No, Chat Room Sting Operations Don’t Violate Wiretap Laws
Guy Hamilton-Smith says, “I think chat room sting operations are bad policing and bad policy. I think that the idea that they’re getting predators off the streets fundamentally misapprehends the nature of the online environment, the impact of the same on people’s psychology, and the ability of the police to leverage that with tactics that are functionally — if not legally — entrapment. My suspicion is that police prioritize these hypothetical cases of child sex abuse over actual cases of child sex abuse because (a) you don’t have to leave the comfort of your chair to “investigate” them, (b) they’re much easier to prosecute, (c) there’s lots of money in it and (d) it’s easy, good press for police. I assume that the clearance rate for these operations by police is somewhere north of 90%, whereas the clearance rate for actual reports of sex crimes is often somewhere around 30%. They tend to ensnare people with no criminal record, oftentimes people not much older than the minors police pretend to be. Even more concerning is the rise of vigilante, citizen-run operations which come with none of the Due Process or other constitutional niceties that ostensibly function as guardrails when police are the ones on the other end of the chatbox.”
Do these sting operations violate federal wiretap laws? Hamilton-Smith says they do not.
By Guy Hamilton-Smith
There was a news story last week about a Seminole Cty officer that was arrested because he allegedly was warning people that were part of the stings. He was letting them know it was a cop. The thing that got me was that he was arrested for interfering in an ongoing investigation. I thought an investigation was the inquiry into a crime that had been committed? These stings are not investigations into crimes – they are created crimes and arrests for any one that takes the bait. Another thing that was odd to me is the article said the way the other cops found out was because some of the people they were targeting in the sting didn’t show, changed their minds, or stopped interacting with the officer. Isn’t that the goal with crime prevention? It seems to me that their goal is more about justifying their sting?
@ Karen
I posted that sting operation story in one of the comments of an FAC story when it happened. I was happy FAC posted it as sometimes they do not post links and stories we submit.
On the one hand, this guy ruined his career and is facing serious issues because of it. On the other hand, he understood people are being arrested, charged and imprisoned for meeting a cop, not a young person. Yes the intent was most likely to meet a young person but if you did not actually meet that person but an adult, how can you be charged for a crime that was not actually committed?
Here is the answer. Before, in the past you were arrested for engaging in sexual activity with a minor. They eventually came up with a crime of “Traveling to meet a minor”. So even though a minor was not actually involved, the prosecutors argue that the crime was traveling to meet a minor which that person thought they were doing.
In basic terms, a sting operation just like when cops use flour as cocaine then arrest you for buying cocaine even though it was flour. It was the “Intent” clause that gets you.
When I was in law enforcement, I always rejected any positions that involved entrapment.
My big problem is the age bait and switch often used on these stings, which could confuse people and muddy the legal waters to the point that no one should take these kinds of investigations seriously, even though no one seems to care.
If the police were really doing their jobs above board, they should be willing to release the unedited chat transcripts for the public to inspect. Perhaps it would uphold their actions, or rather condemn them. It should be up to the American public to decide.