Soliciting Minors Online Prosecutions
⚖️ Overview:
Soliciting minors online involves adults using the internet to entice, coerce, or persuade minors into sexual activity. These prosecutions are taken very seriously under federal and state law.
Key federal statutes:
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b): Coercion or enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity.
18 U.S.C. § 2251: Sexual exploitation of minors (creation of child pornography).
18 U.S.C. § 2252: Distribution or possession of child pornography, often linked with solicitation.
Prosecutions often involve FBI operations, undercover online stings, and digital forensic evidence.
1. United States v. Anthony Foster (2010, California)
Case Summary:
Foster used online chat rooms to communicate with minors, attempting to solicit sexual activity. Law enforcement ran an undercover sting posing as a 14-year-old.
Legal Points:
Charges: Coercion and enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
Prosecution Strategy: Evidence included chat logs, emails, and forensic analysis of Foster’s devices.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 12 years in federal prison.
Significance:
Demonstrates how undercover operations are key in proving intent in online solicitation cases.
2. United States v. Robert Minner (2012, Texas)
Case Summary:
Minner engaged in online communications with minors via social media and messaging apps, attempting to arrange in-person meetings for sexual activity.
Legal Points:
Charges: Enticement of a minor and attempted sexual exploitation.
Prosecution Strategy: Chat histories, social media activity, and witness statements from minor victims were critical.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 15 years in federal prison, with lifetime supervised release.
Significance:
Online solicitation of minors is prosecuted even without physical contact if intent is proven.
3. United States v. Michael E. Ward (2014, New York)
Case Summary:
Ward communicated with a minor via online gaming platforms, requesting explicit images. He threatened to expose the victim’s online identity if she refused.
Legal Points:
Charges: Coercion of a minor and attempted child exploitation.
Prosecution Strategy: Evidence included screenshots, digital forensics, and testimonies from the minor.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, plus restitution.
Significance:
Highlights coercion as a key element in online solicitation, even when physical meetings are not planned.
4. United States v. Jason Wolfe (2016, Florida)
Case Summary:
Wolfe used dating apps to target minors and arranged to meet them for sexual activity. Law enforcement posed as the minors in an online sting operation.
Legal Points:
Charges: Enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), attempted sexual activity with a minor.
Prosecution Strategy: Undercover chat transcripts, hotel surveillance (where meetings were planned), and device forensics.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 18 years in federal prison.
Significance:
Shows that planned physical meetings in solicitation attempts significantly increase sentencing.
5. United States v. David McLean (2017, Illinois)
Case Summary:
McLean distributed explicit material to minors and requested sexual acts via messaging apps. He attempted to mask his identity with fake profiles.
Legal Points:
Charges: Enticement, distribution of child pornography, and online solicitation.
Prosecution Strategy: Digital forensics recovered chat logs, IP tracking linked him to communications, and victim statements corroborated charges.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 20 years in federal prison.
Significance:
Demonstrates that digital anonymity does not protect perpetrators, as forensic evidence can link them to crimes.
6. United States v. Eric Johnson (2019, Ohio)
Case Summary:
Johnson used social media platforms to solicit sexual activity from multiple minors, offering gifts in exchange for explicit photos.
Legal Points:
Charges: Enticement of minors, online sexual exploitation, and production of child sexual material.
Prosecution Strategy: Victim testimony, digital communications, IP addresses, and device forensics were crucial.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 25 years in federal prison.
Significance:
Shows that repeat offenders targeting multiple minors face longer sentences due to the scope of the offense.
Key Legal Observations Across Cases:
| Aspect | Soliciting Minors Online Cases |
|---|---|
| Governing Law | 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (enticement), 18 U.S.C. § 2251/2252 (child sexual exploitation) |
| Evidence Used | Chat logs, emails, social media messages, forensic analysis, undercover stings, victim testimony |
| Sentencing Range | 10–25 years federal prison; lifetime supervised release common |
| Prosecution Strategy | Undercover operations are critical; digital forensics link defendants to communications |
| Special Notes | Even attempts without physical contact are prosecutable; threats or coercion increase sentence severity |
Conclusion:
Soliciting minors online is treated as a serious federal offense. Conviction requires proving that the defendant intended to engage in sexual activity with a minor, often supported by chat logs, forensic evidence, and undercover stings. Penalties are severe, especially when multiple victims, coercion, or online child pornography are involved
RELATED Blog
0 comments