Tulsa Sex Crimes Attorney Fight Online Solicitation Charges
This content was written for Cale Law Office
With the Cale Law Office, you get aggressive representation to fight your online solicitation charge. Don’t you want the best Tulsa sex crimes attorney? For your free initial consultation, call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for 20 years and dedicates his practice to criminal defense. That’s a huge benefit for his clients. Focus and experience matter when your life is on the line. Attorney Stephen Cale fights hard for his clients because he knows that their life, liberty, future, and reputation are at stake.
Serving clients throughout Oklahoma and Northeastern Oklahoma, including Tulsa County, Jenks, Glenpool, Bixby, Collinsville, Owasso, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, Rogers County, Catoosa, Claremore, Mayes County, Adair, Chouteau, Disney, Grand Lake, Langley, Locust Grove, Pensacola, Salina, Spavinaw, Wagoner County, Coweta, Muskogee County, Webbers Falls, Okmulgee County, Pawnee County, Keystone Lake, Osage County, Pawhuska, Hominy, Nowata County, Coffeyville, Craig County, Vinita, Big Cabin, Washington County, Bartlesville, Copan, and Dewey.
The defendant waived his right to jury trial was convicted of online solicitation of a minor. In three points of error appeal, he challenges the constitutionality of online solicitation of a minor statute. He claims the trial court erred in of rolling his motion to suppress. Here’s a summary the facts the case. If you’ve been charged with online solicitation of a minor, you need the best Tulsa sex crimes attorney.
The defendant communicated in the Internet chat room with a person identified by the screen name of chick. Checks to commit cases to the defendant she was 13 user years old. There conversations over the span of several months gradually escalated in two sexual explicit in this. During the corresponds, the defendant mentioned wanting to take the girls clothes off. He also mentioned wanting to kiss her and put off her pants while sliding into her. He did all this while being reminded that she was only 13 years old.
In actuality, the defendant was communicate with a police officer. The officer sent the defendant a few photographs of a fictitious check. At trial, the officer explained that he used the photographs of the small, you looking detention officer. No the photographs was sexually explicit. If you’ve been charged with a sex crime, you need the best Tulsa sex crimes attorney. For free initial consultation, call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale is an aggressive and experienced Tulsa criminal lawyer.
After doing the defendant just advising him of his Miranda rights, the officer question the defendant about his online solicitation is with check. The defendant could explain why he was chatting with a 13-year-old girl. When asked if he recalled defendant ever seen that he didn’t really believe the girl was 13 years old, the officer stated that he did not recall such a statement. The defendant told the officer that he does chat with minors the way discovers how they are he stops chatting with him.
If you’ve been charged with online solicitation of a minor, your life, liberty, reputation, and future are at stake. That’s why you need an aggressive and experienced best Tulsa sex crimes attorney. For free initial consultation, call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for 20 years. Plus, he has the right kind of experience because he dedicates his practice to criminal defense. Attorney Stephen Cale will develop a free defense strategy plan for you. This is a document that will outline the steps that attorney Cale will take in defending you against her charge. It will give you a guide is to a criminal justice system.
Under cross-examination, the officer testified that the person by the late the law if this was the person originally told him she was 15 years old and then later said she was actually 25 years old or vice versa. He further stated it wasn’t it was possible to charge a person with online solicitation of a minor after having represented the person that the solicit a minor was around 13 years old. This is true even if the officer provide a person with a photograph of the 25-year-old woman. The defendant did not testify in his own defense.
Tulsa Sex Crimes Attorney | Online Solicitation
On appeal, he first argued that the online solicitation statute was unconstitutional. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. It found that the statute does not violate due process clause. Neither is it unconstitutional its face. Additionally, a held that the statute is not overly broad violation of the First Amendment. Statute is the product of includes within coverage of speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment in addition to properly prohibited activities that are not protected. The U. S. Supreme Court has recognized that the overbreadth the statute must only be real, but step as well. His at the point of substantial overbreadth that the quantity of speech and conduct with statute justifies its invalidation.
Preventing sexual exportation abuse of children constitutes a governmental objective of surpassing importance. The legislature has a legitimate purpose of protecting our children from sexual predators. The online solicitation of a minor statute in this case does so by allowing for the prosecution of those who solicit someone whom they believed to be a child. This include someone who represents himself to be a child. To aggressively fight your online solicitation of a minor charge, you need the best Tulsa sex crimes attorney. Don’t hire anyone who just dabbles in criminal defense. Hire somebody who dedicates his practice to criminal law. For free initial consultation, call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800.
When Hurley be surprised to learn that position hand grenades is not an innocent act. Speech attempting to orchestrate the sexual abuse of children is no more constitutionally protected been speech attempting to arrange a types of crime. Communication uses integral part of conduct in violation of the criminal statute is only rarely protected by the constitutional freedom of speech. Therefore, the defendant is not have a constitutionally protected right of speech to communicate sexual explicit material to the recipient who represents herself as a minor. The defendant contends that the definition of the term minor precludes a mistake of fact defense. He argues that statute would’ve permitted the state to convict him even if he had been told the one point that check was 25 years old.
A photograph of chick depicting a 25-year-old woman was okay. The test money from the law enforcement officers establish that they have never enforce the statute of the situation as put forth by the defendant. This means a situation in which the recipient inconsistently represent him or herself to be both younger and older than 17 years old. The defendant failed to demonstrate any quantum of constitutionally protected speech gendered by the statute in comparison to the law for each of the statute. Such speculation amounts to the best a fraction communications with the scope of the statute. This does not indicate a realistic danger that the statute itself will significantly compromised First Amendment protections.