This video showcases the arrest of numerous men between 2006 and 2014 and highlights that ICAC agents, who posed as a 15-year-old, played a critical role in their conviction. In contrast, if the agents had posed as a 16-year-old, there might not have been any criminal offense, and the majority of the men may have escaped arrest.
The Florida Statute 847.0135, aimed at protecting children from online predators, should be under scrutiny due to its selective and arbitrary enforcement. This law, in its current form, is outdated and needs to be either repealed or rewritten to accommodate technology post-2007, mainly because of smartphones. Although the statute begins with "any person," implying that both adults and minors can violate it, Florida’s ICAC Task Force has shown that this law is not being uniformly enforced.
ICAC task forces in Florida are taking unethical measures to circumvent the prosecution of minors in proactive stings by intentionally avoiding posting online profiles on websites or social media apps where children are likely to congregate. However, this approach raises questions about who is protecting those children from predators. The task force agents are posting profiles on age-restricted adult-only dating websites, which could be considered arbitrary enforcement of the law, as it prioritizes protecting minors from being charged under this statute over enforcing the law.
Furthermore, the videos presented below by Sheriff Grady Judd below shows a disturbing pattern of selective enforcement of the law, with no arrests of any individuals under the age of 18. This raises questions about why the focus is only on male adults. One should direct their attention to the information that is conveniently not disclosed in the videos, such as the posted profiles agents used, the specific websites targeted by ICAC agents, and why none of the agents pose as 16 or 17 year old minors.
Considering the length of time since 2007, it is highly unlikely that no high school or middle school student has ever solicited online sexual activity from a classmate under 16. Any sexual activity with a minor under the age of 16 by a minor under the age of 18 is considered an illegal act in chapter 800, and is a violation of both Florida Statute 847.0135(3)(a) and (4)(a). The plain language of the statute applies to 'any person' including minors who travels 'any distance,' which includes walking.
The ICAC task force agents never pose as 16 or 17-year-olds in their online profiles to ensure maximum arrests to receive grant money. This is because posing as a 16 or 17-year-old could create issues on adult-only websites where it is not illegal for an adult under the age of 23 to engage in sexual activities with a 16 or 17-year-old, as outlined in Florida Statute 794.05 on unlawful sexual activities with certain minors. As the offender's age is typically unknown to the chat participant, ICAC agents pose as under 15 years of age or under to avoid violating First Amendment freedoms, losing their grant, and utilizing unnecessary resources.
The failure to mention that this law applies to "any person," including minors, suggests a disregard for the safety of children. These press conferences are little more than a thinly veiled admission that the ICAC is arbitrarily enforcing the law to serve their personal gain rather than protecting children from harm. This lack of uniform enforcement constitutes a manifest injustice, revealing the double standards and hypocrisy that pervade this supposed "protection" program. The law itself is clear, but the inconsistent and self-serving enforcement of it raises serious questions and concerns over what should constitute entrapment.
In the past, our State was known for being impartial and free. The courts held the belief that "this court cannot allow agents of the State to engage in illegal acts and schemes designed to encourage rather than detect crime." Democratic judges were of the opinion that the use of attractive women to entice men into committing crimes was a tactic that society had always condemned and that the state should not condone it, let alone have its paid agents engage in such behavior. These proactive stings are entrapment see Spencer vs. State, 263 So.2d 282 (First District 1972), which states:
"The bait used by the state's agent in the case at bar is not unknown to man or history. Beginning with the first episode when 'Mother Eve snitched the apple with which she seduced Father Adam' and continuing down through the ages, winsome women, it is said, have worked their wiles to weaken the will of men and to induce them to engage in conduct they might otherwise have shunned, thus to perform acts not purely of their own volition. Society has always condemned such conduct, and the State ought not condone it, much less have its paid agents out trolling for unsuspecting males whose minds are otherwise occupied than with thoughts of committing heinous crimes."
However, with the shift to Republican control in the same First District, that perspective has changed.
In light of this, it is crucial that parents take appropriate measures to protect their children from such a scenario as this GoFundMe intends to do. The thought of one's child being labeled as a registered sex offender due to their text messages with peers is a distressing and alarming prospect. Therefore, parents must remain vigilant and aware of the potential risks and implications associated with the statute, the current administration's policies, and the tactics employed by the Florida ICAC Task Force.
If your life has been impacted by this technique, share your story by clicking the “SHARE YOU STORY” link at the bottom of the page.
Internet Predator Sting
OPERATION APRIL FOOLS
CYBER SPRING SWEEP
OPERATION CYBER GUARDIAN
OPERATION NAUGHTY NOT NICE 2
OPERATION CHILD PROTECTOR
OPERATION NO TRICKS NO TREATS
OPERATION MARCH SADNESS
OPERATION CHILD PREDATOR II
OPERATION CYBER GUARDIAN II
GUARDIAN OF INNOCENCE 4