Police officer charged with contacting a minor to commit a felony

quote:

A California police officer was arrested last week after authorities say a college student used a Snapchat gender-altering filter to trick him into thinking he was a 16-year-old girl who'd agreed to meet up for sex.

Robert Davies, a 40-year-old police officer with the City of San Mateo, was arrested Thursday and charged with contacting a minor to commit a felony, the San Jose Police Department said in a press release.

According to police, a “concerned citizen” contacted the Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers on May 11 after he reportedly posed as an underage female teen and had several conversations “about engaging in sexual activity” with a man he soon discovered was a police officer in the bay area.

Please don't launch into "Well, I have a daughter who is a minor and if someone tried..." yadda yadda yadda.

The person on the other end was not a minor, yet this guy was arrested for contacting a minor for sex.

Putting all emotion and righteous indignation aside, what crime did this man actually commit?

His intent matters. He thought he was communicating with a minor and that's good enough to ring him up. At first contact the "girl" said she was 19. In later communications she said she was only 16. The man responded with a shrug emoji as in age ain't nuthin' but a number. Further conversation discussed her being 16 years-old, and chatted about engaging in sexual activity His intent was to carry non with a minor.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/ar...a-sting-13970729.php

quote:

Originally posted by berto:
His intent matters. He thought he was communicating with a minor and that's good enough to ring him up. At first contact the "girl" said she was 19. In later communications she said she was only 16. The man responded with a shrug emoji as in age ain't nuthin' but a number. Further conversation discussed her being 16 years-old, and chatted about engaging in sexual activity His intent was to carry non with a minor.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/ar...a-sting-13970729.php

Uh huh. Yeah well, it sounds an awful lot like "Minority Report" to me.

He intended to contact a minor, but he did not.

From there, he may have intended to commit a felony, but he did not.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me. I understand that pedophiles do actually exist, but this guy was two intentions away from actually committing a felony. What did he actually do? What crime did he actually commit?

Are we now arresting people for intent? Or, more precisely in this case, for an intention to intend? Ridiculous.

If we're arresting people for having thoughts and intentions upon which they cannot/do not follow through, we are all screwed. If such things are a crime, we would all be guilty. There wouldn't even be jailers to keep us, because they themselves would be in jail. The world incarcerated.

Intent does matter, but so does the capability of committing the crime specified. I've very concerned with recent law enforcement activity and information releases. For example, the feds recently released tapes of MLK engaging in possibly criminal activity for which he was never charged, and Hugh Heffner similarly had data released about the feds investigating him for crimes that did not occur and were never prosecuted.

I know a guy that got snagged in the stings that were on tv several years ago.
Went to prison.
It seems when the government wants to set ppl up its a slam dunk. Didn't know it works for civilians also.
Putting things in writing is just stupid. But usually ppl that do these type of things aren't the sharpest tool in the shed ....

In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit. It "is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent."

Police conduct rising to the level of entrapment is broadly discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, is available as a defense against criminal liability. Sting operations, through which police officers or agents engage in deception to try to catch persons who are committing crimes, raise concerns about possible entrapment.

https://scholarship.law.missou...cle=3652&context=mlr

Stop saying that intent does matter and tell me which law(s) this man actually broke. There was never any minor involved in any of this.

Don't LE sex crimes units do this kind of thing on a regular basis? A cop hits the teenager chat circuit posing as an under-age girl and snags sexual predators, no?

Somewhere there are sections & numbers in the CA Penal code, which one can map the actions of the accused to. They had to map it to something in the Penal Code, we just don't yet know what.

If the DA goes forward (which is not a given) then the man will have his day in court, and it can be sorted out.

At least that's how it's supposed to work.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Don't LE sex crimes units do this kind of thing on a regular basis? A cop hits the teenager chat circuit posing as an under-age girl and snags sexual predators, no?

Yes, and just because it's a common tactic, that doesn't make it right or legal.

But oh, de chirrens...

Who's the victim in this crime? Doesn't he have a right to face his accuser? How would that work then? His accuser is not a minor, but his charge is that he contacted a minor.

Undercover cops pose as prostitutes and nail "johns" for soliciting even though they aren't prostitutes. People have been arrested for conspiring to commit a crime without the actual crime taking place. Perhaps they are using the same reasoning here. Not saying it's right.

Here you go...

California Penal Code Section 288.2 and Luring a Minor

California Penal Code Section 288.2, “Harmful Material and Intent to Seduce a Child,” makes it illegal for a person to try and seduce a child, or somebody they believe to be a child, in order to engage them in sexual conduct by giving or sending them “harmful material,” such as pornography, to arouse sexual feelings in either the child or the perpetrator. This Penal Code applies whether a meeting or sexual activity actually took place. It also applies to materials either given or sent to a child either using electronic means, like the Internet, or in person

Oh, "somebody they believe to be a child".

What a bunch of bullshit.

We're catching people for crimes not committed. No minor involved, when the crime is enticing a minor? Then, they can't commit a crime, can they?

This seems like a perversion of the law, no pun intended.

California Penal Code 288.3 PC makes it a crime to:

Contact or communicate with a minor (or attempt to do so);
Knowing that the person is a minor;
With the intent to commit one of the offenses on a list of California sex crimes and other serious felonies involving that minor.1
The underlying California felonies that can support charges of “contacting a minor with intent to commit a felony” include:

Kidnapping;2
Rape;3
Penal Code 273a PC child endangerment;4
Penal Code 286 PC illegal acts of sodomy;5
Lewd acts with a child under 14;6
Oral copulation by force or fear;7
Oral copulation with a minor;8
Sending harmful material to a minor;9
Forcible sexual penetration (with a foreign object);10 and
Certain child pornography crimes.11
It is important to understand that you can be convicted of “contacting a minor with intent to commit a felony” even if you never actually do anything illegal with the minor.12

This is because Penal Code 288.3 PC is a form of attempted crime in California criminal law —under which you can be published for merely taking steps toward the commission of a crime.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
tell me which law(s) this man actually broke.

Most states have a category of offenses known as inchoate, or incomplete, offenses. They range from attempt, solicitation, conspiracy, solicitation, and facilitation. Most inchoate offenses carry a penalty that is lower than the penalty for the actual crime if it had been committed.

In this case, it appears that at most he should be charged with attempt. The following is from a defense attorney website, not an official California source:

In California, attempt law is defined in Penal Code sections 21a, 663 and 664. Attempt to commit a crime consists of basically two elements:

Specific intent to commit the crime, and
A direct but ineffective step towards its commission.

A direct step is one that goes beyond planning or preparation and shows that a person is putting his or her plan into action. A direct step demonstrates a definite and clear intent to commit the crime. It is a direct movement towards the commission of the crime if preparations are made. Mere preparation or discussion is not a direct step. The direct step must come close to completion of the crime; it must be a "substantial step."

For example, a direct step toward committing murder would be the defendant buying a gun or bullets shortly after telling the victim, "I am going to shoot you when I see you next time." In an attempted murder case, the prosecutor could introduce this evidence to prove the defendant's intent to commit murder. Shooting at (but missing) a person while yelling out "I'll kill you," would also be considered a substantial step.

Looks like California Penal Code 288.3
And it reads that if you just communicate with minor for various related juvenile felony crimes, it is a violation.
Communication alone is sufficient to be charged.

Likely this: (honestly the news should just include this information so we know for sure)

quote:

Arranging a Meeting with a Minor for Lewd Purposes -

California Penal Code Section 288.4: In basic terms, this is attempted sexual misconduct typically arising out of police internet “stings,” where the police impersonate a real person. In California, 288.4 PC covers the sex crime offense of arranging a meeting with a minor for lewd purposes. It's defined as: “Every person who, motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children, arranges a meeting with a minor for the purpose of exposing his or her genitals or pubic or rectal area, or engaging in lewd or lascivious.” This means it's illegal to just arrange a meeting with a minor for the purpose of engaging in lewd behavior. The contact and arrangement of the meeting can come in many forms, including internet chat rooms, text messages, or posts on social media sites like Facebook or Twitter. The legal penalties for arranging a meeting with a minor varies, depending upon on your prior record and the severity of the offense.

So wait, you mean there's an app on Snapchat that makes the guy on the left "turn into" the gal on the right?

That's even more strange.