Atlanta Georgia Internet Sting Lawyer

Many internet stings originate with police officers placing ads or profiles on websites known for enabling sexual relationships or on dating websites and apps. The ads and profiles almost never specifically state that a minor is involved and frequently contain pictures of someone who is actually an adult.

Who Conducts Internet Sting Operations?

Georgia sting operations are primarily conducted by the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force.

This is a federally funded task force made up of law enforcement officers from throughout the state. One of the major issues with the task force is that the amount of federal funding it receives is, in part, determined by the number of arrests the task force makes from sting operations. This gives officers an incentive to make as many arrests as possible, which often results in aggressive police tactics. In turn, these aggressive tactics lead to the arrests of innocent people.

When an arrest is made as a result of a Georgia internet sting operation, prosecutors will typically charge an individual with a violation of the Computer or Electronic Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act (O.C.G.A. §16-12-100.2). This statute provides that it is unlawful for any person to intentionally or willfully utilize any form of online service or electronic communication to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice someone believed by such person to be under the age of 16, to commit any sexual act.

In some cases, prosecutors may also charge an individual with criminal attempt to commit the offense of child molestation. In this situation, it must be shown that the defendant had the specific intent to commit the crime of child molestation and performed an act constituting a substantial step toward the commission of that crime. The offense of criminal attempt can be prosecuted in Georgia despite the fact that the completed offense would have been an impossibility (since no child was actually involved).

Unfortunately, internet sting operations often result in the arrest of law-abiding adults who were never interested in meeting or having sex with children. When this happens, it can give rise to the defense of entrapment.

In Georgia, a person is not guilty of a crime if, by entrapment, his or her conduct is induced or solicited by the police. To constitute entrapment, it must be shown that:

• the idea and intention of committing the crime originated with the police;
• the police used undue persuasion, incitement, or deceitful means to induce the person to commit the act; and
• the person would not have committed the act except for the conduct of the police.

At trial, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped.

Establishing an Entrapment Defense

The most critical element of the entrapment defense is establishing that the person would not have committed the crime but for the conduct of the police.

In these cases, our job is to show that our client was not predisposed to engaging in sexual conduct with children, but that the conduct of the police officer induced him to agree to do so.

Therefore, our most critical function as attorneys in defending internet sting cases is to show that our client would never have agreed to meet a child if it wasn’t for the manner in which the internet sting operation was conducted. To prove this, we will first gather evidence of our client’s background and the fact that he had never engaged in this type of conduct in the past. We will speak with as many people as possible who can attest to our client’s character traits and lack of any sexually deviant behavior. This may include family members, close friends, and current or previous romantic or sexual partners. We will often hire a computer forensic expert to examine our client’s computers, cell phones, and other devices to show that he neither communicated with children online nor possessed child pornography in the past. We will also have our client undergo a psychosexual evaluation to show that he does not have any signs of pedophilia or a sexual interest in children.

We will also focus on the officers’ conduct during the operation, including the circumstances of the initial contact with the officers, the tone of the conversation, and the language used. This allows us to establish:

• Whether role-playing was evident;
• When our client was made aware of the supposed child’s age;
• The fact that our client may have initially been reluctant to continue the conversation;
• Any attempts by the officer to use undue persuasion; and
• Whether the photograph of the “child” made it obvious that he or she was underage.