Dr. Frank Kardasz, July 31, 2009 (revised August 5, 2009) email: kardasz@kardasz.org
Cybersexting
Cybersexting is now a popular Internet activity. It occurs when two or more users of electronic communication devices send sexually explicit text or images to each other. Cybersexters may communicate via cell phones, computers, IPods and/or video games that connect to the Internet. Depending upon the circumstances, cybersexting in the U.S. is a lawful activity when both participants are consenting adults. When the cybersexter is a predatory adult seeking to target a curious minor, the situation is a parental nightmare.
The Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force receives many complaints from parents and from the administrators of social networking sites involving minors receiving cybersex communications from strangers via the Internet. In some cases the predatory adult communication comes from someone living in a different state than the young victim. In many cases the police investigation does not produce sufficient evidence to warrant criminal charges. In many past cases the communications were stopped before the situation escalated into a criminal offense. After the police step away, the parent must then find a way to prohibit any future communication between the adult predator and the child.
One obvious solution is to revoke the child’s communication device privileges. But completely eliminating a young persons’ communications device is not always practical. Computers, cell phones, messaging devices and video games have become indelible fixtures in many young lives. E-mail, texting, gaming and cell phones are part of the accepted social communication patterns and educational practices of many modern youth. Internet social communications are incredibly important to some young people. Internet access was so important to one Arizona boy that in 2008, when his father revoked the boy’s computer privileges he shot and killed his dad. Parents need another tool with which they can protect children from Internet predators.
Injunction Against Harassment – Restraining Order
Another tactic for thwarting Internet predators that is often recommended when criminal charges are not possible is the injunction against harassment, also called a restraining order or protective order. Most states have some form of restraining order or injunction that can help prevent a troublesome person from contacting an innocent victim under circumstances where sufficient cause does not exist to pursue a criminal complaint.
Example Arizona Incidents
Here are some examples of cases reported to the Arizona ICAC Task Force that involved injunctions against harassment: – An Arizona parent reported that his 17 year old daughter was cybersexting on line with a 26 year old Utah man. The girl admitted to her father that she intended to meet the man in the future when the man traveled to Arizona for business and that she intended to have sex with him. A detective contacted the man and he refused to speak with the investigator. The investigation is continuing and the suspect was served in Utah with an Arizona injunction against harassment. (case 7827) – An Arizona parent reported unusual messages between her daughter and a 41 year old Nevada man using a popular social networking site. There was insufficient information to pursue criminal charges. The parent obtained an injunction against harassment for the Nevada man. (case 1621) – An Arizona parent reported that her 16 year old daughter used the Internet to chat with a 49 year old Virginia man. The woman requested information about how to obtain an injunction against harassment to help stop the communications. (case 1231) Many more Arizona cases are listed at the end of this article.
Arizona Law
Investigators sometimes recommend that parents of cybersexting victims obtain injunctions against harassment from an Arizona court (1). Pursuant to the Arizona process for obtaining the injunction the parent goes to a local court and swears to the court order. Typically the injunction orders the respondent (predator) not to have any contact with the complainant (child victim). Once the judge approves the injunction it must then be served on the respondent. The respondent can appear in court to dispute the order but in most Internet predator cases the respondent does not appear and the order is validated. Once the order is validated any violation is the misdemeanor crime of interference with judicial proceeding (2).
Local Injunctions Unenforceable Against Out-of-State Predators
The problem with the Arizona injunction, and other states are in a similar situation, is that when the injunction is served on an out-of-state predator, the offender has little incentive to comply with the order. Predators know that it is highly unlikely that any agency in Arizona would ever extradite a misdemeanant offender from another state for violating an injunction against harassment.
Federal Injunction Would Have Interstate Nexus
A Federal protective order with interstate jurisdiction would resolve the problem of out-of-state violators. A victim in one state could obtain an order and it could be served on the offender in another state. A Federal law would overcome the problems that states have in trying to enforce injunctions across state lines. The existing Federal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 2261A, is not sufficient for Internet cyber-communication cases because it requires that either the victim or suspect travel across state lines and that the victim suffer substantial emotional distress (3).
Draft Language
Below is some draft language, modifiable to incorporate with the US Code, that may be useful to begin a discussion about a Federal injunction against electronic harassment. U.S. Code Title 18 – Injunction Against Electronic Harassment A person may file a petition with the court for an injunction prohibiting electronic harassment. If the person is a minor, the parent, legal guardian or person who has legal custody of the minor shall file the petition unless the court determines otherwise. The petition shall name the parent, guardian or custodian as the plaintiff. If the court issues an injunction, the court may do any of the following: – Enjoin the defendant from acts of harassment via electronic communications. – Restrain the defendant from contacting the plaintiff via electronic communications.
References
(1) Arizona Revised Statutes. (2009). 12-1809. Injunction against harassment; petition; venue; fees; notices; enforcement; definition. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/12/01809.htm
(2) Arizona Revised Statutes. (2009). 13-2810. Interfering with judicial proceedings; classification. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02810.htm
(3) U.S. Code. (2009). 18 U.S.C. 2261A. Stalking. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2261A.htm
Selected Arizona ICAC Incidents Involving Injunctions Against Harassment (2004-2009)
An Arizona parent reported unusual Internet communications between her 14 year old daughter and a 21 year old California man. The parent stated that the girl may have lied to the man about her age. The parent wanted the communications to stop. A detective recommended that the parent obtain an injunction against harassment. (1536)
An Arizona woman reported that her 16 year old sister lives in Illinois. The girl exchanged cybersex messages with a 23 year old Mesa Arizona man whom she met in an online game site. The woman wanted to make the communications stop. A detective contacted the suspect and ordered him to stop communicating with the girl and he agreed. The detective recommended to the woman that she follow-up with an injunction against harassment. (1709)
An Arizona parent reported that her 14 year old daughter was enticed by an 18 year old Canadian man who used a popular social networking site. The man stated that he wanted to marry the girl. A detective asked the parent to provide more evidence of illegal activity and also suggested an injunction against harassment. The parent never re-contacted the detective. (2115)
An Arizona grandmother reported that her 16 year old granddaughter was communicating with a 21 year old California man via a popular social networking site. The girl is in the custody of a guardian and is on juvenile probation for prior unlawful acts. The grandmother learned that the girl plans to go to California to visit the suspect. The girl’s guardian was contacted, the girls Internet privileges were revoked and the detective suggested that the grandmother and/or guardian obtain an injunction against harassment. (2358)
An Arizona parent intercepted romantic chat conversations and web page postings to a popular social networking site by his 16 year old daughter. The girl communicated with an 18 year old California man. There was insufficient evidence to pursue an investigation and the detective recommended that the parent obtain an injunction against harassment for the man. (2958)
A popular social networking site reported sexually explicit chat between a 16 year old Louisiana girl and a 52 year old Arizona man. There was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges against the man. The investigator suggested that the Louisiana victim obtain an injunction against harassment for the Arizona suspect. (8012)
A 21 year old Tucson man communicated via the Internet with a 14 year old girl from Surprise, AZ. There was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. The parents obtained an injunction against harassment to help keep the suspect away from the girl. (1433)
An Arizona parent reported that her 16 year old daughter met a 19 year old Arizona man via the Internet. The parent intercepted sexually oriented communications between the man and the girl. The parent did not wish to pursue prosecution and restricted the girl’s Internet use. The parent will seek an injunction against harassment if the contact continues. (1695)
A parent from Yuma, Arizona reported that her 15 year old daughter was chatting with an 18 year old man and that via web cam the man exposed his genitals to her and masturbated. The parent reported the incident to local law enforcement authorities and criminal charges were pursued. Investigators also suggested that the parent follow up with an injunction against harassment. (1899)
A Phoenix parent reported that she intercepted Internet communications between her 17 year old son and a 23 year old man whom the boy met via a web site that is oriented towards homosexual men. The parent learned that the boy and the man spent a weekend together. The boy would not disclose what, if any, sexual contact occurred and criminal charges could not be proven. The parent wished to stop the contact between the two. Detectives suggested an injunction against harassment. (2071)
An Arizona parent intercepted communications between her 17 year old son and a 22 year old man. The two used a popular social networking site to communicate and also exchanged sexually explicit emails. When they met at a Phoenix public library the parent intervened and confronted the man. The 17 year old deleted the sexually explicit emails and there was not sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. A detective recommended that the parent obtain an injunction against harassment. (2420)
The reporting person, a Pima Arizona case manager for disabled persons, reported that a 65 year old Yuma man befriended a mentally impaired 19 year old man. The two exchanged sexually oriented emails. The older man has made attempts to intervene in the life of the disabled man and contacted the victim’s mother suggesting that he be made guardian of the 19 year old. The investigation did not produce sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. A detective recommended that an injunction against harassment be obtained prohibiting the 65 year old man from contacting the disabled victim. (2549)
An Arizona parent reported a suspicious on-line relationship between her 15 year old daughter and a 21 year old Scottsdale man. The 21 year old was grooming the girl and discussed marriage with her. There was not sufficient evidence of a crime but the parent wants to end the relationship. The detective recommended an injunction against harassment. (2695)
A Phoenix school resource officer reported cyber-bullying and gang activity by students using a popular social networking site. Along with possible criminal charges, detectives recommended that the parents obtain injunctions against harassment. (2783)
An Arizona parent reported that someone hacked into the social networking web page of his 17 year old daughter and sent vulgar messages to her friends. Investigators sought criminal charges and also recommended an injunction against harassment. (2800)
An Arizona parent reported that her 17 year old daughter met an unknown older man in a popular Internet gaming site. The parent learned that her daughter and the man exchanged over 500 messages including offers to marry her when she turns 18. Although there is no indication of sexual talk the parent wants to end the contact and has changed the family phone number and revoked the girls’ Internet privileges. Detectives also suggested an injunction against harassment. (2813)
An Arizona parent reported Internet and personal contact between her 15 year old daughter and an El Mirage, Arizona man whom the girl met on-line. The mother intercepted e-mail communications indicating that the man is 19 years old. The mother also obtained the man’s phone number. She called the man and he admitted to knowing that the girl was 15 years old. He agreed to stop communicating with her. The mother then found pictures of the man’s penis on the girls’ computer and later caught the girl and the man together at a movie theatre. A criminal investigation was initiated and the detective also suggested that the mother obtain an injunction against harassment against the man. (2842)
An Arizona parent reported unusual text messages between her 15 year old daughter and a 24 year old married Phoenix man. The man sent suggestive messages but also stated that he could not be alone with the girl, saying that he might make a “mistake”. A detective interviewed the man and he admitted knowing that what he was doing was wrong. There was insufficient evidence to prefer criminal charges. The investigator suggested to the parent that she obtain an injunction against harassment. (2862)
An Arizona parent phoned to report that she found “alarming” text messages on her 16 year old daughter’s cell phone. The messages were between the daughter and a 28 year old woman but the parent did not describe the messages in detail. A detective explained possible criminal violations if the messages were sexual in nature and also suggested an injunction against harassment. (2967)
An 18 year old Arizona woman reported that a 23 year old male acquaintance sent her pictures of his penis via email. Insufficient evidence existed to file criminal charges. The woman also reported that the man used a popular social networking site to communicate with her 14 year old sister but there was no information about criminal sexual acts. A detective suggested that the woman pursue criminal charges of harassment and obtain an injunction against harassment for the suspect. (3067)
AZ ICAC Offender Apprehension Project – Joint Effort Nets 12 Suspects: Citizen Internet Safety Training to Follow
Dr. Frank Kardasz, March 5, 2009
Background
Over the past decade, the ubiquitous proliferation of computers connected to the Internet led to a skyrocketing number of Internet crimes against children. In the year 2008, the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force recorded the following:
• 4,318 incidents involving unlawful images or videos depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. • 394 incidents of various Internet crimes against children reported by the NCMEC Cybertip hotline. • 228 cases of the Internet facilitated luring of minors for sexual exploitation. • 27 reported incidents of Internet related child prostitution.
During eight days in December 2008, Arizona ICAC undercover investigators found that in one narrow avenue of the Internet, 8,170 unlawful images were traced to various locations in Arizona involving 77 different cities throughout the state.
Offender Apprehension Project
In the three months between December 2008 and February 2009, a joint task force of Arizona and Federal investigators conducted a series of proactive cybercrime enforcement operations targeting Internet criminals committing sex crimes against children; including the trafficking of unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. The project was followed by an education effort geared towards Internet crime prevention and awareness.
Law Enforcement Agencies
Investigators affiliated with 11 law enforcement agencies partnered with the Arizona ICAC Task Force in a cooperative effort during this operation. Agencies participating included (alphabetically):
• Arizona Attorney General’s Office (education and training) • Chandler PD – (investigation and enforcement) • F.B.I. – (investigation and enforcement) • Gilbert PD – (investigation and enforcement) • I.C.E. – (investigation and enforcement) • Maricopa County Attorney’s Office – (prosecution) • Mesa PD – (investigation and enforcement) • Phoenix PD – (investigation and enforcement) • Scottsdale PD – (investigation and enforcement) • Tempe PD – (investigation and enforcement) • U. S. Postal Inspection Service – (investigations)
The Investigators’ Work
Trained investigators endured witnessing disturbing cyber images and videos depicting brutal sexual torture of actual children. They use sophisticated computer investigative techniques combined with undercover tactics to identify offenders. They conducted surveillance operations, requested subpoenas, and wrote and executed dozens of search warrants. They seized thousands of items of computer evidence. Detectives and special agents conducted computer forensics examinations to identify contraband images. They interrogated offenders and interviewed witnesses. They conducted exhaustive searches of dwellings and wrote voluminous reports on their activities.
The proactive investigators agreed to participate in this undercover operation in addition to their regular duties that involve responding to citizens’ complaints of Internet crimes against children. Although the investigations required hundreds of work hours, very little overtime was used. Through their proactive efforts investigators and special agents sought justice for thousands of children who could not call 911. Their fine efforts are greatly appreciated. Next, they will work closely with prosecutors to prepare for trials.
Cases pursued by local agencies under Arizona State Law have been submitted to the local County Attorney’s Office – in most cases this involved the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. Cases pursued by federal agencies under the US Code have been submitted to US Attorney’s Office for the Arizona District. The justice system considers all suspects innocent until proven guilty in court.
Persons Arrested
All of the listed suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
These suspects were arrested and charged with violating Arizona State laws regarding the sexual exploitation of minors (child pornography).
• Donald Morici, age 79, from Gilbert Arizona – retired appliance repairman • Richard Leathers, age 49, from Phoenix Arizona – an embalmer/mortician • Ronald Good, age 39, from Tempe Arizona – a computer IT specialist • Sean Johnson, age 21, from Tempe Arizona – a college student • Christopher Youngs, age 59, from Quatar – a surveyor • Michael Carter, age 40, from Peoria Arizona – a plumber • Julio Ayala, age 21, from Scottsdale Arizona – a student • Robert Moran, age 53, from Scottsdale Arizona – a handyman • Two unnamed juveniles, both age 16 from Mesa and Tempe
Penalties
Unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors are described under Arizona State law in ARS 13-3553. It is a class 2 felony. In Arizona the mandatory minimum penalty for a single image crime is ten years in prison.
Training and Education
On March 6, 2009 at 10 a.m. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, in cooperation with all of the agencies involved in the enforcement operation will host an Internet safety meeting for citizens at Orangedale Junior High Prep Academy in Phoenix. The Attorney General has been a statewide leader in bringing the message of Internet safety to children and adults and the meeting is expected to provide important information useful to business owners, parents and minors.
Organizations that can provide more information about Internet crime prevention:
• Arizona Attorney General: www.azag.gov • Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force: www.azicac.org • Enough is Enough: www.enough.org • FBI: www.fbi.gov/innocent.htm • Get Net Wise: www.getnetwise.org • ICE: www.ice.gov/pi/childexploitation/index.htm • ISafe: www.isafe.org • National Association to Protect Children: www.protect.org • NCMEC Netsmartz Program: www.netsmartz.org • Phoenix PD: www.phoenix.gov/POLICE/net_safe.html • Scottsdale PD: www.scottsdaleaz.gov/assistance/fac/icac.asp
More Information
Arizona ICAC Task Force
The Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force efforts are partially funded by grants from the US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The ICAC program is a nationwide network of 59 state task forces representing 1,800 local and regionally affiliated agencies engaged in investigations, forensics examinations, prosecutions and community education. We are pleased to know that the recently announced Federal stimulus package provides a much needed $50 million dollar nationwide boost to the program. We hope to see some of those funds in Arizona.
Within Arizona, the ICAC Task Force is affiliated or partnered with 54 law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies statewide. Since 2000, Arizona detectives and special agents have conducted over 8,000 investigations resulting in the incarceration of hundreds of offenders.
Unlawful Images
Images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors are commonly called child pornography. The images and videos are contraband. The images that investigators found were not of babies in bathtubs. Some of the unlawful videos included acts of bestiality between minors and animals including the horrible audio sounds of human suffering. Detailed descriptions of the images will not be fully provided here.
Some people have a lingering ambivalence towards unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. Some offenders say that they think that since the depicted sex act already occurred that possession of the image should not be a crime. This convoluted thinking was eloquently refuted by judges of the Arizona appellate court who said in a 2004 decision:
• It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling.
• The victimization of a child continues when that act is memorialized in an image. The materials produced are a permanent record of the children’s participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. Unfortunately, the victimization of the children involved does not end when the pornographer’s camera is put away.
• The legislative judgment…is that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child.
• The possession of child pornography drives that industry and…the production of child pornography will decrease if those who possess the product are punished equally with those who produce it.
• The law will decrease the production of child pornography if it penalizes those who possess and view the product, thereby decreasing demand.
• The possession of child pornography inflames the desires of child molesters, pedophiles and hild pornographers. The State has more than a passing interest in forestalling the damage caused by child pornography: preventing harm to children is, without cavil, one of its most important interests.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What Internet safety tips can you provide to citizens about unlawful images?
Homeowners: Pay attention to what is occurring on your home computer. Take responsibility for the control of your computer.
Business owners: Watch what your employees are doing on their work computers. Law enforcement intervention can result in an embarrassing disruption of services to your customers.
Parents: Monitor your child’s use of cell phone cameras. A troubling number of minors are using cell phone cameras to create felony images depicting the sexual exploitation of themselves and others. The images are then being shared throughout cyberspace and the images will never be retrieved.
- What Internet safety tips can you provide to citizens about luring/enticement?
Parents: Closely monitor your child’s use of the computer and know who your child is contacting on line. Be aware that some children have multiple on line profiles. They may show one profile to their parents while keeping another secret profile that they use to communicate with friends and strangers. Also, while you are protecting your children at home, be aware that some children go to places where free Internet access is provided to communicate with others. Coffee shops, libraries and colleges offer free Internet service where young people may be communicating with predators.
- Where can I go on-line for more information?
• Arizona Attorney General: www.azag.gov • Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force: www.azicac.org • Enough is Enough: www.enough.org • FBI: www.fbi.gov/innocent.htm • Get Net Wise: www.getnetwise.org • ICE: www.ice.gov/pi/childexploitation/index.htm • ISafe: www.isafe.org • National Association to Protect Children: www.protect.org • NCMEC Netsmartz Program: www.netsmartz.org • Phoenix PD: www.phoenix.gov/POLICE/net_safe.html • Scottsdale PD: www.scottsdaleaz.gov/assistance/fac/icac.asp
- What is the number to call to report Internet crimes against children?
• Local crimes can be reported through the telephone 911 service. • The NCMEC operates the Cybertip line. The web site is: www.cybertipline.com
Most law enforcement agencies have standardized policies and written directives guiding their many areas of operation. Directives and policies govern everything from mundane administrative matters to grave threats to public safety. Polices develop after years of experience and in most cases, continue to evolve as new trends emerge. A troubling exception to the continuous modernization of police directives is in the area of Internet crimes against children. Most law enforcement organizations still fail to recognize the growing problem and do not have written directives that require any response to these grim threats to children and teens.
Internet Crimes Against Children
The luring and enticement of minors via cyberspace is alarming and continues to increase. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that 50,000 child predators are online at any time searching for potential victims (1).
Growing exponentially in the past 15 years, the numbers of Internet crimes against children has reached disturbing heights. According to a Congressional report in 2007: Crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet are a growing problem in the U.S. and around the world, due to the ease with which pedophiles and child predators can trade, sell, view, and download images of child pornography from the Internet (ibid).
Arizona, like many other states, is experiencing significant increases in the number of unlawful images being trafficked via the Internet (2). The increase in Internet crimes begs a dedicated and permanent law enforcement response. Most Arizona law enforcement agencies have no written directives mandating any response to Internet crimes against children.
Invisible Victims – Except in Cyberspace
Unlike spectacular crimes and incidents involving crashes, explosions, shootings and widespread newsworthy bloodletting, the evil offenses against children are committed in mostly dark and private places by offenders who often psychologically control for humiliate their victims into lifelong silence. Although the criminal evidence is visible in cyberspace, the crimes are seldom reported to law enforcement officials.
Deceptive Statistics Ignore the Problem
Internet crimes involving child victims are under-reported and official statistics do not properly collect the numbers of crimes. The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is ineffective in capturing statistics specifically related to such crimes. NIBRS does not have specific categories that capture the numbers of Internet crimes against children (4). The tragic failure to collect data permits statistics-driven administrators to deny and ignore the existence of the problem.
Liability
Failure to investigate Internet crimes against children can result in significant liability for an organization. Several agencies in the state of Washington suffered a substantial financial judgment when a failure to protect children was uncovered (3).
Purposeful Ignorance Driven by Repugnance
Crimes against children are particularly repugnant. Most people, including police, wish to disassociate themselves mentally from thoughts of dreadful abuse involving helpless children. According to former FBI agent Ken Lanning, “Law-enforcement investigators must deal with the fact that the identification, investigation, and prosecution of child molesters may not be welcomed by their communities—especially if the molester is a prominent person. Individuals may protest, and community organizations may rally to the support of the offender and even attack the victims. City officials may apply pressure to halt or cover up the investigation. Many law-enforcement supervisors, prosecutors, judges, and juries cannot or do not want to deal with the details of deviant sexual behavior. They will do almost anything to avoid these cases (5).”
Sex crimes against children are the most reviled types of investigations for law enforcement officers. While respectful of the need to bring sex offenders to justice, many officers say, “I could never work those kinds of crimes.” The true facts about the sexual victimization of minors can be so psychologically distressing that few can emotionally tolerate being deeply involved in the investigations. Little wonder that crimes against children in cyberspace are widely ignored by policy makers.
CALEA
At the forefront of modern policy oversight is the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). The Commission began in 1979 as a professional consortium of law enforcement professionals who, among other duties, require that their member-agencies maintain model policies that are common to responsible departments nationwide. Member-agencies of CALEA must adopt and comply with standardized written directives. Agencies are periodically audited by CALEA assessors to insure compliance with the required rules. Some examples of a few simple CALEA standards include the following directives:
43.1.1 The agency has a written directive for investigating vice, drug, and organized crime activities… 61.3.1 A written directive governs performance of agency activities related to traffic engineering… 42.2.8 The agency has a written directive concerning identity crime and procedures… 61.2.2 A written directive defines agency response to the scene of any collision…
CALEA standards are applicable to member agencies based on the size of the organization. Small agencies are not required to provide as many services as large agencies. Sadly, CALEA has not yet recognized Internet crimes against children as subject worthy of policy attention.
Recommendation
Law enforcement policies and written directives must recognize Internet crimes against children. If traffic enforcement and identity theft are crimes worthy of written directives aren’t children also worthy? As a leadership organization whose guidelines are followed by many member-agencies, CALEA should include written directives that mandate a law enforcement response to the growing problem of Internet crimes against children.
References
(1) U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce. (January 2007). Sexual exploitation of children on the Internet: Bipartisan staff report for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 109th. Congress. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/01032007_Report.pdf
(2) Kardasz, F. (January 3, 2009). Contraband Images in Arizona: Eight days in December 2008. Retrieved February 11, 2009 from http://kardasz.org/blog/2009/01/contraband_images_in_arizona_e.html
(3) Kardasz, F. (September 15, 2008). Liability for Deliberate Indifference and Failure to Investigate = $ 10.5 Million. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://kardasz.org/blog/2008/09/liability_for_deliberate_indif.html
(4) Finkelhor D., and Ormrod, R. (December 2004). Child pornography: Patterns from NIBRS. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/204911.pdf
(5) Lanning, K.V. (September, 2001). Child molesters: A behavioral analysis. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 4th Ed. p. 86. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
Global positioning satellite (GPS) technology is commonly used to track offenders who are on probation or parole. Offenders wear battery powered ankle bracelets equipped with transmitters linked to cellular technology. The ankle bracelet transmitters report the person’s position on a map for the monitoring officer to see. The system helps officers track an offenders whereabouts.
GPS tracking technology has advanced to the extent that mapping markers can pinpoint the offender’s location and also mark surrounding locations that the offender may be prohibited from visiting. Prohibited locations for sex offenders might include grade schools, parks or places where children would logically congregate.
Some offenders’ terms of probation or parole include computer restrictions. Computer restrictions often prohibit or restrict the offender from visiting cyberspace. Computer restrictions are difficult for parole and probation officers to enforce. Computers are ubiquitous and found almost everywhere. Complicating matters is the fact that free wireless access is available in many locations.
How can mapping technology assist probation and parole officers charged with monitoring offenders who used computers and cyberspace to violate?
Mapping markers might also be used to identify locations where unrestricted wireless Internet access “hotspots” are provided.
How can wireless hotspots be identified?
A Google search for free wireless hotspots in Phoenix Arizona revealed several hyperlinks including the following: http://ilovefreewifi.com/phoenix/. The site lists dozens of locations that would be attractive places for sex offenders to visit and take advantage of unrestricted wireless Internet access. First on the list was the Phoenix Public Library.
Net Stumbler is a popular freeware program that can be used to identify wireless hotspots. It detects wireless LANs that use the 802.11b, 802.11a and 802.11g WLAN standards. Other products perform similar duties. Alternatives to Net Stumbler include: MacStumbler, iStumbler, KisMAC, Kismet, Windows Vista netsh, Vistumbler, Inssider, and DISA Wireless Discovery Device (Flying Squirrel).
Perhaps the integration of mapping technology with GPS monitoring could identify wireless Internet hotspots and assist those who must monitor the offenders who have computer restrictions. The mapping software that shows the locations of schools might also be used to show the locations of wireless hotspots.
Beyond the mapping of wireless hotspots, what else might be done to monitor cyber sex offenders?
Further future advancements in technology might include ankle bracelets that incorporate radio frequency identifiers that sense those radio frequencies common to wireless Internet channels and report those frequencies to the monitoring system.
Although it may be too restrictive to prohibit an offender from ever entering any area where a free unrestricted wireless radio frequency signal is available, simply collecting and preserving the data may be enough to assist investigators who are tasked with later follow up of ongoing offenses. For example, an investigator who is tracing the source of unlawful Internet trafficked images might be led to a particular Internet protocol address at a particular location. If the location is found to be a free wireless hotspot, it would be nice to know whether or not an ankle-bracelet monitored offender was also at the location during the offense.
Arizona law now includes a section requiring registered sex offenders to provide their e-mail and Internet protocol (IP) addresses to the state. While this is a positive step towards monitoring offenders, registering e-mail and IP addresses is not a foolproof way to track offenders. Further work is needed in the area of tracking and monitoring Internet sex offenders.
Conclusion
Monitoring the offenders who use cyberspace is a challenging task for probation and parole officers. GPS monitoring through ankle bracelets is becoming a popular technology for those who must track offenders.
Businesses that produce and market GPS monitoring systems should consider adding a mapping feature that pinpoints Internet wireless hotspots in order to assist officers who must monitor the activities of cyber offenders. Mapping wireless hotspots might help probation and parole officers know when cyber offenders are near locations where they might reoffend.
Future advancements in technology might include ankle bracelets that incorporate radio frequency identifiers that recognize those frequencies common to wireless Internet channels and report those frequencies to the monitoring system.
During the eight day period from December 23 – 30, 2008, Internet traffic was reviewed to determine the characteristics of some of the unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors that were trafficked in Arizona during the time-period.
The data collection is limited by the fact that the Internet traffic reviewed represents only a very small portion of the Internet and likely under-represents the total amount of unlawful images being trafficked.
Data was collected from a proactive data source and examined. The examination indicated that approximately 8,170 “hits” were traced to sources in Arizona. Each hit represents a single felony incident of sexual exploitation of a minor (child pornography) in probable violation of Arizona Revised Statute 13-3553.
Of the approximately 8,170 hits, 2,252 unique data source locations throughout Arizona were identified representing 77 different cities and towns.
The hits and locations were associated with 1,054 unique unlawful contraband felony images or videos that have been previously identified as depicting the sexual exploitation of minors in violation of ARS 13-3553.
Breakdown of the hits by source city for eight day period from December 23-30, 2008:
Dr. Frank Kardasz, December 30, 2008, Revised February 11, 2009
Our Computer Culture
Cyberspace and computers have altered our lives, for better and sometimes for worse. Many people have computers in their homes and offices. School children often have computers in classrooms. Law enforcement officers have computers in the workplace. Police stations have computers for recording incidents and writing reports. Many police cars have computers to aid officers dispatched to calls. Victims and suspects of crimes have computers that are sometimes stolen or sometimes used during cybercrimes.
Cybercrime Explosion
Computers are also quietly used to facilitate sex crimes against minors including luring, enticement and unlawful images depicting exploitation. Most of the crimes against children go unreported because young victims cannot call the police. Part of our growing awareness of the large numbers of Internet crimes comes from thousands of reports of unlawful images through the National Center for Missing and Exploited Childrens’ Cybertip line and also from the sad reports of a few victims (1).
Recent undercover investigative efforts to explore cybercrimes against children have resulted in surprising and increasing numbers of incidents in Arizona (2) and worldwide. Internet crimes against children are arguably among the most under-reported and rapidly growing types of crimes. Cybercrimes pose a dangerous threat to young people.
Law Enforcement Training Void
Despite the increases in computer crimes, law enforcement training has not kept pace with the trend. Police training regarding computer crimes is practically nil and not required at the basic academy level. Analogous to the proliferation of automobiles and subsequent development of traffic enforcement a hundred years ago, we now face the proliferation of computers but without the accompanying law enforcement response.
A Congressional report in 2007 said:
Additional resources should be assigned on both the federal and state level to investigate and prosecute these cases. These resources include federal and state law enforcement agents and prosecutors, forensic laboratories and law enforcement and prosecutorial training (3).
The slow law enforcement response is exacerbated by a denial and a wishful illusion that the crimes do not exist. Many police officers abhor investigating crimes against children. The emotional toll of acknowledging and investigating sex crimes against children is just too high. A common refrain among otherwise toughened cops is, “I could never work those disgusting kinds of crimes against kids.” Changing these beliefs begins with training officers to recognize and investigate the crimes.
Basic Police Training in Arizona
In Arizona, basic police training includes a long list of topics that a fledgling officer must endure (4). State laws and regulations require training consisting of 585 hours of basic police instruction (4). The list includes many important and worthy subjects including firearms, pursuit driving, laws of arrest and defensive tactics.
Noticeably absent from the list of required basic police training topics is any reference to training about Internet crimes against minors. It is now time to formally recognize the growing problem of cybercrimes against children and provide basic training to officers.
Surely the problem of Internet crimes against children is at least equal in importance with traffic enforcement. Traffic law and traffic law enforcement is mentioned many times in the Arizona State requirements for basic police training. Problematic motoring is taught during Functional Area IV – Traffic Control (5). Students must learn about impaired driver cases, traffic citations, traffic collision investigation, traffic collision (practical), traffic direction, and substantive traffic Law. Aren’t Internet crimes against children as important as traffic crimes?
Nay-sayers may argue that it is impossible to add more hours to current police academy training. The 585 hour schedule is packed with high-liability topics that each new officer must master. While that may be true, and while it may be difficult to extend the 585 hours to 586 or 587, why not combine or shorten some of the other courses and devote a little less time to them in order to make room for the growing needs of child victims in cyberspace. Could less time be spent on history, summonses, civil process, intoxication, or traffic?
Summary
It is time to act affirmatively to help children in cyberspace by educating the police. In 2008, we are finally passing the cyber-torch to a generation of new police officers who were raised with computers as we simultaneously retire those veterans who once abhorred computers. Arizona law enforcement academies should recognize Internet crimes against children by including training about the crimes within the basic police training curriculum.
Partly because children cannot call 911, Internet crimes against them will be ignored until legislation encourages basic training for law enforcement officers. The encouragement begins with educating officers to properly respond to and investigate the offenses. The suggested law revisions below are an affirmative move towards that goal.
Recommendations
The following three changes to Arizona Revised Statutes Title 41 and Arizona Administrative Code R13-4-103 regarding basic peace officer training would make education about Internet crimes against minors mandatory for new officers.
I. ARS 41-1822 – add paragraph (g)
Revise the Arizona Revised Statute 41-1822 regarding basic police training to include the language below in a new paragraph (g) under subsection 4 and a revised paragraph 5:
4. Prescribe minimum courses of training and minimum standards for training facilities for law enforcement officers. Only this state and political subdivisions of this state may conduct basic peace officer training. Basic peace officer academies may admit individuals who are not peace officer cadets only if a cadet meets the minimum qualifications established by paragraph 3 of this subsection. Training shall include:
(g) INTERNET AND COMPUTER CRIMES AGAINST MINORS
II. ARS 41-1822 – revise paragraph 5
5. Recommend curricula for advanced courses and seminars in law enforcement and intelligence training in universities, colleges and community colleges, in conjunction with the governing body of the educational institution.
SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS WILL INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF COURSES AND SEMINARS REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST MINORS.
III. Administrative Regulation R13-4-116 Academy Requirements – add paragraph xi
Revise the Administrative Regulations governing certification of peace officers (R13-4-116). Under functional area V – Crime Scene Management, add the following investigative area to the list of items:
xi. INTERNET AND COMPUTER CRIMES AGAINST MINORS
——————————
References
(1) Jaffee, M. (October 18, 2007). Emotional testimony from online predator victim. WZZM13.com. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=82414
(2) Kardasz, F. (March 25, 2008). Contraband images in Arizona: Cities and Internet service providers, February through March 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from http://kardasz.org/blog/2008/04/contraband_images_in_arizona.html
(3) Committee on Energy and Commerce. (January 2007). Sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. Staff report of the 109th Congress. Retrieved February 11, 2009 from http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/01032007_Report.pdf
(4) 2008 Arizona Revised Statutes. Title 41 – State Government. Article 8 Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/41/01822.htm&Title=41&DocType=ARS
For ease of reference, relevant parts of the statute follows:
41-1822. Powers and duties of board; definition A. With respect to peace officer training and certification, the board shall: 5. Recommend curricula for advanced courses and seminars in law enforcement and intelligence training in universities, colleges and community colleges, in conjunction with the governing body of the educational institution.
(5). Arizona Administrative Code. Title 13. Public Safety. Chapter 4. Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from http://www.azpost.state.az.us/
For ease of reference, relevant parts of the statute follows:
Title13. PUBLIC SAFETY R13-4-116. Academy Requirements E. Basic course requirements. The academy administrator shall ensure that the academy uses curricula that meet the requirements of R13-4-114 for the following basic courses of instruction. 1. The 585-hour full-authority peace officer basic training course shall include all of the topics listed in each of the following functional areas: a. Functional Area I – Introduction to Law Enforcement. i. Criminal justice systems, ii. History of law enforcement, iii. Law enforcement services, iv. Supervision and management, v. Ethics and professionalism, and vi. Stress management. b. Functional Area II – Law and Legal Matters. i. Introduction to criminal law; ii. Laws of arrest; iii. Search and seizure; iv. Rules of evidence; v. Summonses, subpoenas, and warrants; vi. Civil process; vii. Administration of criminal justice; viii. Juvenile law and procedures; ix. Courtroom demeanor; x. Constitutional law; xi. Substantive criminal law, A.R.S. Titles 4, 13, and 36; and xii. Liability issues. c. Functional Area III – Patrol Procedures. i. Patrol and observation (part 1), ii. Patrol and observation (part 2), iii. Domestic violence, iv. Mental illness, v. Crimes in progress, vi. Crowd control formations and tactics, vii. Bomb threats and disaster training, viii. Intoxication cases, ix. Communication and police information systems, x. Hazardous materials, xi. Bias-motivated crimes, xii. Fires, and xiii. Civil Disputes. d. Functional Area IV – Traffic Control. i. Impaired driver cases; ii. Traffic citations; iii. Traffic collision investigation; iv. Traffic collision (practical); v. Traffic direction; and vi. Substantive Traffic Law, A.R.S. Title 28. e. Functional Area V – Crime Scene Management. i. Preliminary investigation and crime scene management, ii. Crime scene investigation (practical), iii. Physical evidence procedures, iv. Interviewing and questioning, v. Fingerprinting, vi. Sex crimes investigations, vii. Death Investigations (including training certified by the Department of Health Services on sudden infant death syndrome), viii. Organized crime activity, ix. Investigation of specific crimes, and x. Narcotics and dangerous drugs. f. Functional Area VI – Community and Police Relations. i. Cultural awareness, ii. Victimology, iii. Interpersonal communications, iv. Crime prevention, and v. Police and the community. g. Functional Area VII – Records and Reports. Report writing. h. Functional Area VIII – Police Proficiency Skills. i. First aid, ii. Firearms training (including firearms qualification), iii. Physical conditioning, iv. High risk stops, v. Defensive tactics, vi. Vehicle operations, and vii. Pursuit operations.
The tragic story of a 19 year old Miami man who committed suicide while others watched via Internet web cameras was not an isolated incident. A nearly identical situation occurred in Phoenix, Arizona several years ago.
Occasionally the police receive information that someone in cyberspace is threatening suicide. Often the information is provided anonymously and with no follow-up information other than the screen name or email address of the suicidal person. Fortunately, while many people on the Internet contemplate suicide as a cry for help, only a few actually complete the sad act.
Law enforcement is unable to investigate all of the many cyberspace suicide threats. Police are hampered not only by the shortage of investigators but also by the lack of a law that gives them jurisdiction. Some states laws require that a criminal act must be under investigation before a subpoena can be issued to trace through the Internet service provider to the computer connected to the Internet. Suicide is not a crime in many places and many people believe that suicide by an adult is a personal choice that should not be legislated. In the case of adults it is difficult for law enforcement officers to prevent a determined person from suicide. Many suicidal persons are convinced by authorities to voluntarily surrender themselves to mental health counseling for treatment.
The situation is different when the person threatening suicide is a minor. Because of immaturity a minor is legally incapable of making an informed decision to end his or her life. For minors, law enforcement has a legitimate interest in preventing the suicide but still sometimes lacks the legal ability to investigate.
Suicide-prevention cyberspace emergency law is needed
In threatened cyber-assisted suicide cases investigators are caught between the mandate to preserve human life and the lack of legislation allowing them to effectively investigate. I recommend the creation of a law that would help the police locate and assist suicidal minors by mandating cooperation from Internet service providers.
Here is some draft language for legislators to consider:
If, while using electronic communications a person identifying himself as a minor threatens suicide, law enforcement may request subscriber information about the person from electronic communications service providers (also known as Internet service providers). The electronic communications service providers will provide subscriber information about the person threatening suicide when law enforcement states that there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the suicidal person is a minor. Internet service providers and electronics communications providers doing business in (name your jurisdiction) are required to comply.
Although the law probably would not have helped in the Miami nor Phoenix cases it may help law enforcement officers in the future when they are confronted with calls from citizens informing them of minors threatening suicide on the Internet.
—————————————————–
Kin outraged, distraught over teen’s cyber suicide
By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, 11/2/09
Miami, Florida – The family of a college student who killed himself live on the Internet say they’re horrified his life ended before a virtual audience, and infuriated that viewers of the live webcam or operators of the Web site that hosted it didn’t act sooner to save him.
Only after police arrived to find Abraham Biggs dead in his father’s bed did the Web feed stop Wednesday — 12 hours after the 19-year-old Broward College student first declared on a Web site that he hated himself and planned to die.
“It didn’t have to be,” said the victim’s sister, Rosalind Bigg. “They got hits, they got viewers, nothing happened for hours.” Biggs announced his plans to kill himself over a Web site for bodybuilders, authorities said. He posted a link from there to Justin.tv, a site that allows users to broadcast live videos from their webcams.
A computer user who claimed to have watched said that after swallowing some pills, Biggs went to sleep and appeared to be breathing for a few hours while others cracked jokes.
Some members of his virtual audience encouraged him to do it, others tried to talk him out of it, and some discussed whether he was taking a dose big enough to kill himself, said Wendy Crane, an investigator with the Broward County medical examiner’s office.
Some users told investigators they did not take him seriously because he had threatened suicide on the site before. Eventually, someone notified the moderator of the bodybuilding site, who traced Biggs’ location and called police, Crane said. The drama unfolded live on Justin.tv, which allows viewers to post comments alongside the video images.
As police entered the room, the audience’s reaction was filled with Internet shorthand: “OMFG,” one wrote, meaning “Oh, my God.” Others, either not knowing what they were seeing, or not caring, wrote “lol,” which means “laughing out loud,” and “hahahah.”
His father, Abraham Biggs Sr., told The Miami Herald he didn’t want to watch the video. “We were very good friends,” he said. “It’s wrong that it was allowed to happen.”
An autopsy concluded Biggs died from a combination of opiates and benzodiazepine, which his family said was prescribed for his bipolar disorder.
“Abe, i still wish this was all a joke,” a friend wrote on the teenager’s MySpace page, which he described himself as a goodhearted guy who would always be available for his pals, no matter what time of day.
In a statement, Justin.tv CEO Michael Seibel said: “We regret that this has occurred and want to respect the privacy of the broadcaster and his family during this time.”
It is unclear how many people watched it happen. The Web site would not say how many people were watching the broadcast. The site as a whole had 672,000 unique visitors in October, according to Nielsen.
Biggs was not the first person to commit suicide with a webcam rolling. But the drawn-out drama — and the reaction of those watching — was seen as an extreme example of young people’s penchant for sharing intimate details about themselves over the Internet.
Montana Miller, an assistant professor of popular culture at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, said Biggs’ very public suicide was not shocking, given the way teenagers chronicle every facet of their lives on sites like Facebook and MySpace.
“If it’s not recorded or documented then it doesn’t even seem worthwhile,” she said. “For today’s generation it might seem, `What’s the point of doing it if everyone isn’t going to see it?’”
She likened Biggs’ death to other public ways of committing suicide, like jumping off a bridge. Crane said she knows of a case in which a Florida man shot himself in the head in front of an online audience, though she didn’t know how much viewers saw.
In Britain last year, a man hanged himself while chatting online.
Miami lawyer William Hill said there is probably nothing that could be done legally to those who watched and did not act. As for whether the Web site could be held liable, Hill said there doesn’t seem to be much of a case for negligence.
“There could conceivably be some liability if they knew this was happening and they had some ability to intervene and didn’t take action,” said Hill, who does business litigation and has represented a number of Internet-based clients. But “I think it would be a stretch.”
Condolences poured into Biggs’ MySpace page, where the mostly unsmiling teen is seen posing in a series of pictures with various young women. On the bodybuilding Web site, Biggs used the screen name CandyJunkie. His Justin.tv alias was “feels_like_ecstacy.”
Bigg described her brother as an outgoing person who struck up conversations with Starbucks baristas and enjoyed taking his young nieces to Chuck E. Cheese. He was health-conscious and exercised but was not a bodybuilder, she said.
“This is very, very sudden and unexpected for us,” the sister said. “It boggles the mind. We don’t understand.”
Associated Press Writers Jessica Gresko and Lisa Orkin Emmanuel and the AP News Research Center in New York contributed to this report.
Retrieved November 22, 2008 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081122/ap_on_re_us/webcam_suicide
Dr. Frank Kardasz, November 5, 2008, updated January 16, 2009
Modern cell phones often come equipped with cameras that can be used to capture images. Young people use their cell phone cameras to snap pictures of friends, families and special occasions. Images taken with cell phone cameras can be easily shared between users who can quickly send images to one another or to wider groups of friends.
Unfortunately, cameras are also sometimes used to snap images of nudism or sexual exploitation. Often the images are part of the “sexting” process. Sexting is the act of sending sexual text or sexual images from one electronic device to another for the purpose of grooming another person towards a sex act. Sexual predators often groom intended victims by sexting.
An increasing number of complaints are being received by law enforcement involving improper or illegal images taken and trafficked via cell phone. What can be done?
Parents, please monitor your child’s use of a cell phone camera.
Young people, please think about the consequences of taking and sharing pictures taken with a cell phone camera.
Remember that once an image is released to others or into cyberspace, it is irretrievable. Pictures can be shared and duplicated across cyberspace and the image might not ever be erased.
Please think before you snap-a-pic.
——————————————————
The following story by Mike Brunker describes an incident in Pennsylvania.
‘Sexting’ surprise: Teens face child porn charges
6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell phones
By Mike Brunker, msnbc.com, 01/15/09
In an unusual case arising from the popular practice known as “sexting,” six Pennsylvania high school students are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male classmates via their cell phones.
The female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg, Pa., all 14- or 15-years-old, face charges of manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are 16 and 17, face charges of possession, according to WPXI-TV in Pittsburgh, which published the story on its Web site on Tuesday.
Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October, after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was using it in violation of school rules and found a nude photo of a classmate on it. Police were called in and their investigation led them to other phones containing more photos, it said.
Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first photograph was “a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude.”
The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the investigation turned up “no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds … other than the violation of the electronic devices policy.” The statement also said that school officials didn’t learn of the charges against the students until Monday.
In the WPXI story, which included contributions from the Associated Press, Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might consider sending such photos to friends.
“It’s very dangerous,” he said. “Once it’s on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture. You don’t realize what you are doing until it’s already done.” (Seranko could not be reached for comment on Thursday, and a woman who answered the phone at the Greensburg Police Department said, “Our department is not doing any more interviews on the case.”)
But Patrick Artur, a Philadelphia defense attorney who by his reckoning has handled at least 80 child pornography cases, said the prosecution of minors for photos they took themselves runs counter to the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws: Preventing the sexual abuse of children by “dirty old men in raincoats.”
“It’s clearly overkill,” he said. “… The letter of the law seems to have been violated, but this is not the type of defendant that the legislature envisioned” in passing the statute. Artur said that because there is no mandatory minimum sentence under Pennsylvania’s child pornography law, unlike the federal statute, the students would not necessarily be incarcerated if they are found guilty. But he noted that convictions would have “serious, serious implications,” including forcing them having to register as sexual offenders for at least 10 years. While Artur said the prosecution of a juvenile for allegedly creating and distributing child porn was new to him, a quick review of federal and state statistics showed there have been a handful of similar cases, and several convictions.
While few minors have found themselves in court for e-mailing or posting sexy photos of themselves, there is little doubt that ubiquitous cell phones and easy access to computers have tempted many to push the erotic envelope.
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reported last month that a survey of 1,280 teens and young adults found that 20 percent of the teens said they had sent or posted nude or semi nude photos or videos of themselves. That number was slightly higher for teenage girls — 22 percent — vs. boys — 18 percent.
Retrieved January 16, 2009 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/from/ET/
——————————————————
The following story by Laura Legre also discusses the situation nationwide.
Students trading nude photos not isolated incident
By Laura Legere. The Times-Tribune.com. 11/12/08
Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania area students caught trading sexually explicit pictures of classmates are part of a growing trend. But unlike many teenage fads, what may have seemed like a harmless act could leave them facing life-altering legal consequences.
Incidents of similar trading of nude images by high school students — either by cell phone, e-mail or social networking Web sites — have been reported in at least 12 other states, including New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin, Utah and Georgia.
John Shehan, director of the exploited children division of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said this year alone his organization has received more than 100 reports of child exploitation involving a cell phone. That number includes cases of exploitation by both adults and minors.
In Tunkhannock, police confiscated five cell phones from students between the ages of 11 and 17. One of the phones contained about 100 pictures, according to Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. He said “some of the girls” in the pictures were also taking the photos, which likely showed females between the ages of 14 and 16.
The punishment for teens taking, sending or receiving such photos can often be very adult. In Texas in October, a 13-year-old boy was arrested on child pornography charges after he received a nude picture of an eighth-grade student on his cell phone.
In Utah, a 16-year-old boy was charged with a felony for sending nude photos of himself over a cell phone to female classmates.
In May, a Wisconsin teen who posted nude pictures of a 16-year-old girl on his MySpace page was charged with possession of child pornography, sexual exploitation of a child and defamation.
Pennsylvania students who trade nude images could be charged with sexual abuse of children, unlawful contact with a minor, or criminal use of a communication facility, all of which are felonies punishable by up to seven years in jail.
That point was made repeatedly to the ninth- and 10th-graders gathered in the Abington Heights High School gym Wednesday to hear about the dangers of such behavior. Although there have not been any reported incidents of students trading nude photos in the district, assistant superintendent Thomas Quinn, Ph.D. said, “It certainly would be naive to think it couldn’t happen here.”
Lackawanna County Deputy District Attorney Frank Castellano told the teens that taking, possessing or distributing pictures of people under the age of 18 constitutes child pornography in Pennsylvania, whether or not the person taking the photos or sharing them is a minor. “Please don’t think that you are immune from this type of prosecution or this type of arrest simply because of your age,” he said. “It makes no difference.”
Assistant District Attorney Robert Klein said students who receive nude images should immediately delete them. He emphasized images conveyed by cell phone often end up on the Internet and are spread widely. The legal and social ramifications of such an act can limit a person’s ability to get into college, join the military or get a job for the rest of his or her life, he said.
High School Assistant Principal Michael Beamish put the possible repercussions in even more personal terms, referring to the “tarnish” a pornography charge would have “on your family name.” “Everybody, take a minute and think about what your grandparents would feel if you were in court being prosecuted as a sex offender,” he said.
Nils Frederiksen, spokesman for the state Attorney General’s Office said law enforcement and prosecutors determine the charges to file when teens trade nude photos based on the individual circumstances of each case. But, he cautioned, “If you are sending sexually explicit material to someone under the age of 18, you are facing a potential felony charge.”
Mr. Shehan, of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said prosecutors’ dilemma whether to “prosecute or try and educate or seek counseling” is very difficult, and will become more prevalent as the issue continues to spread. “A lot of damage is done when an image like that is taken and shared and essentially becomes available to the world,” he said. “Teenagers have a different mentality than adults do. A momentary lapse of judgment can have a lifetime of repercussions.”
But Daniel Macallair, executive director of the California-based Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, a nonprofit that advocates alternatives to juvenile incarceration, said the focus on the strictest criminal punishments is not the best way to address the issue. “Labeling some teenager who does something stupid as a lifetime sex offender solves no problems,” he said. “It will create more problems than it will solve.” He encouraged a community-wide response to the incident that involves parents and schools, but not the criminal justice system. “Are you trying to push someone to the margins of society for the rest of their life, is that the goal here?” he said. “And have we really thought this through?”
The information below pertains to an incident from the state of Washington concerning liability for failure to investigate a report of unlawful images.
Background
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) sends cybertips to the 59 nationwide ICAC Task Forces on a daily basis. Cases are also sent to the FBI, ICE, or US Postal Service depending on the perceived original jurisdiction of the case. The sad case described below was the result of tips sent to the Seattle, Washington ICAC Task Force in 2003.
Seattle Washington ICAC
In 2003, the Seattle, Washington ICAC Task Force received a NCMEC cybertip accompanied by two unidentified images of a boy being abused. The initial report indicated that the possessor of the images used the screen name, “fosterdad”. The source of the images was determined to be a computer in Tacoma, Washington.
The case was first received and documented by the Seattle ICAC and then sent to their Tacoma affiliate for investigation. Seattle is the statewide recipient and clearinghouse for incoming NCMEC cybertips and has a computer virtual private network connection with NCMEC for the purpose of receiving incoming complaints.
In this case, Seattle preserved their case assignment log indicating that they sent the investigation to Tacoma. Washington state law requires that cases of child abuse must be reported to the Washington Child Protective Services agency. The NCMEC Cybertip in this case was not reported to the Washington CPS.
A conscientious and dedicated NCMEC analyst was alarmed by the images and contacted Tacoma PD to follow-up on the first report. The analyst was advised by a Tacoma detective that the images were not prosecutable. It was later leaned that the detective may have been less than truthful in this statement.
Then, a few months later, in a second cybertip, additional images from the same offender were reported to NCMEC. The second cybertip report was more thoroughly investigated by the Tacoma detective and in March, 2004 the offender, Ronald Young, a state-certified foster-parent, was arrested. It was discovered that he had molested several of his foster children over a long period of time and had photographed them and shared the images via the Internet. The same Tacoma detective who handled the original investigation also handled the subsequent arrest. He was initially lauded as a hero for his work on the case and later vilified after the initial delays were uncovered.
Washington Lawsuit
In 2006, a victim’s rights attorney filed suit on behalf of the foster children against Tacoma PD, Seattle PD, and Washington Child Protective Services. The suit alleged in part, that there was deliberate indifference in failing to investigate the original cybertip. CPS was sued for failing to investigate the background of foster-parent Young.
Washington Damages
Recognizing their difficult positions, Tacoma PD and the State of Washington CPS quickly settled with the plaintiffs. Although the Seattle ICAC had documented the fact that they sent the case to Tacoma – Seattle also paid. City of Seattle attorneys recognized that if they did not settle they would be the only defendant left in front of a jury that would likely be looking for someone to blame.
Total payout was reported as 10.5 million. The City of Seattle / Washington ICAC Task Force paid 1.9 million of the total. The Seattle ICAC Task Force now has the policy of notifying CPS on all of their investigations and an improved policy for following up on the cases they receive.
Key Points
The Washington situation is a tragic reminder to those investigative agencies who dismiss child pornography investigations as trivial that there are true victims behind the images, and that those victims may have lawyers. Child pornography is not just one picture of a baby in a bathtub that was created overseas and circulates the Internet among a few pedophiles who do not live in your city. It is a big problem, it cannot be ignored, and improved law enforcement efforts are needed.
Due to the high workloads and limited resources available for Internet crimes against children throughout the United States it is possible that a case similar to the one in Washington will occur, or has already occurred in other jurisdictions.
Recommendation
Law enforcement agencies must recognize that unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors are serious crimes worthy of significant investigative efforts and the devotion of increased resources.
Selected News Reports from the Washington Case
The following reports from various news sources begin with a story that describes the fine work of the Tacoma, Washington ICAC investigators.
Detectives Add High-Tech Tools to Law Enforcement Arsenal
05/07/04. By Jeffrey M. Barker. Seattle Post-Intelligence Reporter
Tacoma – In a Police Department office here lighted largely by computer-screen glow, two detectives chase technology. They’re helping law enforcement catch up with the gadgets that now pervade our daily lives: the Internet, digital cameras, computer chips that are found in everything from cell phones to a car’s engine. Just a few years ago, police ignored or fumbled with those things. In many places, they still do.
But they are the pieces of evidence detectives now need to convict criminals. Take, for an example, Ronald Harold Young, the Key Peninsula foster father charged in March with 44 counts of child rape, molestation and exploitation. He was found at the end of a cybertrail that included anonymous Internet bulletin boards, search warrants of Internet service providers and seizure of hard drives and cameras. It was a trail blazed by Detectives Richard Voce, 46, of the Tacoma Police Department and Greg Dawson, 45, of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department. The two make up the county’s computer crimes unit.
“I don’t have a computer science degree,” said Dawson, a former Army aviator who bought his first computer – a Commodore 64 – in 1982. “I just wanted to play games — flight simulators and things like that.” Computers crowd his office. Connecting cables hang from walls. A child-pornography case brought Dawson to computer detective work. The case involved a man who took his hard drive filled with illegal pictures to a computer store for maintenance.
Same story for Voce. “I did a couple cases that just pushed me in this direction,” he said, sitting in his dark office, hunting and pecking on his keyboard. Hanging on the wall behind him, a fake street sign reads “Pervert Parking Only.” “He’s what we call a natural,” Dawson said of Voce.
Voce said that before 1999, he didn’t know much more about computers than the average person who has one at home. Now, he teaches a three-hour class on computer crime at the local police academy. The class covers the rise of identity theft, fraud cases, proper seizure of a computer – all stuff that had never been discussed before during basic police training.
In most police departments across the country, the trail would have gone dead long before reaching Young, said Frank Clark, a former detective who works with the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office and started the computer crimes unit here. He also founded Computer Technology Investigators Northwest, a cooperative that helps train detectives and puts them together with private-sector computer experts.
When Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg — then the county’s prosecutor — hired Clark away from a pioneering computer crime unit in Fresno, Calif., computer evidence here wasn’t being properly investigated. “They (Pierce County detectives) were seizing a number of computers,” Clark said. “They just didn’t know what to do with them.”
He said most departments simply don’t have officers trained in computer forensics. And because of that, fraud and child pornography – the bulk of what Voce and Dawson deal with – are going unaddressed. The Seattle Police Department does not staff any full-time computer detectives.
The only full-time computer forensics lab in this state, other than Pierce County’s, is run by the Washington State Patrol. Clark said departments should have at least one computer detective for every 200,000 residents. “If you gave me five people tomorrow, I could keep them busy, and more,” Dawson said, adding that once detectives are trained to look for computer crimes, they find more and more.
On the flip side, just because many cities are not looking for the crimes, and therefore not prosecuting them, it doesn’t mean they don’t have a high-tech crime problem. “If I don’t have a drug unit, I don’t have a drug problem in my town. The same can be said of high-tech,” Dawson said. Clark agreed, saying Pierce County doesn’t have more fraud and illegal pornography cases than other region — “we just work ‘em.”
The Pierce County/Tacoma lab gets about 40 tips annually like the one that led to Ronald Young, the detectives say.
And Dawson and Voce said there are more people out there who are able to commit crimes from the mostly anonymous comfort of their homes, rather than having to seek out child pornography in dark alleys and through regular mail. “The Internet is a wonderful, wonderful tool,” Dawson said. “But it’s got a dark side — it’s a delivery system that wasn’t there just a few years ago.”
Detectives investigate bomb threats, which often are made through e-mail; improper use of private companies’ computers; check fraud; and identity thefts. Dawson and Voce also help other detectives on more traditional cases. In a homicide, for example, a death threat or other evidence might be found on a computer.
That’s the kind of slip-up that might not be found in the course of non-computer police work. “But you can afford to be stupid right now,” Dawson said, “if there are no cops out there to catch you.”
Reporter Jeffrey M. Barker can be reached at 206-870-7852 or jeffreybarker@seattlepi.com
Retrieved September 3, 2008 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/172341_vprofile07.html
Online Postings Describe Struggle with Sexual Urges
03/31/04. Mike Carter, Michael Ko and Jonathan Martin. Seattle Times staff reporters.
Police say a Pierce County foster dad charged with molesting and photographing young boys in his care posted messages in an Internet newsgroup catering to Christian pedophiles, saying he struggled “minute by minute” with his urges and describing himself as a “boylover that has devoted my life to boys and introducing the love of Christ to them.”
Tacoma Police Detective Richard Voce yesterday confirmed that 41-year-old Ronald Harold Young used the Internet identity “Homeanon” to write of his battle with his sexual urges for children, and counseled other struggling pedophiles in a “Christian” forum on religion and their pedophilia.
Young also used that identity to post dozens of pornographic photographs in another pedophile-oriented newsgroup, police said. Many of the pictures were of his foster children, and some were so graphic that they offended others in the group. Young, a licensed foster parent, was arrested last week at his house in Home, on the Key Peninsula, and has been charged with 30 counts of first-degree child rape, eight counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and six counts of first-degree child molestation. Voce said detectives believe the pseudonym Homeanon refers to Young’s residence in Home, as well as his desire to remain anonymous.
According to some members of his family, Young became “super-religious” in recent years, right around the time he applied for and received a foster-parent license from the Department of Social and Health Services.
On Dec. 1, 2003, Homeanon joined a debate in a “Christian” pedophile newsgroup over whether there is biblical justification for pedophilia or homosexuality. “Married for over 20 years, I still find boys attractive in a lustful way and can only remove those thoughts with praises to our loving God,” he wrote. He concluded, after a lengthy analysis, that “homosexual desire is unnatural because it causes a man to abandon the natural sexual compliment God has ordained for him — a woman.”
In another posting Jan. 16, Homeanon responded to a pedophile who opined that a man who has sexual urges for children should confront his temptations. “I do not think an alcoholic should hang out in a bar, a boylover probably should not take on a Boy Scout troop without examining his true motives,” Homeanon wrote.
Charging papers state that the first pornographic photos of some of the six foster children in Young’s care — clearly showing a sex act — were posted to the Internet by Young under another identity, “fosterdad,” on Sept. 10, 2003, more than two months before he posted his missive on the Christian forum.
On Sept. 16, 2003, Homeanon appeared in another newsgroup that caters to pedophiles. A few days later, he wondered in that newsgroup “how safe is this. to post or not to post. That is my dilema. Much to lose.”
About every six weeks, Homeanon posted a series of photographs, some with a theme and many of sex acts between men and boys, or other degrading acts involving children.
In several of the postings, Homeanon wrote that he hadn’t taken the pictures. “Please note that I have only posted these Beautiful pictures and that I DO NOT know these boys,” he wrote Dec. 2, 2003.
The charges against Young state that police have recovered the camera that took the photographs and have identified Young and some of the foster children in the photographs. Homeanon’s appearance in one group created quite a stir. While many of its members urged him to keep posting new photographs, a few took offense at some of the more graphic photographs.
In a posting in February, one group member complained about a photograph that appeared sadistic. “I posted that pic,” responded Homeanon, who added that the “photographer would NEVER hurt this boy.”
Voce, the Tacoma detective, said Young “may be telling the truth” about a longtime battle with sexual urges. Homeanon and the photographs appeared late last summer, Voce said. Young, he said, found solace in the pedophile newsgroups. “It’s common that people like this will seek validation. And what better place to find it than among those with similar likes and dislikes?” he said.
Richard Packard, the president of the Washington state chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, reviewed some of Homeanon’s writings. He said the use of religious language shows an attempt to create a moral justification for behavior Young knew to be wrong. “To me, it’s indicative that there is a struggle and an awareness of the wrongfulness. His use of the term ‘boylover’ is a frequently used term among homosexual pedophiles to pasteurize their behavior, to turn it into something that’s kinda nice,” he said.
Efforts to treat offenders rise or fall on their willingness to abandon the religious moralization, Packard said.
DSHS spokeswoman Kathy Spears said the agency would not comment on Young’s case or release records until the conclusion of police and DSHS investigations, which could take several weeks. Spears said DSHS does not have the manpower to monitor Internet activity in its 6,300 licensed foster homes.
Meanwhile, records show that Ronald Young’s stepfather was involved in a child-molestation case in 1989. Harold Young pleaded guilty to two counts of child rape in Skagit County Superior Court and was sentenced to two years and 10 months in prison.
Police and prosecutors said Harold Young raped his two step-granddaughters (the children of Ronald Young’s older sister) between January 1988 and January 1989, when the girls were 11 and 7 years old. At the time, Harold Young and his wife were managing the Skagit Valley Mobile Manor, a mobile-home park.
“He used his status as a grandfather and then scared my daughters with his threats if they told me or anyone else,” the girls’ mother wrote in a statement filed with the Skagit County prosecuting attorney in December 1989. “It has left a lasting effect on me and both my daughters. They will have to grow up with this haunting them, and I feel it will keep them from leading a normal adult life when it comes to marriage and children.”
Roy Jamison, who has lived at the Mount Vernon mobile-home park for 17 years, said that he knew the Youngs and that Ronald took over as manager at the park for a couple of years after Harold was arrested.
Ronald Young’s mother, who lives in Alabama, said her husband’s case has “nothing to do with Ronald.”
Seattle Times staff reporter Christine Willmsen contributed to this report. Mike Carter: 206-464-3706 or mcarter@seattletimes.com
Retrieved September 3, 2008 from http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20040331&slug=foster31m
Child-Sex Case Jolts Family, Small Community
3/27/04. The Seattle Times
Tacoma – Ronald Harold Young, the Pierce County foster parent charged yesterday with 44 crimes of child pornography and rape involving six boys in his care, gave his family the impression that taking in broken children was his personal “ministry.”
Young, 41, became “super-religious” about two years ago, said his 25-year-old niece, who only gave her first name as Bev. She said Young presented himself as “a good, God-fearing Christian of all things, super foster dad.”
For most of his adult life, he told family members he was an atheist, said a woman who identified herself only as Young’s sister and Bev’s mother. One day, she said, “he started wearing a cross and preaching.” Neither Young’s sister nor his niece knew what caused the transformation. About that time, in July 2002, Young and his wife received a license to become foster parents.
Young said little yesterday before pleading not guilty in Pierce County Superior Court to child rape, molestation and sexual exploitation of a minor. He is being held on $2 million bail in the Pierce County Jail.
In charging papers, Pierce County prosecutors said that by September 2003, Young was engaging in sexual acts with the six boys, ages 5 to 7, taking hundreds of digital pictures and sending them all over the world via the Internet.
In fact, tips that sparked the investigation came from Europe and the United States. Investigators overseas found child pornography originating from the Tacoma area under the e-mail address fosterdad@hotmail.com. The e-mail address was connected to Young, who was arrested about 7:15 a.m. Thursday.
Young has had at least five other foster children who no longer lived at his home, and detectives are talking to them about whether they were victimized. Prosecutors said Young has contacted foster children after they’ve left his care.
The attorneys believe the boys, who lived with Young from December 2002 until three weeks ago, were molested. Young has no known criminal history. Pierce County sheriff’s Detective Ed Troyer said investigators last night were trying to determine if Young previously went by a different name and had been charged or convicted of a sex crime under that name.
Young spent at least the past five years in Home, a sleepy community in northwest Pierce County in the middle of the Key Peninsula. Neighbors said Young raised two of his own boys. One is in the Air Force, and the other still lives in the area. Jane Coby, a cashier at the Home Country Store, recalled that Young came by about once a day to buy cereal and milk.
Young used to be a contractor, but recently, he was a full-time foster parent who did odd jobs. State officials say foster families are paid $366.31 to $514.95 per month for a child whose needs are average.
Linell Warnes, another cashier at the Home Country Store, said Young was “very nice, very quiet, very well-mannered. He was always correcting (his boys) firmly: ‘No, you can only get one thing.’ ‘No, you don’t behave like that.’ “
Unrest in Home, court
But few people in Home had sympathy for Young yesterday. Many wished him harm or said he should die. Young’s sister said his family “is not standing by him.” “I don’t want none of it, he’s a sick bastard,” she said. “What we have to say is he’s very sick and we don’t condone it.” Young’s niece, Bev, was so upset after the court hearing yesterday that she charged at Young’s wife in the crowded hallway. Bev, who was restrained by her mother, accused Young’s wife of wrongly supporting him.
retrieved September 3, 2008 from http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Young_Ronald_483770550.aspx
The Stranger
03/31/04. David Schmader. Index Newspapers, The Stranger (weekly column).
Speaking of sex crimes and cyberspace: Today brought some fascinating background to the case of Ronald Young, the 41-year-old Key Peninsula foster father charged last week with 30 counts of first-degree child rape, eight counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, and six counts of first-degree child molestation.
Today the Seattle Times reported on the spooky postings left by Ronald Young over the years on the Internet. Tacoma police have confirmed that Young used the name “Homeanon” to write of his battle with his sexual urges for children and to post photographs of sex acts between men and boys. According to the Times, Young’s anguished testimonials took place primarily in newsgroups catering to Christian pedophiles, with “Homeanon” (detectives believe the pseudonym refers to Young’s residence in Home, WA, and his desire to remain anonymous) detailing his “minute by minute” struggle with his urges, and characterizing himself as a “boylover that has devoted my life to boys and introducing the love of Christ to them.” More disturbingly, “Homeanon” also posted dozens of pornographic photographs, many featuring Young’s foster children, sometimes in settings so graphic they reportedly offended other pedophiles in the newsgroup.
Ronald Young remains in a Tacoma jail pending $2 million bail.
Retrieved September 3, 2008 from http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=17762
Child Abuse Tips Gain Priority for Tacoma and Seattle Police
07/10/08. Stacey Mulick. TheNewsTribune.com
Tacoma and Seattle police have started making changes in how they handle Internet child abuse tips after issues with their policies surfaced in a lawsuit involving eight boys whose foster father sexually abused and photographed them.
Allegations about how the departments handled the abuse tip were part of the lawsuit, whose $11 million settlement was announced Wednesday. On Tuesday, the Tacoma City Council approved payment of its portion of the settlement – $7.6 million.
Basically, the departments are strengthening their processes for tracking the tips they receive so they’re quickly reviewed and passed on to the appropriate agencies. Among the changes:
• Tacoma police now have a written policy on how tips on Internet child sex crimes are received, logged and assigned to a detective.
• Seattle police have a more efficient way to track when they send tips to other police agencies.
“We are very saddened for the victims and disappointed about our performance in this case and have taken every measure to avoid this from happening again,” Tacoma Police Chief Don Ramsdell said Wednesday. Tacoma police also are conducting an internal investigation of how detective Richard Voce handled the case, which was not begun for at least two months or as many as five after the department received the abuse tip.
Voce, a member of the computer crimes unit, remains on duty. He could not be reached for comment Wednesday, but in 2004 he told The News Tribune that his heavy caseload prevented him from investigating the tip sooner.It’s a “systemwide issue, and there are a lot of moving parts to it,” Ramsdell said. “It’s very complicated, and these cases are very complex.”
Photos Posted on the Internet
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of eight boys sexually abused and photographed in 2003 and 2004 by their foster father, Ronald Young, in his Key Peninsula home. Hundreds of photos were posted on the Internet. Young later was convicted and sentenced in the case.
In the lawsuit, attorneys for the boys, who were between 5 and 12 at the time, alleged Seattle and Tacoma police officers failed to follow state law by not reporting the suspected abuse to the state Department of Social and Health Services.
The suit also claimed that Tacoma police failed to act quickly on the tip. As the case sat untouched, the boys continued to be abused. Tacoma police “did act on it but did it very, very slowly,” said Jack Connelly, an attorney for the boys. “The problem with this case is everyone sat on it and nobody was acting very quickly.”
In addition to the $7.6 million Tacoma has agreed to pay to settle the suit, the City of Seattle will pay $1.9 million and the state $1.5 million. The state has paid $500,000 on behalf of Young’s wife, Wendy, who was accused of negligence for failing to be a proper foster parent.
A judge still must approve the settlement; no hearing has been scheduled.
Police Notified in 2003
The case began in September 2003 after the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children found sexually explicit photos that had been uploaded on the Internet by someone with a computer in the Tacoma area. The center told the Seattle Police Department’s Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force that the person who posted the photos used the names “fosterdad” and “homeanon.”
At the time, the Seattle task force was the clearinghouse for such tips in Alaska and Washington. The nine-member task force, created in 2001, passed tips to the appropriate law enforcement agencies for further investigation. In the Young case, Seattle police contended they sent the tip to Tacoma police in September 2003. Tacoma police said they received it in December 2003. No records confirm when it was sent and received.
Voce, who is assigned to a joint computer crimes unit with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department, didn’t start investigating the tip until February 2004, after the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children contacted Tacoma police directly.
Investigators obtained search warrants and arrested Young, a state-licensed foster parent, in late March. The boys were removed from his home. Young later pleaded guilty to eight crimes related to the case. He was sentenced in April 2005 to 26 years in prison.
A lawsuit against the state on behalf of the victims was filed in 2005. Seattle and Tacoma were added in December 2006.
Policies Reviewed
After Tacoma was added to the lawsuit, the Police Department hired outside consultants to review its policies for handling the Internet crime tips and to make recommendations. “We didn’t have a clean process” for handling the tips, Ramsdell said Wednesday.
In March, Tacoma police commanders met with the consultants and, based on their input, put a new written policy in place. Under it:
• Internet tips are routed through a supervisor, who logs them, reviews them and assigns them to a detective.
• The supervisor also monitors the progress of the investigation.
• Both the detective and supervisor are responsible for alerting state social workers to possible child abuse allegations.
“We do that to ensure that nothing falls through the cracks and to ensure that these are the done way they should be,” Ramsdell said.
The Seattle Police Department and its Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force also has made changes. The task force now is a six-member team of Seattle police officers responsible for taking the tips and doling them out to agencies in Washington only. It now forwards tips using certified mail. “Our record keeping wasn’t what it should have been,” Seattle police spokesman Sean Whitcomb said.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has developed software that tracks tips as they are forwarded to law enforcement agencies for investigation. Seattle police also plan to talk with the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children about whether any other steps need to be taken. They also will be meeting with state Department of Social and Health Services officials to “see if there are better ways for the agencies to communicate,” Whitcomb said.
Retrieved September 3, 2008 from http://www.thenewstribune.com/331/v-lite/story/409021.html
Tacoma, Seattle Settle Foster Father Abuse Lawsuit
Tacoma -The cities of Tacoma and Seattle have agreed to settle a lawsuit over the sexual abuse of eight children in foster care for a total of $10.5 million. The cities were added as defendants to a lawsuit filed in 2005 in Pierce County Superior Court against the state Department of Social and Health Services.
The state agency was accused of failing to adequately screen Ronald Young before licensing him as a foster father and then of failing to properly monitor children in his custody. Young pleaded guilty in 2004 to multiple counts of child rape and sexual exploitation of a minor and was sentenced to more than 26 years in prison.
The Tacoma City Council on Tuesday approved a $7.6 million payment to settle the lawsuit. The remaining $2.9 million would come from Seattle. The settlement is subject to approval by a judge. Tacoma is paying the larger share because it had the greater exposure, City Attorney Elizabeth Pauli told The News Tribune newspaper.
Young’s wife, Wendy Young, was added as a defendant at the same time as Tacoma and Seattle, and a $500,000 settlement in her case was reached in February, court records show. Wendy Young was accused of negligence for failing to provide proper foster parenting but not of participating in sexual abuse.
The state licensed the Youngs as foster caregivers in July 2002. They cared for 11 children until Ronald Young’s arrest, and sheriff’s officials said Young abused at least eight of the boys. At the time of his arrest, Young was staying home with the children while his wife worked as a baker in a grocery store.
Prosecutors said Young posted pornographic pictures of his foster children, ages 5 to 12, on the Internet. The photos were traced to Washington state in September 2003 by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which notified Seattle police, Tacoma lawyer Jack Connelly said.
Investigators in Seattle were legally obligated to notify state Child Protective Services within 24 hours, Connelly said in 2006, but instead sent the information to police in Tacoma after determining that Young was from Pierce County .
Tacoma City Manager Eric Anderson said a police officer on duty at the time the information was received “failed to recognize the serious nature” of it, so the case was not immediately investigated. More than five months later, in early March 2004, Tacoma started a criminal investigation and Young was arrested on March 25, 2004. Anderson said Tacoma has improved its process for handling reports of sexual abuse, but a detailed investigation is continuing. “The lesson we have to learn is that we always have to be vigilant about children, and this underscores it,” he said.
Information from: The News Tribune, http://www.thenewstribune.com
Retrieved September 3, 2008 from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008041776_apwafostercareabuse1stldwritethru.html
Seattle Settles Foster Care Abuse Lawsuit
07/10/08. Associated Press
Tacoma – The cities of Tacoma and Seattle have agreed to settle a lawsuit over the sexual abuse of eight children in foster care for a total of $10.5 million.
The cities were added as defendants to a lawsuit filed in 2005 in Pierce County Superior Court against the state Department of Social and Health Services. The state agency was accused of failing to adequately screen Ronald Young before licensing him as a foster father and then of failing to properly monitor children in his custody.
Young pleaded guilty in 2004 to multiple counts of child rape and sexual exploitation of a minor and was sentenced to more than 26 years in prison.
The Tacoma City Council on Tuesday approved a $7.6 million payment to settle the lawsuit. Another $1.9 million would come from the city of Seattle and the remaining $1 million would come from the state of Washington. The settlement is subject to approval by a judge. Tacoma is paying the larger share because it had the greater exposure, City Attorney Elizabeth Pauli told the News Tribune newspaper.
Young’s wife, Wendy Young, was added as a defendant at the same time as Tacoma and Seattle, and a $500,000 settlement in her case was reached in February, court records show. Wendy Young was accused of negligence for failing to provide proper foster parenting but not of participating in sexual abuse.
The state licensed the Youngs as foster caregivers in July 2002. They cared for 11 children until Ronald Young’s arrest, and sheriff’s officials said Young abused at least eight of the boys. At the time of his arrest, Young was staying home with the children while his wife worked as a baker in a grocery store.
Prosecutors said Young posted pornographic pictures of his foster children, ages 5 to 12, on the Internet. The photos were traced to Washington state in September 2003 by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which notified Seattle police, Tacoma lawyer Jack Connelly said.
Investigators in Seattle were legally obligated to notify state Child Protective Services within 24 hours, Connelly said in 2006, but instead sent the information to police in Tacoma after determining that Young was from Pierce County.
Tacoma City Manager Eric Anderson said a police officer on duty at the time the information was received “failed to recognize the serious nature” of it, so the case was not immediately investigated.
Retrieved September 3, 2008 from http://www.spokesmanreview.com/local/story.asp?ID=252307
Father of Sex-Abuse Suspect was Abuser: State had no Sure Way to Know That About Accused Child Rapist
03/30/04. Jennifer Langston and Rugh Teichroeb. Seattle Post-Intelligencer Reporters.
Mount Vernon – The father of a man who now faces more than 30 counts of child rape involving foster sons in his care was himself a child rapist, according to court records.
Fifteen years ago, Harold Edgar Young pleaded guilty to second-degree child rape after two of his granddaughters accused him of sexual molestation, prompting residents of the mobile-home park he managed to draft a petition to keep him away. Court documents in the case also say Harold Young may have molested his own stepdaughters.
State child-welfare officials said yesterday that they could not discuss Harold Young’s son, Ronald Harold Young, who was charged last week in Pierce County with raping his foster children. The case, they said, is under investigation. Nor would they say whether they knew about his father’s conviction.
But it is clear that if child-welfare officials knew about the conviction before licensing Ronald Young as a foster parent, he, his wife or someone else close to the family would have had to tell them. The state does check the criminal background of prospective foster parents, but depends on those people to tell them about other parts of their lives that court checks wouldn’t reveal. The state has no authority to delve into the criminal background of the families of prospective foster parents.
“If someone is going to be devious and deceitful, we don’t have perfect safeguards,” said Nancy Zahn, who oversees the licensing of foster homes and other children’s facilities for the state Department of Social and Health Services.
DSHS officials said that such information as his father’s conviction would not necessarily have ruled out Ronald Young as a foster parent, although it would have prompted more questions. “You can’t make the assumption that the child of a sex offender will be a sex offender,” Zahn said. What occurred was hardly a secret in the Young family.
The mother of the girls who Harold Young abused had little sympathy for her brother Ronald Young at his arraignment last week. He is accused of posting hundreds of pornographic images on the Internet of himself and six foster boys engaged in a range of sexual acts.
Ronald Young, a seemingly devout born-again Christian who was studying to be a minister, and his wife began caring for abused and neglected children in their rural Key Peninsula home in the summer of 2002.
The state expanded the family’s license from three to six children last year. Prospective foster parents not only undergo criminal background checks but are also asked specific questions about their family histories, including whether they were abused as children and whether any relatives are sex offenders, Zahn said. “Certainly that isn’t information that we’d just ignore,” Zahn said.
An applicant who is related to a convicted sex offender might still be granted a foster care license on the condition that the relative not have any access to children placed in the home, Zahn said. During the screening process, prospective foster parents also provide three personal references. One of those three references can be a relative. Those references are asked about whether the applicant has any history of domestic violence or abuse. “People are usually very forthcoming if they have any concerns,” said Paula Bentz, who also works in the licensing division.
DSHS can ask applicants to undergo a psychological evaluation, parenting evaluation or even a sexual-deviancy evaluation, Bentz said. An applicant who refuses can be denied a license. But there are also limits on what DSHS can uncover during the screening process. Applicants must give their permission for criminal background checks to be done, and such checks can’t legally be run on relatives who don’t live in the home, Zahn said. And the screening process depends to a large part on the honesty of the applicant, she said.
Identifying pedophiles is difficult, said Lucy Berliner, director of the Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress. “We’re really lousy at it. We don’t have a way to do it yet,” Berliner said. But she hopes DSHS re-examines its screening process in light of this incident, including looking at whether relatives should routinely be interviewed.
In Harold Young’s child rape case, court documents from 1989 do not mention any relationship with a son. But two of his grandchildren, ages 7 and 11, told police their grandfather would take off his clothes and molest them. The eldest grandchild said he warned her that if she ever told anyone, she wouldn’t live to see her next birthday, according to court documents. The girls’ mother and two aunts described similar abuse from their stepfather after he moved into their home, according to statements in the court record from the late 1980s.
In December 1989, Harold Young entered a guilty plea in Skagit County Superior Court, despite his insistence that he did nothing wrong and that he was the target of a vendetta against him. He was sentenced to 34 months in prison and was ordered to register as a sex offender.
Roy and Carolyn Jamison, who lived in the Skagit Valley Mobile Manor in Mount Vernon, were among those who signed a petition to keep Harold Young from coming back to the manufactured home park that he and his wife managed. Residents circulated the petition after Young was charged. They said Harold Young had a low tolerance for children, constantly yelling at them for riding bicycles in the street or for setting up badminton nets in their own yards.
“There were a lot of kids at the time,” said Carolyn Jamison. “We didn’t want him back — after hearing that you didn’t want anyone else’s kids getting molested.” Harold’s wife and Ronald’s mother said this weekend that she and her husband started a new life in Alabama seven years ago and wouldn’t comment on any prior sexual abuse accusations in the family. “We’re leading a new life here,” she said. “It would crush (Ronald) if the whole family was dragged into the mess.”
P-I reporters Jake Ellison and Jeffrey M. Barker contributed to this report. P-I reporter Jennifer Langston can be reached at 425-252-5235 or jenniferlangston@seattlepi.com
Retrieved September 3, 2008 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/166922_fosterfolo30.html
An Arizona newspaper recently printed a controversial article about a photographer who publicizes pictures of her own children posing nude. The article included a chronology of dozens of nude images of the photographers’ pre-pubescent children ranging in age from less than one year to ten years. The children were not posed in sexually suggestive positions and were not engaged in sex acts. Although genitals were visible in the pictures, the specific focuses of the images were not zoomed on the child’s genitals.
The published images were probably not unlawful according to present United States Supreme Court standards. The Court might consider the images to be lawful pictures of nudity or art. The images probably did not violate the difficult-to-measure-and-enforce community obscenity standard. The pictures might fall outside the legal definitions of images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. The photographer appears to be attempting to straddle the sometimes-confusing borderline between art and illegality, at the expense of her children.
While barely lawful, some would consider the nude pictures of children to be erotica. Erotica includes lawful and non-pornographic items that may stimulate a sexual reaction from the viewer.
Those who would consider nude images of children to be sexually stimulating might include the ranks of pedophiles and others who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent minors. Anyone who considers sharing nude images of a child should consider that others may find their benign images sexually stimulating.
Those who consider photographing children nude and sharing the images should also know that doing so may make the children the targets of those who will enjoy the images for sexual masturbatory purposes.
The same persons who sexually enjoy the images may also try to befriend the children depicted and ingratiate themselves with the family for the predatory purpose of grooming the targeted children towards actual molestation.
Predators may pose as admiring “fans” of the young model. They may pose as professional photographers interested in advancing the modeling career of a young person: A young person who’s only protection from harm are the same star-hungry parents who send them to the photographer-predator. This does not mean that all photographers are bad, only that parents must be vigilant.
Distributing and publishing erotic images of children also means that the pictures will likely be duplicated and distributed throughout cyberspace. That means that once the children depicted are old enough to knowingly object to the pictures the images will already be irretrievable. Once the child reaches middle school and is confronted with the pictures by crass adolescent peers who found the pictures on the Internet, the subsequent embarrassment will be irreversible.
Benign and innocent images may also be used for alteration or blending with other images for the purpose of creating pornography. For example, innocent images of the famous child twin actresses Kate and Ashley Olsen have been duplicated, cropped, pasted and altered into sexual images for many years by deviants who enjoy the altered pictures for sexual self-gratification and who then trade them via the Internet. Deviants often use software programs to cut the young faces from the Olsen twins and superimpose the images onto the nude or sexually active bodies of others so that the deviants can imagine having sex with the young girls.
It is also likely that the images will become part of someone’s larger collection that includes unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. For example, those who collect and enjoy unlawful images also sometimes collect lawful images of erotica and nudism. Some go so far as to collect newspaper advertisements from retailers who sell children’s underwear or pajamas. While there is nothing unlawful about images of children in pajamas, those who derive sexual gratification from such images might be considered by the psychology community as having pedophilic tendencies.
Unlawful images that depict the sexual exploitation of minors are often called child pornography. Unlawful images of child pornography are different from lawful adult pornography. Unlawful images should not be confused with lawful art, nudism, medical images or erotica. The exact legal lines and definitions are often blurry and confusing to the average person.
The photographer who took nude pictures of her children under the legal umbrella protections of “art” should consider the wider ramifications of sharing the images. Ramifications include the way in which others will perceive the images and the future possible uses of the images by persons with sexually deviant motives. The barely-legal exploitation of children displayed in the newspaper article is disturbing.
———————————————————————–
More information about unlawful images
Unlawful images and videos that depict the sexual exploitation of minors are commonly called child pornography. In most jurisdictions child pornography is a serious crime. Why is child pornography a serious crime? Beyond sexual self-gratification, possessors and traffickers of unlawful images use the images for one or more reasons including (Child pornography, 1996):
To blackmail children into keeping silent about the abuse.
To preserve a child’s youthful image at the age preferred by the pedophile.
To establish trust and camaraderie with other pedophiles.
To gain access to other markets and children by exchanging material with other pedophiles.
To duplicate, produce and sell for profit.
To reassure themselves that their deviant behavior is shared by others and therefore not abnormal.
To seduce children and lower the child’s inhibitions as part of the grooming process intended to model deviant sexual behavior.
Danger
Are the possessors of unlawful images dangerous? Is someone who looks at pictures a threat to offend against a child? Recent research (Hernandez, 2006) suggests that there may be a correlation between those who possess child pornography and those who are also “hands-on” contact offenders. One surprising study of federal prisoners indicated that 85% of those in custody for possession of child pornography were also”hands-on” molesters whose contact offenses had never been discovered.
Other professionals agree that there is a danger that possessors of unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors could escalate and eventually offend against real children. Dr. Chris Hatcher, (1997) Professor of Psychology at the University of California said, “It begins with fantasy, moves to gratification through pornography, then voyeurism, and finally, to contact.”
Former FBI profiler John Douglas (Mindhunter, 1995, p. 108) described the relationship between pornographic images and sex offenders. He said, “With most sexually based killers, it is a several-step escalation from the fantasy to the reality, often fueled by pornography, morbid experimentation on animals, and cruelty to peers.”
Some possessors of unlawful images use the contraband as a “unique solution” to their pedophilic preferences. They rationalize that sexually gratifying themselves after viewing images is a justifiable alternative to committing “hands on” contact offenses against actual children.
Victims
What about the effect of child pornography on the victims? Are there any lingering problems for children who are the subject of abuse? Researchers found that the effects of unlawful images on child victims are often devastating. According to Klain, Davies and Hicks (Child pornography, March 2001, p.10) child sex abuse victims suffer a multitude of physical and psychological problems.
The innocent victims of child pornography sometimes suffer a lifetime of psychological anguish and torment wondering when where and how their tortured images will re-surface. Those who traffic in, possess and derive gratification from child pornography perpetuate the anguish. Some argue that each image tacitly re-victimizes the child whenever the image is viewed. Many victims of child pornography will never disclose their victimization to anyone. They suffer in silent, haunted purgatory. As adults, many do not wish to relive past abuse.
What is child pornography?
Child pornography depicts the sexual exploitation of minors. It does not include child erotica.
It does not include nudism and it does not include “baby in the bathtub” images. Unlawful images are contraband. They are the only form of contraband that is introduced into the human psyche through the sense of sight. Because unlawful images are now often produced in video form, the images are often accompanied by the sounds of children suffering.
What are some of the differences between lawful and unlawful images?
A California court offered some insight into the differences between lawful nudism and unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. An instructive set of guidelines for determining the differences was provided in the case of United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 830-32 (S.D. Cal. 1986).
The Dost factors give a more defined test for determining whether a visual depiction of a minor is a “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area”.
The Dost factors include the following guidelines:
whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child’s genitalia or pubic area;
whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity;
whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child;
whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude;
whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity;
whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
————————————-
A case study
In 2003, former Arizona high school teacher Morton Berger was convicted on 20 counts of possession of child pornography and sentenced to 200 years prison. He appealed the sentence based on arguments of equal protection under the law and cruel and unusual punishment. In December 2004, the conviction was affirmed by two of the three judges of the Arizona Court of Appeals (State of Arizona, 2004, December 14).
Judges Susan Ehrlich and Philip Hall dismissed Berger’s appeal with arguments including (citations omitted):
* It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling.
*…the victimization of a child continues when that act is memorialized in an image. The materials produced are a permanent record of the children’s participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. Unfortunately, the victimization of the children involved does not end when the pornographer’s camera is put away.
* The legislative judgment…is that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child.
* …the possession of child pornography drives that industry and…the production of child pornography will decrease if those who possess the product are punished equally with those who produce it.
* …it (the law) will decrease the production of child pornography if it penalizes those who possess and view the product, thereby decreasing demand.
* …the possession of child pornography inflames the desires of child molesters, pedophiles and child pornographers. The State has more than a passing interest in forestalling the damage caused by child pornography: preventing harm to children is, without cavil, one of its most important interests.
* …we cannot fault the State for attempting to stamp out this vice at all levels in the distribution chain.
* Berger downloaded images from the Internet, and every time he visited a website, he demonstrated to the producers and sellers of child pornography that there was a demand for their product. Berger’s demand served to drive the industry; there need not have been a direct monetary exchange. Berger maintains also that, because his possession of the pornographic images was passive and because he did not use threats or violence in the commission of his crimes, his sentence is grossly disproportionate. This logic is abstruse. As was described by this court in Hazlett, 205 Ariz. at 527 p. 11, 73 P. 3d at 1262, and as is evident from the violent pornographic images in this case, child pornography is a form of child abuse. The materials produced are a permanent record of the children’s participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied Bergers next request for an appeal. His 200 year prison sentence was upheld. Berger is scheduled for release from the Arizona Department of Corrections in 2157.
Law enforcement
Disturbing unlawful videos of the sexual abuse of minors are often accompanied by the horrible audio sounds of suffering young victims. The typical offender arrested by the Arizona ICAC Task Force possesses dozens and often hundreds of unlawful images and videos. As law enforcement officers, once we overcome the sickening shock of witnessing the brutal recorded acts of terrible sexual violence we are left with a tenacious resolve to bring offenders to justice.
Conclusion
Contraband images and videos depicting the sexual exploitation of minors are serious crimes. Offenders use the images for many disturbing reasons. The victims of child pornography deserve to be protected from their torturers and from those who enjoy witnessing the torture. Law enforcement efforts to stop unlawful images must continue.
References
Child pornography and pedophilia: Report made by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate. (1986). 99th Congress, Second session. Washington : U.S. G.P.O.1986. iii. 54: 24 cm.
Douglas , J. and Olshaker, M. (1995). Mindhunter: Inside the FBI’s elite serial crime unit, New York : Pocket Books.
Hatcher, C. (1997, October). Cited in: Armagh , D. A. Safety net for the Internet: Protecting our children. Juvenile Justice Journal (on-line) Volume V, Number 1, May 1998. Retrieved March 15, 2003. From http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjjournal/jjjournal598/net.html
Hernandez, A. E. (2006, September 26). Statement of Andres E. Hernandez before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce. U.S. House of Representatives.
Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.projectsafechildhood.gov/HernandezTestimonyCongress.pdf
Klain, E.J., Davies, H.J., & Hicks, M.A., (2001, March). Child Pornography: The criminal justice system response, American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law for the NationalCenter for Missing and Exploited Children. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.missingkids. com/en_US/publications/NC81.pdf
State of Arizona Division One Court of Appeals. (2004, December 14). Appeal from the Superior Court in MaricopaCounty. 1 CA-CR 03-0243. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/CR/CR030243.pdf/CR/CR030243.pdf
