How do the Police Conduct Chat Room Sting Operations

[lookingfortruth1982]

My question involves police conduct in the State of: Arkansas BUT I want to hear any info from any state

Hi.

I would assume that there is a strict protocol of procedures that undercover LE who are posing as underage females in internet chat room sting operations--must follow to secure successful prosecution. Actually, I have read articles where LE refers to such- but havent been able to find anything. Could someone please provide a link for me or shoot me in the right direction?

I have always been under the impression that since it is standard for the undercover LE to "Not" initiate
chat sessions- I have not been able to find anything about the laws regarding whether or not it is against the rules for undercover LE to be the first person to suggest or schedule a meeting.


It would also be VERY helpful to know what else undercover officers are prohibited from "typing" as well.


Over the past several years- there have been HUNDREDS of charges & convictions stemming from internet chat stings.

There have been very few acquittals. Or at least very few acquittals documented in the media.

Many convictions are made through plea bargains.

Anyone who is convicted in these cases are branded as a RSO for the rest of their lives.

But their are no black and white guidelines that I have seen. I see this as a great opportunity for a District Atty to develop a solid conviction record.

Seeing as though these convictions literally ruin peoples lives and many accept plea bargains because their is literally no resources available other than $60,000 for an atty...it is very possible that innocent people have accepted a plea deal because they simply had no other option. I am not saying it has happened- but that it is possible.

Regardless- the policies need to be clear.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

[jk]

I would assume that there is a strict protocol of procedures that undercover LE who are posing as underage females in internet chat room sting operations-must follow to secure successful prosecution.-

nope.




the cops can lie to you.

they cannot entrap you which means, they cannot induce you to commit a crime you would not otherwise have committed.

basically, once the person tells you they are underage or you have reason to believe they are underage, if you continue with any conversation that would be illegal if they were actually a minor, you are screwed.

and what they can type or not has nothing to do with any rules. It has to do with what is legal and what they can or cannot do legally. Entrapment is about the only escape but given the situation, entrapment is very unlikely to be a valid argument.

basically, to avoid being arrested for any illegal interaction with a minor one simply refrains from engaging in any conversations with what they know or believe to be a minor that involve anything sexual.

[aardvarc]

There's no protocol that MUST be followed. There are suggested ones, but every case, every context, is different. Every jurisdiction has their laws written in particular ways. What flies in FL might be suppressed in MO and vice versa. Similarly, there's no specifics on what officers can say or must not say. Again, it all comes down to context which gets looked at in the light of whether entrapment occurred or not. It's really the only potential defense, and if such entrapment isn't BLATLANTLY obvious, most attorneys are going to recommend a plea for a lighter sentence, rather than face a FULL sentence if a trial is lost. In and of itself, yes, there are a lot of convictions, but not exhorbitently so in comparisons to other crimes that are relatively "easy" for the state to prove. The elements needed are generally pretty straight forward, When the real time occurrance of the chat is readily available to play back for a jury, it really doesn't leave defendants anywhere to run, so long as no one ELSE can be placed at the keyboard in question. Even a high priced attorney can't make the charges disappear if all the elements needed to fit the crime are present and no other perpetrator is in question. Prosecutors basically only need to explain the elements of the crime, and let the jury read the chat log.

If you want to check out some recommendations on such practices, check Amazon or similar for the most recent computer crime investigation book by Chuck Easttom. Most other published resources available to the public aren't going to contain what you're looking for (in-depth resources on the topic are often available only to those IN law enforcement).

[PTPD22]

This reminds me of the old wife's tale about prostitution stings. If you're trying to solicit a prostitute and ask, "are you a cop?" the cop's can't lie and have to tell you they are. If the cop's lie, they can't arrest you because it would be entrapment. Problem is, it just aint true.

[aardvarc]

Ever hear the one about the drug dealer who complained to the judge that he was profiled because his t-shirt said "drug dealer" on it?

Yeah. Welcome to Florida.

[lookingfortruth1982]

Until recently, I assumed everyone prosecute for this---scheduled, traveled and arrived at a predetermined location to meet someone they thought to be underaged- with the intention of engaging in sexual relations.

But thats not the case.

Many states have recently amended laws to include "even if the meeting never takes place"

Which, to me- makes sense IF a date, time, location is agreed upon.

Branding someone as a sex offender for the rest of their lives if they did not set up a meeting- is stretching it (in my book).

[PTPD22]

Most such laws are written so there has to be some act in furtherance of completing the crime. Just talking about it isn’t enough…but arraigning a meeting qualifies as an act in furtherance even if something (like getting arrested) intervenes and prevents the meeting from ever taking place. However, many prosecutors want even more like the slimeball actually showing up at the agreed upon location.

[lookingfortruth1982]

but what if a meeting is not arranged? only the possibility of one is talked about?

the officer really does not think the defendant really even planned on meeting

the law is supposed to be clear cut

but over zealous prosecutors push the line

[cbg]

Then don't indulge in sex talk with someone you can't see and don't have proof of age for.

Problem solved.