Internet Enticement Of Minors Prosecutions
🔍 Internet Enticement of Minors: Legal Overview
Internet enticement of minors typically involves an adult using electronic communication—email, chat, text, or social media—to lure or attempt to lure a minor into illegal sexual activity.
đź”’ Governing Federal Statute:
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) — It is a federal offense to use the internet or any interstate means of communication to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any individual under the age of 18 to engage in sexual activity that is illegal under federal or state law.
âś… Key Elements the Prosecution Must Prove:
Use of interstate communication (e.g., internet, phone, etc.)
Targeted a person under 18
Intent to engage in criminal sexual activity
Attempt or successful inducement/persuasion
Important Note: Even if no actual sexual activity occurs—or if the "minor" is an undercover officer—an attempt is enough for prosecution.
đź“š Detailed Case Law Examples
1. United States v. Tykarsky (2004)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Facts:
Tykarsky communicated in internet chat rooms with someone he believed was a 14-year-old girl (actually an undercover officer). He was arrested at a motel with condoms and gifts.
Legal Issue:
Whether chatting with and arranging a meeting with a fictitious minor constituted an “attempt” under § 2422(b).
Ruling:
The court held that a real minor is not required. Intent and substantial steps toward the offense (like traveling to meet the “minor”) are sufficient to establish attempt.
Significance:
This case firmly established that fantasy defenses and the non-existence of an actual minor do not protect defendants from conviction.
2. United States v. Root (2005)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Facts:
Root communicated with someone he thought was a 15-year-old girl and sent her graphic images. He was charged with multiple offenses, including enticement.
Legal Issue:
Whether sending sexual images and arranging a meeting constituted enticement.
Ruling:
The court affirmed conviction, stating that enticement includes grooming behavior, including sending sexually explicit material, even if no meeting occurs.
Significance:
Reinforced that the communication itself, if sexually explicit and intended to entice, is enough—even without physical contact.
3. United States v. Farner (2003)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Facts:
Farner chatted online with an undercover officer posing as a 15-year-old boy, discussed sexual acts, and arranged to meet. He was arrested en route to the meeting.
Legal Issue:
Whether using sexually charged language and arranging a meeting met the standard for “attempt” under § 2422(b).
Ruling:
The court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that intent plus substantial steps (like traveling) constituted attempt.
Significance:
One of the early internet sting cases confirming no physical contact is required for conviction under § 2422(b).
4. United States v. Bailey (2009)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Facts:
Bailey engaged in explicit chats with someone he believed to be a 13-year-old girl. He sent obscene materials and attempted to meet in person.
Legal Issue:
Whether his intent was clearly criminal, and whether chat logs and actions were enough to prove intent.
Ruling:
The court said the content of the chats clearly showed criminal intent and planning. Attempted inducement plus sending obscene material supported conviction.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that chat content can be central proof of intent and that an undercover officer can stand in for an actual child.
5. United States v. Lee (2010)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Facts:
Lee engaged in graphic chats with what he believed was a 14-year-old girl and arranged a meeting. He brought items like condoms and alcohol.
Legal Issue:
Whether the presence of “tools of the crime” (e.g., condoms) supported the attempt charge.
Ruling:
Yes. The court found the items, chats, and travel were sufficient to show substantial steps toward enticement.
Significance:
Illustrated that bringing tools or gifts to a meeting spot strengthens the prosecution’s case.
6. United States v. Hofus (2008)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Facts:
Hofus claimed he was engaging in “fantasy role-play” with the undercover agent pretending to be a minor. He never intended to follow through.
Legal Issue:
Whether claiming “fantasy” is a valid defense under § 2422(b).
Ruling:
The court rejected the fantasy defense. It held that the defendant’s own statements and actions contradicted his claim, and intent can be inferred from conduct.
Significance:
Dismissed fantasy role-play as a legitimate defense in most circumstances where the defendant’s actions show intent.
7. United States v. Douglas (2011)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Facts:
Douglas communicated with what he thought was a 14-year-old, sent explicit videos, and discussed meeting up.
Legal Issue:
Whether "enticement" must involve the minor’s willingness or actual manipulation.
Ruling:
The court ruled that enticement focuses on the defendant’s conduct, not the reaction of the minor (real or undercover). The attempt to persuade is enough.
Significance:
Clarified that the success of persuasion is irrelevant—only the defendant’s intent and efforts matter.
8. United States v. Yost (2016)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Facts:
Yost used social media to contact minors and engage them in sexual conversations, also sending and requesting explicit images.
Legal Issue:
Whether using apps or social media platforms falls under "interstate commerce" as required by § 2422(b).
Ruling:
Yes. The court held that modern internet communication, including through apps, meets the interstate commerce requirement.
Significance:
Confirmed that all modern digital communication, including apps and messaging platforms, fall under the law.
⚖️ Summary of Legal Principles from These Cases
No Actual Minor Needed: A conviction can stand even if the "minor" is a law enforcement officer (Tykarsky, Farner).
Attempt is Enough: No actual meeting or sexual activity is necessary—just the intent and substantial steps (Lee, Bailey).
Grooming and Explicit Content: Sending obscene messages or images counts toward enticement (Root, Yost).
Fantasy Defense Rarely Works: Courts usually reject “fantasy role-play” if the evidence shows clear intent (Hofus).
Modern Tech Covered: Using texting, social media, or apps meets the federal “interstate commerce” standard (Yost).
Entrapment Defense Fails If Predisposition Exists: If the defendant already had the intent, the defense of entrapment does not apply.
RELATED Blog
0 comments