Skip to comments.Court ruling impacts News 4 Investigators Child Sex Sting
Posted on 05/25/2006 10:01:21 PM PDT by SandRat
Arizona's highest court has ruled to throw out charges against a man alleged to have arranged a sexual encounter with a 13-year old girl.
That girl was really an investigative reporter.
But, let's get to the facts first.
Today's ruling reads...
"the luring statute requires that an actual minor or peace officer posing as a minor be lured."
The News 4 Investigators conducted a different type of child sex sting late last year.
Two men were arrested and are awaiting trial.
How will this ruling affect their pending cases?
News 4 Investigators worked with Perverted Justice, an internet watch group that exposes potential child predators.
Over three nights 160 men responded.
Eight men showed up thinking they were meeting an underage child.
Two of those men were arrested.
Here's where their cases stand now after the Supreme Court ruling.
News 4's Lupita Murillo asks Jed Poulsen, "Why are you online trying to have sex with a 12-year-old girl?"
Poulsen says, "I don't know. I really wouldn't do it, in fact."
Poulsen lives in Arizona City. He drove to Tucson, arriving at a house the News4 Investigators rented.
He brought beer and movies thinking he was meeting a 12-year-old girl. He was really talking to volunteers from the online group known as Perverted Justice.
Poulsen even sent nude pictures of himself.
The reporter asks, "Look at this. You live with your parents. What would they say if they saw this picture."
Poulsen responds, "They would be very disappointed."
The reporter says, "Let me just read what you said. You said 'If you asked me to go down on you, I will. Would you have sex with me? I'm going to be wearing a condom.' Are those appropriate comments for a 12-year-old girl?"
Poulsen says, "I don't believe so."
Reporter says, "You made them."
Poulsen, "Yes I did, I guess."
He was arrested and charged with luring a minor for sexual exploitation.
The Supreme Court ruling requiring that police officers pose as minors means the charges will be dropped. But prosecutors say the case is not over.
Richard Platt with the Pinal County Attorney's office says, "If it means we have to dismiss the current charges of luring a minor and re-charging him with attempted luring of a minor for sexual purposes that's what we'll do."
Also arrested, William Corbett, the son a former Tucson Mayor. He used a webcam to sent this picture of himself and his penis to a girl he thought was 13.
Perverted Justice turned the information over to the Tucson Police Dept. They set up their own sting and arrested Corbett.
Detectives seized his computer from his house. Corbett is facing 8 charges that include sexual abuse, luring a minor and molestation.
Sue Eazer, Supervisor of the Special Victims' Unit with the Pima County Attorney's Office says "The recent Supreme Court decision does not impact the Corbett case because in that case the person who was posing as a minor was in fact a law enforcement officer. And the Supreme court ruled under the statute that is permissable."
William Corbett, jailed since November, has a court hearing in June.
It's about like putting a fake speed sign up that says do 80 MPH and then giving you a ticket for doing it.
If an adult lures a 13yo for the purposes of sex, then he or she should have the book thrown at them hard. However, if the person involved isn't actually 13 (or a minor) then the court is correct...the elements of the crime weren't all there since what makes the act illegal is the age of the participant.
Wow, that will make it hard to catch these child molesters. I know plenty of cops, but since none are under 18 (or more to the point, 13) they would never be allowed to catch the bad folks...
What is supposed to make it a crime is that subject has the intent to lure a minor.
I don't know. That seems like a technicality to me. If they are telling the guy they are only 13 and the guy is still responding. I don't understand the difference between using a young looking 18 year old posing as a 13 year old. And using a 13 year old, that doesn't intend to have sex with you anyway, but is pretending that she will.
That "luring rule" taken to it's logical extreme, says that you can't prosecute until the perp has actually had sex with a 13 year old.
It's not the "intent" but the "actions with the intent" that are prosecutable here. Thinking something is not a crime but thinking about it, plannning it and acting on those plans is. It always has been.
Some of you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills . . .
The article says that the court ruled that the pervert must be lured by either a real underage person or a law enforcement officer. 'or' is the operative word; they don't mean an underage law enforcement officer.
Reporter to Child Molester, "Sir, Sir, Why were you waiting here to meet a 13 year old girl that was really our undercover investigative team at channel 3??
Child Molester pulls out gun, BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! Reporter and camera crew dead...
I think I would use the"penis made me do it" defense.