Posted on 08/04/2005 12:12:54 AM PDT by kingattax
The practice has become widespread undercover agents pose as children on Internet chat rooms. When adults strike up online relationships and arrange for sexual liaisons, police are waiting at the rendezvous point with handcuffs and arrest warrants.
But a ruling of a federal court judge in Kansas City is calling the legality of the tactic into question.
U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple acquitted Jan Helder yesterday of using the Internet to try to entice a child into sex. Helder’s attorney, J.R. Hobbs, had argued that his client didn’t break federal law because the person his client was accused of enticing wasn’t a minor but a Platte County deputy pretending to be a minor. The ruling came just minutes after a jury returned a guilty verdict. Helder, 42, of Mission Hills, Kan., had faced a sentence of five to 30 years.
"We will appeal this," U.S. Attorney Todd Graves said. "Our program is going forward."
Hoping to make a dent in what appears to be a widespread problem, the Platte County Sheriff’s Department has made online child exploitation a priority. Suspects accused of crimes in Missouri are prosecuted at the state level. Federal prosecutors handle suspects from other states.
Federal prosecutors in Kansas City said about 30 men had been convicted on federal charges here using undercover officers or agents. Many more cases are pending.
Because most of the defendants have entered guilty pleas, Helder’s case is among the first to have gone to trial. And Graves said Helder’s defense had not been used before in Kansas City federal court.
Prosecutors said that several court rulings had upheld the use of undercover officers but that the U.S. Supreme Court has not spoken on the issue.
Hobbs disagreed, telling the judge that some cases had suggested that the undercover officers cannot be used.
A local detective who heads Internet sting efforts for the Boone County Sheriff’s Department to catch would-be sex offenders said today he’s comfortable with the way his agency operates.
All offenders caught under the Boone County effort are charged in state courts, which have upheld the use of undercover agents posing as children, Detective Andy Anderson said.
"One thing that would not affect us is that we’re charging people under the state statute," he said. "Our law seems pretty clear that the state legislature does not want to put up with this particular thing."
The Boone County stings have netted eight suspects since October
I've always wondered about this. Intent yes, but it doesn't seem like actual laws were broken. As I type, I guess you can compare it to soliciting?
Apparently some judges would rather we wait until a minor is molested
It is quite probable that U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple is a child molestor himself. Why else does he defend the perp?
I think they are just waiting until a crime has been committed. You can't lock up people for committing a crime that they didn't commit.
The judge's decision is weird.
Wonder how he arrived at his decision?
How is it weird?
The article says the charge is using the Internet to entice a child to sex. There was no child here, thus he couldn't have used the Internet to entice a child. Seems like a pretty straightforward decision to me. Not guilty.
Next time, charge him with attempt.
...But you can lock them up for trying and failing.
The suspect thought he was enticing a child.
He got caught in a sting.
Period.
So the next time someone tries to hire a hit man to kill another person, but instead end up hiring an undercover cop posing as a hit man, does that mean their conviction is thrown out because the person they hired wasn't an actual hit man?
It might be interesting for cops to try impersonating dirty old men and see how many kids they can catch.
I also heard, somewhere, that Helder is a lawyer. Another case of "protectionism"?
SCIENTER is the Latin/legal term for "intent" and this rogue judge is surely a Marxist as I suggest in post 10.
Is there available a backgrounder on this judge's affiliations with ACLU, PFAW, political donations etc? This rascal needs to be impeached.
Well that don't matter. If the law requires that he entice a child, which it apparently does, then he's not guilty. Period.
Let's say you're at a restaurant, and you get up to leave and you go to the coat check and you see a really nice leather jacket there and you decide that you want to steal it. You pick up the jacket intending to steal it and you walk out of the restaurant. After you get outside, you realize that it was actually your jacket. Guilty of theft? Answer: no.
Judge Whipple. Please don't squeeze the minor.
Apparently some judges would rather we wait until a minor is molested
______________________________________________________
So you favor judical activism where a judge is supposed to make up the law as he goes along to fit his and you are hoping your preferences. You must not like Judge Roberts much then?
If the law does not define attempted enticement a crime, then a judge can not pretend it is. That is a matter for the legislature. Certainly you do not believe that trying to seek social interaction with another adult should be a crime do you?
Pedophiles everywhere are smiling over this ruling no doubt.
Don't forget the Libertarians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.