Law Offices of Russo Pelletier & Sullivan: Sex Offenses

April 19, 2016

How Traveling to Meet a Minor Sting Operations Bend the Rules and Cause Wrongful Arrests

Let’s get one thing straight up front. These sting operations generate far better press coverage for the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office than any other alleged criminal activity. Law enforcement officers get to parade around a stage that has been decorated with poster boards filled with mug shots. Admittedly, using the word “child” in the same sentence as “predator” is a highly emotionally charged topic. Nothing would be wrong with this, but for the fact that many innocent men are being swept up in these sting operations because of over zealous law enforcement practices that result in some “bending” of the rules.

Why Police Practices Need to Be Closely Scrutinized

Our law office routinely meets with individuals charged with the offense of “Traveling to meet a Minor.” This is a serious felony criminal offense. Under the Florida Criminal Punishment code, those offenders found guilty of this charge are required to serve a prison sentence in The Florida Department of Corrections. Even a “first time offender” who has never previously been involved in the criminal justice system will score a minimum period of state prison incarceration of twenty-one months. In addition, those convicted will be designated a sex offender and forced to register with the State for a minimum period of twenty-five years.

How We Investigate These Cases

Our investigation of police conduct during Pinellas County sting operations is highly thorough. This includes our review of narrative police reports, audio recordings, videos, transcripts, emails and text messages. Our work likewise entails the questioning of police officers about their tactics while they are under oath during the taking of their deposition. It is not uncommon for us to also employ the services of experts. This includes both polygraph examiners and psychiatrists who have the ability to recognize the difference between a client with a true Pedophilia disorder (deviant sexual behavior with children) versus a client who was in actuality simply looking for adult companionship. It is not uncommon for us to find clients who have absolutely no interest in deviant sexual behavior with children, but were swept up into a sting operation because of law enforcement’s fast and loose tactics designed to yield higher arrest numbers that will support continued federal funding.

Paying the Ultimate Price For a Crime Involving a Fictional Victim

Many people are already familiar with child predator sting operations from watching the television show “To catch a Predator.” Because of this program, NBC experienced a Nielsen ratings bonanza. News correspondent and host Chris Hansen benefited from significant notoriety. At one point, the network surpassed the number of viewers for both “The Office” and Donald Trump’s “The Apprentice” That is, until one of the “child predators” who participated in an online conversation with a hypothetical decoy victim, shot himself in the head. Unsurprisingly, NBC thereafter pulled the plug on the show.

Provoking a Law-Abiding Citizen to Commit a Crime

Long before “To Catch A Predator” brought Internet sex sting operations into the limelight, law enforcement was already engaged in this practice. However, police tactics were much different than they are today. In the past, law enforcement would employ an online post that offered up “an underage child” who was available to participate in sexual activity. Naturally, anyone who responded to such an ad would clearly be viewed as having the criminal intent to engage in unlawful activity with a minor.

Today, undercover detectives pose online as adult women. In fact, it is quite common for them to post fictitious adult female photographs and place ads on “adult only” websites. The undercover officer establishes a rapport, engages in common interest online chats and typically a mutual interest is thereafter expressed by each presumed adult. It is only then that the story line changes and the proverbial bait is switched. Suddenly, the male is told that he has been communicating with someone who is, for example, only 14 years of age. It is at this point that the undercover officer goes into overdrive in an effort to persuade the male to nevertheless continue on with the conversation. What’s more, as one judge observed, “the officer controlled the tone, pace and subject matter of online conversation, pushing toward a discussion of sexual activity.”

Inconsistent Information and Confusion May Rule the Day

Undercover detectives will repeatedly steer the conversation back to sexual activity with a minor. Concerted efforts are made to lure the male into committing a felony offense. But to snare a reluctant participant, frustrated detectives will often depart from approved police narratives and procedures. They are often masterful at turning what could be considered innocent conversation into sexual innuendo. Arguably in some cases, the men believe the adult female has switched to “role playing.” Consider what information the male is in possession of:

1. The advertisement was posted on an “adult only” site;
2. The online photograph depicts an adult female;
3. The undercover officer claims that “she” is 18 years old or more, often within the initial posting itself;
4. Only later, does the alleged female change her story and claim she is actually 14 years of age.

Clients will tell us that they agreed to travel to meet up with their new online companion in order to first confirm their age. But, keep in mind that when they are arrested, they are not being accused of having any form of sexual contact with a minor. Only that they “traveled to meet a minor for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity.

We are Lawyers Who Can Help!

We are former state prosecutors who possess valuable insight into police tactics that often entail “bending the rules.” If you have been arrested for Traveling to Meet a Minor, we are attorneys who understand the stress, anxiety and apprehension you are experiencing.

Read our comprehensive website page on travelling to meet a minor. This information can help answer many of your initial questions and offers possible defenses and solutions to your problem. If you have been arrested for the offense of Traveling to Meet a Minor in St. Petersburg, Clearwater, or the surrounding cities within Pinellas County, we can help. Schedule a free initial consultation to discuss the unique facts and circumstances of your case.

We aggressively defend persons charged with Traveling to Meet a Minor.

Call a Former State Prosecutor!

Free Consultation with a Criminal Defense Attorney
(727) 578-0303

Technorati Tags: Traveling to meet a minor,sting operations,wrongful arrests,Pinellas,Clearwater,St. Petersburg,Pinellas County Sheriff's Office,law enforcement,child predator,police officer,law office,felony,Russo and Russo,felony offense,criminal punishment code,Florida,prison,sentencing,Florida Department of Corrections,sex offender,pedophilia,deviant sexual behavior,to catch a predator,underage sexual activity,unlawful sexual activity,undercover detectives,adult only websites,chats,minors,lure,sexual innuendo,role playing,lawyers,criminal defense attorneys

Posted at 11:04 PM in Florida Crimes and Offenses, Florida Criminal Law, Sex Offenses | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 09, 2015

How to Avoid Florida’s New $5,000.00 Civil Penalty For Solicitation to Commit Prostitution

Many of our clients charged with solicitation to commit prostitution are often first time offenders. It is understandable that they experience significant stress associated with their recent law enforcement encounter. These clients also undergo a great deal of uncertainty in connection with their upcoming court appearances. Recently, the Florida legislature has added to their concern. Florida Statute Section 796.07(6) now provides that in addition to other criminal penalties, a person who violates this law shall be assessed a civil penalty of $5,000.00 if the violation results in any judicial disposition other than acquittal or dismissal.

What if there was an Absence of Sexual Activity or Payment?

The great majority of our clients who find themselves facing this offense, got there because of an undercover police sting operation. It is important to first understand that a sexual offense need not actually occur for an individual to be guilty of this charge. To the contrary, it is a violation of the criminal law to simply “solicit,” “induce” or “entice” another to commit “prostitution, lewdness or assignation.”

The word “prostitution” is defined, as “the giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire.” Lastly, the term “sexual activity” is defined to include “oral, anal or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another.” It also includes “the handling or fondling of the sexual organ of another for the purpose of masturbation.”

The bottom line... the offense is committed when there is an offer offer of money in exchange for sexual activity. It not necessary for the prosecutor to show that sexual activity took place or that money was exhibited or exchanged. You can gain a more thorough understanding of this criminal offense, along with defenses and possible solutions by reading our solicitation of prostitution website page.

What if I Am Guilty of Solicitation?

If you are adjudicated guilty, you are subject to the new $5,000.00 civil penalty. Oddly enough, the legislature mandates the civil penalty even where the court agrees to impose a withhold of adjudication that would otherwise avoid a formal conviction.
In addition to the civil penalty, the judge is required to impose fines or cost costs in the amount of $450.00, along with $50.00 cost of prosecution and the reimbursement of investigative costs sought by the arresting agency (approximately $50.00);
You can anticipate that you will be ordered to secure a screening for HIV and sexually transmittable diseases;
In addition, if you used a motor vehicle in the commission of the offense, the DHSMV will impose a mandatory and automatic revocation or suspension of your drivers license. See: Florida Statute Section 322.26(7);
If the offense occurred in St. Petersburg, local ordinance Section 20-122 makes your vehicle subject to seizure and impoundment. Release and return of your vehicle necessitates the payment of a $500.00 civil penalty.

Convincing the Prosecutor to Drop the Charge

In the majority of these sting operations the undercover female police officer is provocatively dressed and wearing a wireless microphone. The audio transmission is simultaneously monitored by back-up officers in marked cruisers who are hidden from view. Although the primary purpose of the wireless audio transmission is for officer safety purposes, we can secure a copy of this recording. A thorough examination of the conversation that took place between you and the under cover officer is essential. Some police officers are very savvy with their language. For example, they might use an innocuous or harmless statement such as “what are you looking for?” This could arguably be interpreted as meaning “are you lost?” Are you looking for the post office? Are you looking for a particular address?, etc. Unfortunately,some of our clients “take the bait” and will respond in an incriminating manner such as, “how about a blow job for $50.00?” On the other hand, we have listened to other recordings and found entrapment defenses and over zealous undercover police officers who “cross the line.” In other words, the criminal charge might be subject to dismissal because the under cover officer herself was primarily responsible for facilitating the proposition.

Armed with the audio tape and a transcript of the conversation, we may be able to convince the Pinellas County State Attorney’s Office that not pursuing a prosecution would be in the best interests of justice. In that case, you would avoid the $5,000.00 civil penalty, along with the sanctions associated with a criminal conviction. Thereafter, you may be eligible to have your criminal records sealed or expunged.

Getting the Charge Dismissed

Talk to us about who is the judge assigned to your Pinellas case and your eligibility to enter a diversion program called Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI). Most clients find that completing the program takes neither a lot of time or effort. Your primary responsibility is to avoid being rearrested within a twelve month period. Best of all, your successful completion of the program will result in the dismissal of the solicitation charge. In many cases, clients are thereafter eligible to have their criminal records sealed.

Getting the Charge Amended

Another potential strategy is to persuade the prosecutor assigned to your case to amend your charge from Florida Statute Section 796.07(2)(b) to Florida Statute Section 796.07(2)(f). A close reading of these two statutes will reveal that the alleged prohibited conduct is very similar. However, the Florida legislature only made the $5,000.00 civil penalty applicable to violations of Florida Statute Section 796.07(2)(b). Both statutes represent the same level or degree of misdemeanor violations of the law and would otherwise carry similar sanctions, but for the $5,000.00 civil penalty.

Why might a prosecutor agree to amend the charge?

A.) A prosecutor may be persuaded that imposing a civil penalty that is ten times the amount of the statutory fine and cost of prosecution is unreasonable.
B.) A prosecutor may be persuaded that imposing a civil penalty that represents one-hundred times or more than the amount associated with the offer of solicitation is unreasonable. For example, a $5,000.00 civil penalty is grossly disproportionate to the facts of a case that entail an offer of $50.00 in exchange for oral sex.
C.) A prosecutor may be persuaded that the legislature’s calling the $5,000.00 sanction a “civil penalty” is nothing more than “semantics.” Let’s face it, the $5,000.00 is nothing more than an additional fine. In that regard, the $5,000.00 amount violates Florida Statute Section 775.083(e) which limits the fine in solicitation cases to no more than $500.00.

The $5,000.00 Civil Penalty May be Unconstitutional

In the case of State v. Javares Jones (12-21991MM10A), Broward County Judge Kenneth Gottlieb ruled that the mandatory $5,000 civil penalty amounted to “an excessive fine” and “cruel and unusual punishment.” As such, he found that the new “civil penalty” statutory provision to be in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although this ruling could be persuasive, it is not currently binding on our Pinellas judges. The Javares decision is pending appeal in the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The Second District Court of Appeal is currently reviewing this very same issue in State v Cotton 2D 14-2679.

If the Appellate Courts agree that the $5,000.00 civil penalty is unconstitutional, our Pinellas County Judges will thereafter be prohibited from ordering you to pay this sum of money. If the facts of your case do not warrant dismissal by the prosecutor and your prior record makes you ineligible to participate in the PTI program, we may elect a strategy to postpone your case pending the formal findings in the State v. Javares and State v. Cotton appeals.

Protect Your Reputation & Your Finances

If you are facing a solicitation of prostitution charge, both your reputation and finances are in jeopardy. We understand that you may feel uncomfortable, but we can help! Schedule a free confidential consultation to discuss the facts of your case and your options.

We are Lawyers who Aggressively Defend Solicitation for Prostitution Charges Arising out of the St. Petersburg / Clearwater / Pinellas County area.

Call a Former State Prosecutor!
Free Consultation with a Criminal Defense Lawyer
Pinellas / St. Pete / Clearwater Defense Attorneys

Visit Our Comprehensive Criminal Defense Website
Free consultations
(727) 578-0303

Technorati Tags: Florida,$5,000.00,solicitation,prostitution,first time offenders,Pinellas,796.07(6),civil penalty,dismissal,undercover,sing,police officer,sexual offense,solicit,induce,entice,lewdness,assignation,oral,sexual organs,money,sexual activity,withhold of adjudication,prosecutors,drivers license,revocation,recording,blow job,entrapment,criminal charges,conviction,sealed,expunged,diversion programs,pti,796.07(2)(b),796.07(2)(f),misdemeanor,775.083(e),Javares Jones,State. Cotton,lawyer,attorney,St. Petersburg,Section 20-122

Posted at 06:56 PM in Florida Crimes and Offenses, Florida Criminal Law, Florida Driver Licenses, Florida Traffic Offenses, New Florida Laws and Legislation, Recent Court Cases, Sex Offenses, Solicitation of Prostitution | Permalink | Comments (0)

September 30, 2014

Pinellas Conducts Third Online Traveling to Meet a Minor Sting Operation

Our office has reported in the past about ongoing sting operations by the Pinellas County Sheriff to arrest individuals for the crime of “Traveling to Meet a Minor.” See: April 22, 2014 “Traveling to Meet a Minor Becomes Number One Priority for Pinellas Sheriff.” These multi-day criminal investigations have utilized extensive PCSO resources and included the cooperation and participation from other Pinellas law enforcement operations. In some cases, they have even entailed assistance from federal authorities. To date, the following four day sting operations have taken place:

Operation Home Home Alone
January 23rd through January 26th:

Operation Guardian
April 10th through April 13th

Operation Cyber Justice Weekend
September 25th through September 28th

Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gualtieri released a statement on September 29th saying that “This year, the Florida Sheriff’s Taskforce operations have resulted in the arrest of over 130 people who were preying on kids for sex.” Gualtieri believes that law enforcement’s increased efforts “are modifying the behavior of these child sexual predators who have been seeking sex with minors through the internet.”

The most recent sting operation incorporated ten hour shifts of investigators working over the course of four days. Undercover officers posed as minors and engaged in chat sessions designed to snare adults for unlawful conduct. Individuals arrested in the latest sting were booked into the Pinellas County Jail for both felony and misdemeanor offenses. These included: traveling to meet a minor, transmission of material harmful to minors, possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, battery, resisting arrest and violation of probation.

Arrested During an Internet Sting Operation?

If you have been arrested in connection with one of these internet sting operations you should first educate yourself on this matter by reviewing our comprehensive website page dedicated to this topic. You can also watch our video on this subject which has been embedded below.

These are serious charges that carry serious ramifications if convicted. Penalties for this offense include:

designation as a convicted felon;

a mandatory state prison sentence called for under the Florida Criminal Punishment Code (Sentencing Guidelines);

registration in a national database as a “sexual offender.”

Call a Lawyer Who Can Help!

St. Petersburg / Clearwater
Pinellas County, Florida

Criminal Defense Lawyers

Call a Former State Prosecutor!
Free Consultation with Criminal Defense Attorney
(727) 578-0303

Criminal Defense Solutions: www.defensehelp.com
Help With a Pinellas / St. Pete / Clearwater DUI: www.duistpetersburglawyer.com
Pinellas Prescription Pill Arrests: http://floridaprescriptionfraud.com/

Learn About Over Zealous Sting Operations and Defenses to Internet Sex Crimes

Technorati Tags: Operation home alone,operation guardian,operation cyber justice weekend,Pinellas,sheriff,sting,arrest,traveling to meet a minor,law enforcement,police officer,bob gualtieri,sexual predators,minors,internet,felony,misdemeanor,sexual offender,attorney,lawyer

Posted at 01:41 PM in Florida Crimes and Offenses, Sex Offenses | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 16, 2014

A Massive New Pinellas Sheriff’s Office is About to Open... Could this Translate into Increased Arrests?

A behemoth new $81 million dollar “Pinellas County Public Safety Complex” now sits on a forty acre site at 1075 Ulmerton Road in Largo. Five integrated structures were designed by Harvard-Jolly Architects, who have been drafting plans for buildings in Pinellas County since 1938. The Public Safety Complex is nearing completion, having been built with materials capable of withstanding a category 5 hurricane. This would enable the Sheriff’s Office to remain fully functional in winds exceeding 200 mph, as well as the other natural forces of a 10,000 year storm event.

The complex is massive, consisting of 266,782 square feet of space. It is impossible to miss this imposing structure, since it is augmented by a 300 foot tall radio communications tower. The Public Safety Complex does not lack amenities. In addition to a command center, an armory and logistics room, there will be a dormitory, kitchen and cafeteria.

The administrative buildings sit next to a new four story parking garage designed for 687 covered parking spaces. These will be supplemented by an additional 566 open parking spaces, which are located on the same parcel of land. Ironically, the Pinellas Public Safety Complex parking garage is simultaneously being constructed at the same time as construction of the new Clearwater Justice Center Garage. Both construction projects have been delayed beyond their originally announced anticipated completion date. Both are being financed through the Penny for Pinellas referendum.

By far, the largest agency to occupy the the new structure will be the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. Their consolidated communications center will handle 9-1-1 emergency calls, requests for EMS service and regular radio dispatch service to patrol deputies. The complex will include Pinellas County’s new Emergency Operations Center which will be relied upon in the event of a hurricane or other natural disaster.

What Can We Expect From Doubling the Size of the Sheriff’s Facilities?

Both County Commissioners Karen Seel and Nancy Bostock have expressed worries that “the complex was being overbuilt.” Pinellas Commissioner Karen Seel has been quoted as saying “It seems like an enormous sized building. We’re essentially doubling their space.” Yet, a September 11th, 2012 article in the Tampa Bay Times speculated that the new building would not have much of an economic impact on the city of Largo “since there will only be a few dozen more full time employees working there.” Our office believes that it is misguided to suggest that it will be “business as usual” over at the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. You should consider the following:

The newspaper’s prediction of a minimal increase in the workforce was made during the recession and well before the economic recovery we have been experiencing;
After reviewing the original building plans, County Commissioner Nancy Bostock revealed to Tampa Bay Times reporter Kameel Stanley that “there’s an awful lot of training rooms;”
In January, 26 new deputies were sworn in. At the same time, an additional 21 new recruits were progressing through the five month long law enforcement academy; See: Staffing Pinellas Sheriff’s Office is a Growing Challenge
Earlier this month, Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gualtieri submitted an amended spending plan to the Pinellas County Commissioners seeking to add an additional $15.3 million dollars to his budget; and
The PSCO is currently seeking to hire another Human Resources Specialist to their staff. They are also actively making efforts to fill a host of open employment positions. These include Certified Law Enforcement Deputies, Criminal Justice Specialists, and Information Technology Managers who are capable of coordinating large multi-divisional projects. See: PCSO Job Postings;
See: PCSO Recruitment Video

Given all of the available evidence, it seems clear that the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office intends to hire new personnel to fill their available space and to spend their increased budget on expanded law enforcement operations. As we see it, the only way to justify a greater use of tax payer resources, is to make more arrests. The question then becomes, “where can the PCSO direct its increased law enforcement capabilities in a manner that will be politically popular with the general public?”

New Facilities Likely to Augment Sheriff’s Top Priorities

Sheriff Bob Gualtieri has made it no secret that his top priorities include capturing individuals on outstanding Pinellas arrest warrants and ensnaring individuals who commit child sexual predator offenses. See: Traveling to Meet a Minor Becomes Number One Priority for Pinellas Sheriff. This year, his agency has already conducted two child predator sting operations aimed at arresting individuals for the felony charges of “Traveling to Meet a Minor,” and “Seduction of a Child using the Internet.” When not engaged in “to Catch a Predator” tactics, the Sheriff’s detectives appear to be focusing their attention on individuals involved in the online sharing of child pornography. Persons being arrested for “Possession of Child Pornography” are likely to have been initially identified during the course of the earlier sting operations.

It is a certainty that the new Sheriff’s Office will be outfitted with multiple computer “boiler rooms” similar to the artist’s rendition appearing to the left. These high tech facilities will be designed to:

Provide for a comprehensive communications center which will better integrate 9-1-1 response with the dispatch of law enforcement and emergency medical personal;
Create a designated and permanent work environment for those detectives assigned to child predator and child pornography investigations.

Since his reelection campaign, Gualtieri has kept his campaign promise to conduct at least one DUI Checkpoint per month. In addition to applying his new resources in a campaign directed at offenses committed against minors, the Sherriff will undoubtedly use his newly acquired equipment, additional personnel, and increased budget to further ramp up DUI Checkpoints. See: DUI Roadblocks and Sobriety Checkpoints in Pinellas County, Florida

Have You Suffered an Arrest in Pinellas County?
We Can Help!

Take Advantage of a Highly Experienced Criminal Defense Team

Call for a free consultation.

St. Petersburg / Clearwater
Pinellas County, Florida
Criminal Defense Attorneys

Call a Former State Prosecutor!
Free Consultation with a DUI Defense Attorney
(727) 578-0303

Get Help With a Pinellas / St. Pete / Clearwater DUI: www.duistpetersburglawyer.com
Explore Criminal Defense Solutions: www.defensehelp.com
Possible Options in Prescription Fraud Cases: www.floridaprescriptionfraud.com
If you Have Been Denied Social Security Disability Benefits: www.mydisabilitylawfirm.com
Highly Experienced Pinellas Personal Injury Lawyer: www.injuryorarrest.com
Questions Regarding Florida Ignition Interlocks: www.floridaignitioninterlocks.com

Learn How Not All DUI Checkpoints are Legal.

Learn How To Put Our DUI Defense Experience to Work in Your Case.

Technorati Tags: Pinellas Sheriff,arrests,public safety complex,administrative building,clearwater justice center garage,construction,penny for pinellas,emergency operations center,Bob Gualtieri,deputies,law enforcement,PCSO,arrest warrants,sting operations,felony,traveling to meet a minor,seduction of a child using the internet,catch a predator,child pornography,DUI checkpoints

Posted at 02:31 PM in DUI Detection and Enforcement, Florida Crimes and Offenses, Florida Criminal Law, Florida DUI Law, Sex Offenses | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 22, 2014

Traveling to Meet a Minor Becomes Number One Priority for Pinellas Sheriff

Operation Home Alone
On January 23rd, 2014, a joint “Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force” commenced a four-day child predator investigation under the moniker “Operation Home Alone.” Twelve law enforcement officers from a wide range of agencies participated in the effort, all working 12 hour shifts. These state and federal agencies included the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, the St. Petersburg Police Department, the Clearwater Police Department, the FBI, the FDLE, and even the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

This investigation resulted in the arrests of 35 men who were charged with a variety of felony charges that included “traveling to meet a minor,” and “seduction of a child via the Internet.” As expected, most persons arrested were first time offenders and lacked any prior criminal history record.

At the conclusion of this sting operation, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told the media that the “operation was the largest of its kind in Pinellas County” and that he “viewed this as the number one public safety issue in Pinellas right now.” The Sheriff announced that these offenses have now taken priority over the local “pain pill epidemic” and he promised that additional efforts to curb sexual predator activity would continue.

Operation Guardian
Gualtieri is committed to expending further resources for child sex sting operations. On April 10th, 2014 the Sheriff’s Department again partnered with other agencies and completed a second four-day investigation. This time the effort was given the code name “Operation Guardian.”

Undercover investigators posed online as preteen and teenage girls (between the ages of 12 and 15.) They visited Internet chat rooms and were active in a multitude of websites. Law enforcement likewise incorporated the services of Backpage.com and Craigslist. As a result, an additional 18 men were arrested for the charge of Traveling to Meet a Minor. At the conclusion of the sting operation Gualtieri again announced to the media “We’ll continue to do these, until we make a dent in this.”

Over Zealous Sex Sting Operations Can Lead to Errors

The criminal investigations associated with Traveling to Meet a Minor Offenses can be a tricky endeavor. Your review of the “Operation Home Alone” Press Conference video embedded in this blog below will reveal that local undercover officers are often forced to simultaneously communicate online with over ten targets at the same time.

This practice is evocative of an airport traffic controller who is entrusted with maintaining a spontaneous, yet accurate line of communication between numerous pilots. However, there is a big distinction between these two forms of multi-tasking. Airport traffic controllers are licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration only after a significant amount of classroom instruction, simulation training and a regimented series of qualification and testing. On the other hand, some local law enforcement officers appear to have undergone training contemporaneously with the recent Traveling to Meet a Minor sting operations. In other words, they were forced to “learn on the job.”

Let’s Carefully Review Both the Police Tactics & the Evidence
The criminal defense attorneys in our office are former state prosecutors and very familiar with the tactics and maneuvers used by undercover investigators who attempt to snare individuals for the offenses of “Internet Seduction of a Child,” or “Traveling to Meet a Minor.” A careful examination of the Internet transcripts in your case is critical to achieving the best possible outcome in your case.

Law enforcement will often attempt to employ suggestive language designed to elicit an unguarded or incriminatory online comment by our clients. But, these wholesale ”sting” operations can sometimes place an undercover law enforcement officer in the precarious position of having to juggle all of his ongoing online conversations simultaneously and to keep his side of the communication within the boundaries permitted by a lawful investigation. Here are some essential questions to reflect upon when assessing law enforcement’s online communications in your particular case:

Did the undercover police officer cause you to make an unintended response or take inadvertent action?
Did law enforcement confuse part of your online conversation with that of another target?
Was there a misuse of language or vaguely worded phrases that could have confused you?
Did the police intentionally use words or vernacular that could have taken on a double meaning?
Did the police intentionally or unintentionally “intertwine conversations” or employ rapid-fire banter that was designed to make it appear as if one of your responses was connected to a distinctly different point of discussion?
Have the police attempted to utilize insignificant or inoffensive words written by you and cloak them in an incriminating context?

Other Defenses to:
Traveling to Meet a Minor or Online Seduction of a Minor for Sex

We need to explore if an entrapment defense is appropriate in your case. Perhaps we can challenge the origination and admissibility of the online messages that are alleged to have come from your computer. Were you merely “role playing?” Did you lack the prerequisite “criminal intent” to have committed the criminal offense of “online seduction of a minor for sex” or “traveling to meet a minor?”

The lawyers in our office handle cases at the Pinellas County Justice Center on a daily basis. Call us to Schedule a free consultation.

St. Petersburg / Clearwater
Pinellas County, Florida
Criminal Defense Lawyers

Call a Former State Prosecutor!
Free Consultation with Criminal Defense Attorney
(727) 578-0303

Criminal Defense Solutions: www.defensehelp.com
Help With a Pinellas / St. Pete / Clearwater DUI: www.duistpetersburglawyer.com
Pinellas Prescription Pill Arrests: http://floridaprescriptionfraud.com/

Related Links
Internet Seduction of Child

Our Comprehensive Traveling to Meet a Minor Website Page Will Answer Many of Your Questions

Operation Home Alone - Press Conference Uncharacteristically Reveals Law Enforcement’s Tactics

Operation Guardian ABC News Release

Technorati Tags: Pinellas,child,predator,seduction,internet,children,operation home alone,operation Guardian,St. Petersburg,Clearwater,police officer,law enforcemment,traveling to meet a minor,arrested,sting,Bob ltieri,undercover,investigators,chat rooms,backpage,craigslist,sex sting,criminal,investigation,solicitation,minors,defense attorney,online,entrapment,messages,computer,role playing,attorney

Posted at 03:48 PM in Florida Crimes and Offenses, Florida Criminal Law, Sex Offenses | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 05, 2012

Are Lap Dances Tax-Exempt?

Some time ago, our office wrote about Texas state lawmakers who imposed a $5.00 entrance fee tax on patrons entering nude dance clubs. At the time of our blog article, the Lone Star state had already raised $13.6 million dollars in revenue on what was being referred to as their “pole tax.” See: Sin Tax Hypocrisy…States Look the Other Way in Exchange for Tax Revenue. Texas politicians contended that they were not targeting the strip club industry and denied that the legislation was directed at the morality of the conduct. But club patrons accused the Texas legislature of hypocrisy. On the one hand, local officials expressed concern over crimes that were interlinked with alcohol consumption and live nudity. These offenses included exposure of sexual organs / lewd or lascivious conduct , solicitation for prostitution, drug possession or disorderly conduct. Opponents to the tax said the government was willing to overlook these perceived ills in their desire to raise quick cash through the implementation of a “sin tax.” The revenue raised in Texas was so lucrative that A U.S. senator raised the idea of a federal tax on Internet porn.

With the arrival of the 2012 Republican National Convention and the local filming of the major motion picture “Magic Mike,” the Tampa Bay area received renewed attention and media coverage for its reputation as the mecca for adult entertainment. For example, a recent Google search using the inquiry “strip capital of the world” and “Tampa” revealed 152 organic search results.

But wait…there is more. New York has now taken center stage in the exotic dancing industry. Tax officials in the Empire state are litigating an 8% sales tax on what they call “couch sales,” These are considered taxable services that occur when strip club customers pay for dances in a private room or patrons receive “lap dances” in the more public areas of an exotic night club. The club owners originally sought a tax exemption by claiming that the nude dancers represent an art form that should be considered in the same untaxed realm as “live dramatic or musical art performances.” An administrative court judge originally agreed saying that “the fact that the dances remove all or part of their costume…simply does not render such dance routines as something less than choreographed performances.” However, subsequent appeals have reversed that ruling.

Amusingly, New York’s highest court is scheduled today to hear arguments from lawyers on both sides of this colorful case. Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and his six elderly Associate Judges will decide whether lap dances should be considered an “art form” worthy of tax exempt status. There is a lot of money at stake. One strip club alone, “Night Moves,” (in close proximity to the courthouse) is said to owe $124,000 in back taxes should the justices take a dim view of the dancing and side with the State Department of Taxation and Finance.

Tampa / Clearwater / St. Petersburg Arrest?
Criminal Defense Attorneys Who Can Help!
Free Consultation - (727) 578-0303
Former State Prosecutors

Lawyers Helping Out of Town Clients: Click Here to Learn How

Our office routinely assists clients who reside out of town. Many of our clients are first time offenders or persons with a limited previous involvement in the criminal justice system. In many cases, we are able to handle their case without the need for them to return to Florida. We share a common goal to avoid conviction, avoid jail, and to seal or expunge our client’s criminal record from the background checks that employers routinely conduct. We are Pinellas County lawyers who can discuss with you possible solutions that include having the charge dismissed and effective tactics designed to avoid post arrest publicity .

Visit our Websites for Possible Solutions to Your Pinellas Arrest

St. Petersburg / Clearwater Area Criminal Charges
DUI Defense Attorney – St. Petersburg / Clearwater Area
Florida Prescription Fraud Defense for St. Petersburg /Clearwater

Technorati Tags: Lap dances,tax,exempt,nude,strip club,exotic,nudity,exposure sexual organs,sexual organs,lewd or lascivious conduct,prostitution,drug,disorderly conduct,tampa Bay,St. Petersburg,Clearwater,dancers,criminal defense

Posted at 04:35 PM in Florida Crimes and Offenses, Florida Criminal Law, Recent Court Cases, Sex Offenses, Solicitation of Prostitution | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 09, 2009

Supporting Prostitution May Mean Unwittingly Supporting Human Trafficking

Up until now, it has been safe to say that the prostitutes in Pinellas County have been solo practitioners of sorts. While some have “pimps” to guide their business and offer protection, the Pinellas Park Beacon speculates that most Pinellas prostitutes are “freelancers” who have had to fend for themselves. However, the recent emergence of human trafficking offenses in the St. Petersburg / Clearwater area suggests that a third category of prostitution now competes for business in the Tampa Bay area. “Human Trafficking Prostitution,” is now a growing segment of the world’s oldest profession.

On May 9, 2009, Pinellas County deputies arrested three people who have been accused of running a human trafficking operation out of a Treasure Island home. Human traffickers lure their victims, usually young foreign women, with promises of work and security. Once the traffickers have control over their unsuspecting targets, they force the women into prostitution, pornography, and other forms of slavery. The three people recently arrested in Treasure Island are accused of allegedly using physical and mental abuse in order to coerce their captives into working as both prostitutes and dancers at local strip clubs.

Sadly, human trafficking is a very lucrative business that is said to be on the rise in Florida. According to the Center for the Advancement of Human Rights at Florida State University, Florida is considered to be among the top three destinations for human traffickers. People who choose to secure the services of a prostitute are unlikely to be able to distinguish whether the woman is a self-employed "entrepreneur" working freely and voluntarily or a captive victim of servitude and abuse.

This dramatic change in the prostitution industry can greatly affect the moral and legal implications for customers (“johns”) who wrongly assume they were soliciting a prostitute whom they believed to be acting of free will. Having a prosecutor inform the judge that your offense contributed to the Human Trafficking trade could have serious negative consequences. If you find yourself charged with "Solicitation for Prostitution" under Florida Statutes Section 796.07(2)(i), it is therefore important to immediately speak with an experienced St. Petersburg / Clearwater attorney.

We are Pinellas County lawyers who can discuss with you solutions that avoid formal conviction or result in having the charge dismissed. We can discuss with you effective tactics designed to avoid post arrest publicity and the ultimately sealing or expungement of your criminal records.

Call our office for a free consultation to discuss all of your possible options at (727) 578-0303.

The Law Offices of Russo & Russo
Former State Prosecutors
Corner of 9th Street and Gandy Blvd.
Glades Building, Baypoint Commerce Center
877 Executive Center Drive West, Suite #112
St. Petersburg, FL 33702

Visit our extensive Criminal Defense Website at: www.defensehelp.com

Click here if your solicitation of prostitution arrest also involves a charge of exposure of sexual organs.

Technorati Tags: Solicitation of Prostitution,Human Trafficking,Florida Crimes and Offeses,Sex Offenses

Posted at 04:19 PM in Florida Crimes and Offenses, Florida Criminal Law, Sex Offenses, Solicitation of Prostitution | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 31, 2008

Court of Appeals Rules that Nude Person Has Expectation of Privacy Even When Secret Filming is by an Intimate Partner

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV, issued a ruling on December 30, 2008 holding that a nude person who is secretly filmed by their sexual partner is still entitled to an expectation of privacy. The case of State v. Jahnke, 2007AP-2130-CR (Wis. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2008), involves a situation where a man secretly videotaped his girlfriend of three years while they were having sex. The defense argued that the girlfriend had "no reasonable expectation of privacy because she knowingly and consensually exposed her nude body" to the defendant while he was secretly videotaping her. Thus, the defense contended that the "only pertinent question for purposes of [satisfying] the privacy element is whether his girlfriend had a reasonable expectation that [the defendant] would view her nude at the time of the recording." (Emphasis in original.) In contrast, the State argued that the court should instead question "whether the nude person had a reasonable expectation, under the circumstances, that he or she would not be recorded in the nude." The court agreed with the State and therefore declined to overturn the defendant's conviction.

The Jahnke case has some persuasive value when considering Florida's law prohibiting video voyeurism, found in Florida Statutes ss. 810.145. This is particularly true because the Florida statute uses similar language to prohibit the secret taping of a person "who is dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body, at a place and time when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy." Interestingly, the Florida statute seems to require the exposure of the body to actually be "private" in addition to the victim having a "reasonable expectation of privacy," which is not a part of the Wisconsin statute. Thus, an argument could be made that any exposure of the body that takes place during sexual intercourse is not "private" since the exposure is necessarily in front of at least one other person. On the other hand, the Wisconsin case of Jahnke, broadly defines the privacy expectation to include a person's expectation of whether they would be videotaped in the nude, not just seen nude. Thus, under the Wisconsin court's interpretation, the presence of other individuals does not affect the expectation of privacy. Rather, it is the other circumstances surrounding the nudity that give rise to the "reasonable expectation." The Wisconsin court appears to confirm this line of reasoning when it states:

"For example, a woman might agree to have sex with a man who has told her that he has in the past secretly recorded sexual partners. Even if that woman does not consent to being recorded in the nude, she may have relinquished her reasonable expectation that she will not be recorded. Another example is a person who attends, in the nude, a popular public beach used by people who wear normal swimwear and beach clothing, but does not consent to being recorded. Even if the nude person does not consent to being recorded, he or she may have no reasonable expectation that there will be no recording. Although the absence of consent and an expectation that one will not be recorded nude often go hand in hand, the two are not inseparable companions." Jahnke, p. 5.

It does not appear that any Florida courts have had occasion to interpret what the "reasonable expectation of privacy" language means in the context of a situation like the one in Jahnke. There are a varying number of viewpoints that a court might adopt in defining this statutory phrase. For example, one line of reasoning would be to define the phrase in conformity with the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Under this reading, the question would be whether the alleged victim was recorded from a location where the so-called "voyeur" had a right to be. If the nudity could be recorded or viewed from such a location, then the conduct would be legal under this interpretation. Another interpretation would be to adopt the defense's reasoning in Jahnke. And, of course, a third line of thinking would be to adopt the Wisconsin approach. It is noteworthy that the Florida Statute, unlike the Wisconsin law, contains a definition of the phrase “a place and time when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy” to mean:

“A place and time when a reasonable person would believe that he or she could fully disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that the person's undressing was being viewed, recorded, or broadcasted by another, including, but not limited to, the interior of a bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth.” F.S. ss. 810.145(1)(c).

This statutory definition would therefore appear to support the argument made above that only “private” disrobing, not in the presence of another, is subject to protection from video voyeurism.

Florida's video voyeurism statute has undergone a number of recent revisions intended to make the law effective in the "Information Age" and to also enhance the penalties associated with the offense. Our office will cover these changes to the video voyeurism law in future updates.

Click here to read the full State v. Jahnke decision.

Click here to read about the related offense of “Exposure of Sexual Organs.”

Click here if you need the assistance of an experienced St. Petersburg / Clearwater Criminal Defense & DUI lawyer - we are attorneys who can help.

Click here to learn possible solutions to your Pinellas County Criminal or DUI charge.

Technorati Tags: Florida's video voyeurism law,reasonable expectation of privacy

Posted at 03:25 PM in Florida Crimes and Offenses, Florida Criminal Law, Recent Court Cases, Sex Offenses, Video Voyeurism | Permalink | Comments (0)

Law Offices of Russo Pelletier & Sullivan

Current Criminal Defense & DUI Topics - Pinellas County, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Florida