state and local government level, many governments have also started providing more information to citizens about sexual predators. Delaware County, Ohio set up the Delaware County Sheriff's Office Computer Crimes Division in 2005. They posted an announcement of their first arrest in July 2005, and they promise to keep the public updated on arrests.[76] Other jurisdictions, such as the Austin, Texas Police Department, have created similar divisions.[77] Multnomah County, Oregon created a Department of Community Justice Predatory Sex Offender webpage.[78] This has led to the arrest of at least one individual.[79] Officials in New Jersey have noticed an increase in on-line sexual exploitation of children. Lawmakers there have drafted legislation making the investigation of an on-line sexual predator easier.[80]

The private sector has joined in the fight as well. Some private organizations, such as Sexualpredators.com have set up similar databases to inform the public of sexual offenders in their area. Sexualpredators.com promises to set up a sexual predator alert center in the future and posts pictures of wanted sexual offenders on their homepage.[81] PCtattletale.com has created a "National Alert Registry" that claims to create a neighborhood predator report. By entering a zip code you are provided with the number of registered sexual offenders in your area. For a $10 fee, they will create a "complete report" with photographs, appearance details, conviction information, offense dates, offense details, street address, and name/aliases and you will be alerted when a new sexual offender moves into your area.[82]  Perverted-Justice.com works with local news organizations and sets up stings[83] -- often providing taped evidence to local police.[84]

All if these organizations working together toward one common goal have created a large amount of web based resource guides to assist children and their parents in safely navigating the world wide web. Several of these family sources are: wiredsaftey.org[85], WiredKids.org[86], NetSafekids[87], CyberLawEnforcement.org[88], Kidz Privacy[89], National Center for Missing and Exploited Children -- Help Delete on-line Predators Campaign[90], ProtectKids.com[91], the Center for Sex Offender Management[92], and Web Aware[93].  Several of these organizations exist solely on the Internet and are mostly run by volunteers with just one goal, to assist parents and children in becoming more Internet savvy.

Return to Table of Contents.

Conclusion


With numerous advances in technology, coupled with the increased use of computers and the Internet by children, the Internet can pose a threat to children's safety. On-line sexual predators use Internet communication technology to locate their victims, start and facilitate on-line relationships and follow through with sexually predatory acts. It is important for parents and children to know how to safeguard their computer and Internet network from such predators. They need to know the signs and warnings that they are communicating with an on-line sexual predator. Likewise, it is equally important for Internet companies, law makers, and the courts to work together to provide legal safeguards and protections to children, while simultaneously creating a deterrent and constitutionally valid penalties for on-line sexual predators. Historically, it has been challenging for the legislature and the courts to enact and enforce laws designed to protect children from on-line sexual predators without violating an individual's constitutional rights and protections. However, there are many state and federal laws that do exist which are aimed at prohibiting and deterring on-line sexual predators and which are, to date, constitutionally valid. Enforcement is emerging as a major issue in the application of existing laws prohibiting on-line predatory acts. This issue is ultimately left up to the courts to resolve and is one on which jurisdictions are split. As a majority opinion emerges on what types of legislation and methods of enforcement are valid and ones are not, legislatures must continue to draft better laws and law enforcement agencies must continue to search for ways to enforce them. In the mean time, parents and community organizations must be aware of the possible threat on-line sexual predators pose and the many ways in which they can stop them. The Internet is a wonderful resource for information and entertainment. It is easy for someone to feel safe while enjoying the Internet from the safety of their own home. However, it is important to realize that the Internet truly does give one access to the world and the world access to the user. Users beware.

"Go home and hug your children tonight, tell them you love them. Because if you don't someone in there [pointing to computer] will." FBI agent to Parry Aftab Executive Director of WiredSafety.org

[1] Parry Aftab, Comments on the Effectiveness of Internet Protection Measures and Safety Policies, Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) -- The Seventeen Survey, (2000) at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/cipacomments/pre/aftab/surveysummary.htm.

[2] Amy's Choice is a short film produced by www.netsmartz.org. It is a true story of one teenage girl who started a relationship with an older man she met on-line. In the film Amy describes the events that led her to run away with the man, his arrest and her discovery of his criminal record. This film can be found at http://www.netsmartz.org/resources/reallife.htm#realAmy.

[3] United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Fact Sheet Highlights of the Youth Internet Safety Survey, (March 2001, #4) at http://www.cybertipline.com/en_US/documents/Internetsafety_surv.pdf.

[4] United States Department of Justice Center for Sex Offender Management, Myths and Facts About Sex Offenders, (August 2000) at http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html.

[5] This link provides access to a radio public service announcement produced by the Ad Council. The audio is the voice of an adult male describing his methods for enticing young girls over the Internet. This disturbing look into the mind of an on-line sexual predator ends with the idea that meeting the girl in person is "when things get interesting." The public service announcement can be found at http://cdn.eyewonder.com/100125/400136/402713/sendtoafriend.html?videoname=HowtoSeduce30-.

[6] This link provides access to a short public service announcement intended for television produced by the Ad Council. It depicts an adult male describing his methods for enticing young girls over the Internet. It splices between his comments are those of a young female explaining why she likes to talk to older men on the Internet, explaining that they understand her in a way that boys her age do not. The audio of the adult male is the same found in the public service announcement found in endnote 5. This public service announcement is available at http://cdn.eyewonder.com/100125/400136/400907/sendtoafriend.html?videoname=Exchange30-.

[7] Statistics provided by the Microsoft Corporation at http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/children/kidpred.mspx#EPB.

[8] "Tracing Theresa" is a short public service announcement produced by www.netsmartz.org. The public service announcement shows how easy it is to track a child to their home address from one post in an Internet chatroom. While the intent of this film, as well as others such as "Amy's Choice" and the public service announcements produced by the Ad Council can be described as "scare tactics" used to keep young people from using the Internet for communication, they do provide some useful information and examples for parents to discuss with children. This public service announcement can be found at http://www.netsmartz.org/resources/reallife.htm#realAmy.

[9] Donna Harris, Blogging on-line Diaries Can Open Teens Lives to Predators, Cherokee Tribune, Oct. 21, 2005, available at http://www.cherokeetribune.com/articles/2005/10/21/308/10198761.txt.

[10] Office of New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Agreement Removes and Bars Predators' chatrooms -- Yahoo! Implements Sweeping Reforms to Protect Children, Oct. 12, 2005, available at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/oct/oct12a_05.html.

[11] Chatmag News, Investigative Report and Loss of Advertisers, Not Spitzer Agreement, Closes Yahoo! User chatrooms, Oct. 15, 2005, available at http://www.chatmag.com/news/101505_yahoo_chat.html. 

[12] Media Awareness Network, Web Aware -- on-line Predators, (2004) available at http://www.bewebaware.ca/english/on-linePredators.aspx.

[13] The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 223, invalidated by Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).

[14] Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).

[15] Child on-line Protection Act (COPA), 47 U.S.C. § 231, invalidated by Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004).

[16] Memorandum of Judge Reed for the Eastern District of Penssylvania, ACLU v. Reno, November 20, 1998 (No. 98-5591).

[17] Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (2002).

[18] ACLU v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240 (3rd Cir. 2003).

[19] Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004).

[20] Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000 (CIPA), § 1701, 114 Stat. 2763A-335, invalidated by

[21] ACLU v. United States, 201 F.Supp.2d 401 (E.D. Pa. 2002) reversed by United States v. American Library Ass'n, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).

[22] United States v. American Library Ass'n, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).

[23] Prosecutorial remedies and tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Protect Act of 2003), 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)(3)(B).

[24] The Children's on-line Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6506 (2005).

[25] How to Comply With Children's on-line Privacy Protection Act, provided by the Federal Trade Commission available at http://www.coppa.org/comply.htm.

[26] http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/con-line/edcams/kidzprivacy/adults.htm.

[27] http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/con-line/edcams/kidzprivacy/kidz.htm.

[28] 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (2005).

[29] U. S. v. Ortiz, 804 F.2d 1161 (10th Cir. 1986). Due to the age of this case, it is not available for free on-line. If you have access to one of the paid legal research subscription services such as Westlaw, LexisNexis or LoisLaw, you should be able to access it. Additionally, you can always look in the bound reporter, which can be found at most law libraries and some public libraries.

[30] Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427(1963).

[31] United States v. Russell,  411 U.S. 423 (1973).

[32] United States v. Gurule, 522 F.2d 20 (10th Cir. 1975). Due to the age of this case, it is not available for free on-line. If you have access to one of the paid legal research subscription services such as Westlaw, LexisNexis or LoisLaw, you should be able to access it. Additionally, you can always look in the bound reporter, which can be found at most law libraries and some public libraries.

[33] U. S. v. Ortiz, 804 F.2d at 1165 (10th Cir. 1986.) See note at endnote [29] for on-line availability of this case.

[34] U. S. v.Criswell, 401 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2005).

[35] United States Sentencing Guidlines Manual § 2A3.2(b)(2)(B) (2001).

[36] US v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002).

[37] United States v Mitchell, 353 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2003).

[38] United States Sentencing Guidlines Manual § 2A3.2(b)(3) (2001).

[39] 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (2003).

[40]U.S. v. Hicks, No. CRIM.050004201CRWDW, slip op, 2005 WL 2090785, (W.D.Mo., Aug 29, 2005). This opinion is currently not available for free on-line.

[41] 18 U.S.C. § 2425 (1998).

[42] U.S. v. Taylor, 338 F.3d 1280(11th Cir. 2003).

 [43] 18 U.S.C. § 1470 (1998).

[44] The Child's Safety Act of 2005, H.R. 3132, 109th Cong. (2005).

[45] The legislative history for this bill is avaliable at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR03132:@@@S.

[46] Kansas, Maryland and Massachusetts.

[47] Iowa, Oregon and Rhode Island.

[48] Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia.

[49] See People v. Hsu, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000); Karwoski v. State, 867 So. 2d 486 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). (Note: you must log into LexisOne to view this case. Registration is free.); Spivey v. State, 619 S.E. 2d 346 (2005). (Note: you must log into LexisOne to view this case. Registration is free.); People v. Arndt, 814 N.E.2d 980 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004); LaRose v. State, 820 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); State v. Jones, 21 P.3d 569 ( Kan. 2001); Moore v. State, 882 A.2d 256 (Md. 2005); People v. Meyers,  649 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002); State v. Coonrod, 652 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002); State v. Bullock,153 S.W.3d 882(Mo. Ct. App. 2005); People v. Foley, 731 N.E.2d 123 (N.Y. 2000); State v. Backlund, 672 N.W.2d 431 (N.D. 2003); State v. Tarbay, 810 N.E.2d 979 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004); and Brooker v. Commonwealth,587 S.E.2d 732 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
[50] Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offenders Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 14071-14080 (2002).

[51] Smith v. Doe,538 U.S. 84 (2003).

[52] For a thorough explanation on the history, policy and problems with these law, see Doe v. Poritz,662 A.2d 367 (N.J. 1995).

[53] O.C.G.A. § 16-6-5(a) (2005).

[54] O.C.G.A. § 16-6-5(b) (2005).

[55] Spivey v. State, 619 S.E. 2d 346 (2005). (Note: you must log into LexisOne to view this case. Registration is free.)

[56] Pierce v. State, 251 Ga.App. 600 (2001). (Note: you must log into LexisOne to view this case. Registration is free.)

[57] O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100 (2005).

[58] WalMart Photo Center Terms of Use avaliable at http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=181118&path=0%3A5426%3A181118.

[59] Walmartstores.com Terms of Use for the Walmartstores.com website available at http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=234.

[60] See Greg's Pharmacy Photo Center Terms of Use available at http://gregspharmacy.com/PremiumPhotoLab/tabid/58/ctl/Terms/Default.aspx.

[61] O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100 (2005).

[62] State v. Brown, 250 Ga.App. 376 (2001). (Note: you must log into LexisOne to view this case. Registration is free.)

[63] O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.1 (2005).

[64] The Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 1999, O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2 (2005). 

[65] The Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 1999, O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2(e)(1) (2005).

[66] O.C.G.A. § 16-6-2 (2005).

[67] O.C.G.A. § 16-6-4 (2005).

[68] O.C.G.A. § 16-6-5 (2005).

[69] O.C.G.A. § 16-6-8 (2005).

[70] The Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 1999, O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2(g) (2005).

[71] O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.1 (2005).

[72] The Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 1999, O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.2 (2005)

[73]  O.C.G.A. § 16-12-100.3 (2005).

[74]  The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, The Cyber Tipline available at http://www.missingkids.com/cybertip/

[75] United States Department of Justice, National Sex Offender Public Registry available at http://www.nsopr.gov/.

[76] News Release, Delaware County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Al Myers, 05 Online[sic] Sexual Predator Arrest (July 1, 2005) available at http://news.delawarecountysheriff.com/?page_id=16.

[77] Alexis Canter, ADP, Groups Fight Web Predators - Laws, Anonymity Make it Difficult to Catch Offenders, The Daily Texan, Feb. 17, 2005, available at http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/paper410/news/2005/02/17/Focus/Apd-Groups.Fight.Web.Predators-867754.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.dailytexanonline.com

[78] Multnomah County, Oregon Department of Community Justice Predatory Sex Offendot Notification Webpageavailable at http://www2.co.multnomah.or.us/jsp/Public/EntryPoint?ch=7450736517021010VgnVCM1000003bc614acRCRD.

[79] Jim Redden, Sexual Predator List Goes Online - County Posts Names, Addresses, Photos to Help Protect Public, Portland Tribune, October 11, 2005, available at http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=32015.

[80] Peter J. Barnes, Jr., Online Sexual Predators - Don't Let Them Get Away, New Jersey Municipalities, June 2005, available at http://www.njslom.org/magart0605_page18.html.

[81] Sexualpredators.com website available at http://www.sexualpredators.com/.

[82] National Registry Alert Predator Report available at http://www.pctattletale.com/sex-offender-database.html. Note: as indicated in the section on sexual offender registries this information is avaliable for free in most states. Please check local sites and rules before paying for this type of information as it may be avaliable for free.

[83] Preverted-justice.com website available at http://www.perverted-justice.com/. This website also has links to transcripts from updates of the "Dateline" story.

[84] I-Team 12 Cybersting - Sting Busts 23-year old Vancouver Man (Fox 12 KPTV Oregon television broadcast,  date unknown) transcript available at http://www.kptv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3589896&nav=menu156_2.

[85] WiredSafety website available at http://www.wiredsafety.org/.

[86] WiredKits website available at http://www.wiredkids.org/.

[87] The National Academies NetSafe kids website available at http://www.nap.edu/netsafekids/pp_li_il.html.

[88] CyberLawEnforcement.org website available at http://www.wiredcops.org/.

[89] Federal Trade Commission's Kidz Privacy website available at http://www.ftc.gov/kidzprivacy/.

[90] The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Ad Council's HDOP: Help Delete Online Predators Campaign website available at http://www.missingkids.com/adcouncil/cpgn.html.

[91] Donna Rice Hughes, ProtectKids.com -- Sexual Predators Online website available at http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/onlinepred.htm.

[92] United States Department of Justice Center for Sex Offender Management website available at http://www.csom.org/.

[93] Be Web Aware's on-line sexual predator website available at http://www.bewebaware.ca/english/OnlinePredators.aspx.

Return to top of Endnotes.
Return to Table of Contents.
Document made with Nvu