Dr. Kardasz:
The following information contains my responses to follow-up question from my April 6 testimony.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Frank Kardasz's Responses to Follow-Up Questions
United States House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
“Sexual Exploitation of Children over the Internet: What Parents, Kids and Congress need to Know about Child Predators"
Original Hearing held on April 6, 2006 - Responses dated November 1, 2006
1. Please describe the difficulty of tracking illegal Internet activity that occurs through wireless access points. Are there tools to determine where the activity originates?
The difficulty in tracking illegal Internet activity originating from wireless access points might best be described by way of a true-life example.
In August, 2005, I received a call from an officer of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin Police Department. He was investigating the case of a missing boy who had disappeared with someone the boy had met via the Internet. Milwaukee computer forensics examiners had looked into the contents of the boys computer. They found the screen name of the suspect with whom the boy had been chatting before he had disappeared. They subpoened the Internet service provider (ISP) associated with the suspect’s screen name. Subpoena results indicated that the Internet protocol address affiliated with the screen name originated from an apartment in Phoenix, Arizona. Milwaukee PD provided me with the apartment address.
My detectives and I immediately went to the Phoenix apartment. We quickly eliminated the apartment resident as a suspect but we learned that she possessed an unencrypted wireless router and the device provided free Internet access to everyone in nearby apartments. We began interviewing neighbors, asking them if they had observed a new boy in the area. Our diligence and luck prevailed. One local resident said that a man living nearby had recently been accompanied by a boy whom the man said was his son.
We then conducted surveillance for several hours until the man and boy appeared. Detectives apprehended the suspect, a wanted sex offender with felony warrants from prior offenses, and the boy, who had been molested by the suspect.
The Phoenix suspect had used a laptop computer from his nearby apartment to intercept the unencrypted wireless signal from his unsuspecting neighbor’s computer router. This permitted the offender to communicate with the boy in Wisconsin and entice him into meeting. The boy is now back with his mother in Wisconsin. The suspect awaits trial.
There were no special tools available to us that could have pinpointed the exact location of the offender who had used his neighbors unencrypted wireless access. We employed two old-fashioned police techniques; interviews and surveillance.
My colleagues nationwide have shared other similar stories with me involving wireless access points used for criminal offenses. In some cases their investigations dead-end at a wireless access point that is providing unencrypted Internet service to everyone in antenna range. In other cases interviews and surveillance fail because the elusive suspect(s) quickly move on to other wireless access points.
Countless libraries, coffee shops, airports, hotels and businesses now provide free wireless Internet access either accidentally, because they fail to enable the encryption features to protect the signal, or as a free-bonus customer service. While free wireless access is a welcome service for law-abiding citizens, it is also a tool for criminals.
Are there tools to determine where the activity originates?
The answer is yes and no. A subpoena or search warrant to the ISP associated with an Internet protocol (IP) address is the tool that we use to identify the specific location of the computer assigned to an IP address.
In some cases, the computer we identify is attached to a router that is broadcasting a wireless signal to another computer, the exact location of which is unknown. If the wireless signal is being used by a remote computer, the investigation continues and becomes more difficult. There are technical surveillance tools, to wit, radio spectrum analyzers and direction finders, that can be used to further hone in on the remote computer, but these tools are somewhat expensive for the average local law enforcement agency ($5,000 - $25,000), they require advanced training and are often inexact in a city environment where several wireless signals may be present at the same time.
2. In your testimony, you stated that the cell phone providers maintained their records for cell phone usage for long periods of time, but that Internet service providers (ISP) did not. Internet service providers have alleged that they do not have storage space to maintain records for any length of time. Do you know why cell phone providers can store this information for long periods of time, but Internet service providers cannot?
My comments about records preservation were based on my limited knowledge of the cell phone industry and from my experiences, mostly as a cellular service consumer. I know that cell phone providers often closely track customer usage by the minute and cell phone providers often maintain copious records for billing purposes. I have reviewed cell phone billing statements that gave long lists of individual calls including the numbers called from and to, the number of minutes used during each call and the cost of each call. Maintaining so much data likely entails computer servers with large data storage capacity.
Internet service providers do not normally bill customers on a per-minute basis so there is usually not a need to record the frequent changes in Internet data-packet destinations that are needed for billing purposes by cell phone companies. I have seen computer traceroute software that enables reporting of the location of each server through which data packets travel across the Internet but the data storage capacities needed to track all of that information would be incredibly large, and in most cases, unnecessary.
The datum that we believe would be most useful in order to have a starting point for our investigations are, minimally, the subscriber information. There is no privacy violation when ISP’s retain subscriber information and we in law enforcement could only subsequently obtain the information through a subpoena or search warrant. I believe that Internet service provider can preserve this data. Many of them already retain the data because without it, they are unable to bill customers who use their services.
If ISP’s are stating they cannot store the information, it is probably because they choose not to store it. Computer data storage capacity has increased exponentially in recent years and the cost of data storage has decreased.
I am aware that data retrieval and subsequently reporting the information back to law enforcement requires human intervention and entails labor costs.
It is my opinion that ISP’s can store the information if they choose to. It is also my opinion that some ISP’s will not satisfactorily store data and recover data for law enforcement until the law mandates them to do so.
3. Are you proposing that all records of individual Internet use be maintained by the service provider, including e-mails, instant messages and chat room discussions, or only the IP addresses and other identifying information about the addressee? If all you want is the background information to identify subscribers, do you believe that a lack of storage space is a problem for the ISP?
I am not proposing that all records of individual Internet use be maintained by service providers.
Maintaining ALL records, including the content of all emails, instant messages and chat room discussions for extended periods of time would present the ISP’s with a significant storage responsibility. Although it is possible to preserve all of the data, it would require very large data storage capacities.
Preserving all data, including the intimate details of private text messages and/or the images transmitted during private communications would undoubtedly send privacy protection advocates into a lather! Even though the information would be retained by the ISP’s and not released to law enforcement except by court order, privacy advocates would likely balk.
Basic subscriber information, that data which is presently available from cooperating ISPs through subpoena is the minimum we hope to mandate that ISP’s preserve for law enforcement investigations. This information would not be available to law enforcement except through subpoena or search warrant.
Although I do not claim intimate knowledge of the specific equipment or storage capacities presently available to all ISP’s, I do not believe that storing this information would present most ISP’s with storage space problems.
4. Are administrative subpoenas only used for business records?
In my work involving Internet crimes, our administrative subpoenas have been used only for retrieving business records from Internet service providers. As a wider practical matter, I am aware that administrative subpoenas can also be used to demand personal documents and other tangible things from not only businesses but also from private citizens.
5. Under Arizona law, if law enforcement has a current IP, e-mail and home address for an Internet user suspected of possessing child pornography, is that sufficient to obtain a search warrant to seize that computer?
No. In Arizona, a search warrant must be based on probable cause for a felony offense and the warrant must be authorized by a magistrate. The required probable cause is described in the affidavit accompanying the search warrant. The affidavit is written by the investigator(s) who work the case.
Although a current IP address and the physical “home” address where the felony offense originated would be two very important items towards obtaining a search warrant, detectives would also conduct other investigative activities to build the necessary probable cause. The activities could include surveillance of the location, records checks and criminal history checks of the property owners, motor vehicle checks on vehicles frequenting the location, pretext visits and/or calls to the location. The combination of several of these items, along with the physical “home” address associated with the IP address would provide the probable cause needed for the search warrant.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the preceding questions. Please contact me if you require additional information.
Regards,
Dr. Frank Kardasz, Sgt. / Project Director
Phoenix P.D. /AZ Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
620 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85003
desk: 602 256 3404
email: frank.kardasz@phoenix.gov
web site: http://azicac.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr.Kardasz: Here is the original testimony from April 6, 2006.
Testimony of Dr. Frank KardaszSergeant / Project Director for the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
for the
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
“Sexual Exploitation of Children over the Internet: What Parents, Kids and Congress need to Know about Child Predators"
April 6, 2006
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for permitting me to speak today. Arizona joined the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program in 2000. We work cooperatively with our law enforcement colleagues from the FBI, ICE, Postal Inspection Service and the Secret Service. Although the names of our agencies differ, we all share the common goal of trying to keep children safe from Internet sexual predators and child pornographers.
The AZ ICAC Task Force has recorded over 2,000 investigations, with over 200 arrests. Although Arizona has the toughest laws in the nation against child pornography, this has not stopped the trafficking of unlawful images, and like all of our colleagues nationwide, we have many more solvable case files at the ready than we have personnel and resources to bring in the offenders. Sadly, while these cases await investigation, children and teens continue to suffer at the hands of sex offenders.
I have had the opportunity to speak with many citizen groups about Internet crime, and at the end of each presentation there is often some senior individual in the group who raises a hand and asks: "Why don't they just switch that whole dang Internet thing off!"...as if we have a control panel somewhere with a dial that we can turn and it will regulate Internet misconduct.
Legislation is the closest thing we have to an Internet control dial. Although opponents of controls argue that regulations are costly, imperfect and violations of constitutional freedoms, I sometimes wonder what the framers of the Constitution would have thought if they had known what we now know about computers and the Internet. Would they have permitted the Internet crimes against children that we are witnessing today?
I would like to talk about two things today: the threat from those predators who use social networking sites, and the legal help we need regarding data retention by Internet service providers. The luring of minors for sexual exploitation remains a continuing threat to our youth.
Beyond the chat rooms that predators have always frequented, social networking sites are now wildly popular. There are dozens of such free sites, including MySpace, Xanga, Friendster, Facebook, and others. Curious young people visit the sites every day and post images and personal information about themselves. They can browse and search for others according to age, sexual preference, zip code or school name. They can communicate with one another and then arrange to meet in person. And as you might imagine, the sites are also popular among sexual predators.
We received a phone call a few months ago from an Arizona woman who said that her young daughter, while using a social networking site, was contacted by a man from their neighborhood who was know to her as a registered sex offender. We found the mans web page where he described himself as a kindly lover of poetry, plants and flowers who was seeking female friendship for dating. Fourteen other young people were listed on his profile as friends with whom he had networked through the site. There was no mention on his profile that he is a high-risk registered sex offender in Arizona. Since that time the mans original web page is no longer available at the site, but there is nothing stopping him from re-subscribing to the same site or one of the many other sites under another assumed name.
The use of the sites by sexual predators remains a serious threat to the safety of our children. The problem will likely get worse before it gets better as kids flock to the sites and more communities, schools, libraries and businesses provide unrestricted Internet access through wireless access points that sometimes leave law enforcement investigations at a dead end. My written attachments contain some suggestions for improving the social networking site environment, but in the interest of saving time I do not wish to review them all now.
I would like to talk about an item of importance to my investigative colleagues nationwide. Last week I sent a survey to Internet crimes against children (ICAC) investigators at all of our nationwide affiliates throughout the United States.
The survey asked one question: What law could be created or revised to best assist the investigators who work cases involving Internet crimes against children?
The most frequent response involved data storage by Internet service providers and the retrieval of data from Internet service providers. What our people are telling us is that investigators need ISP's to retain subscriber and content information so that when legal process in the form of a subpoena or search warrant are served, there is data remaining with the ISP that will help the investigator find the offender.
Most ISP organizations are operated by conscientious and professional business people who are horrified by Internet crimes against children. Some ISP's have graciously extended themselves to help investigators. Some reluctant ISP's will only assist to the extent that the law mandates them to assist.
Mandating that ISP’s retain data is not a privacy violation. Law enforcement only needs the data preserved but not disclosed to us, except in response to legal process. Internet industry professionals may cite the financial burden of data storage, but consider the potential human cost of not retaining data. For example, when law enforcement is seeking a predator identifiable only by the information associated with his screen name, but the responsible ISP did not preserve the information, the investigation ends while the predator roams free. Based on the requests of my colleagues
I respectfully ask for two improvements to the law:
1. That Internet service providers be mandated to retain information about subscribers for at least one year, with penalties for non-compliance.
2. That Internet service providers be mandated to respond to subpoenas involving crimes against children investigations within one week of receiving a subpoena, and more quickly under exigent circumstances where a child is missing.
I will conclude by saying that investigators need your help in order to navigate those dark alleys of the Internet where they work diligently to help protect children. I recognize that turning the Internet control dial comes with a cost, but failing to turn the dial carries a greater human cost to our young people.
Thank you again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS TO THE TESTIMONY OF DR. KARDASZ
Internet Social Networking Sites
Recent disturbing incidents involving Internet crimes against children have been prominent in the media. In some incidents, the crimes have involved suspects and victims who met each other via Internet social networking sites. Social networking sites are places on the Internet where people can meet one another, communicate and interact. Social networking and communication are normal parts of the human experience.
The Internet has become an important venue for people to network and interact. Young people are naturally curious about themselves, about others, and about the world. The sites permit them to reach out to others from around the globe, sometimes with tragic results. There are many social networking sites. Some of them are listed below:
• Myspace.com • Facebook.com • Friendster.com • Dittytalk.com • Cozydating.com • Interracialsingles.net • Livejournal.com • Friendsfusion.com • Intellectconnect.com • Prisonpenpals.com • Zogo.com
Why are the sites popular?
Most of the social networking sites are free and supported by advertisers who hope users will buy products or services advertised on the sites. Young people who are curious and seeking relationships and new experiences visit the sites to find others.
How do the sites work?
Any computer with Internet access can be used to permit someone to join a site. Some sites require only that the registrant provide an email address and often there is no verification process to check the truthfulness of any of the information that a registrant provides. Most sites require that users abide by conditions and terms of use meant to thwart improper conduct, but enforcement is often lax. Once a registrant becomes a member, he or she can post personal information, images or other information depending upon the features available at the site. Unless a user chooses to enable privacy options, all the information posted may be visible to all other users of a site.
What are the dangers?
Those who misuse the sites may do so in many ways including:
Luring / enticement – Internet sexual predators and known sex offenders have used social networking sites to locate and lure victims.
Identity theft – Criminals steal the identities of those who post personal information.
Cyberbullying / harassment – Agitators post derogatory, hurtful or threatening information about others.
Stalking – Stalkers can use personal information posted to the sites to locate and pursue victims.
Fraud schemes – Criminals who wish to defraud others of money or property can locate victims, gain their trust, and then take advantage of that trust for criminal purposes.
Inappropriate sexual content – Some users post sexually explicit information that is inappropriate for young computer users. Prevention What can you do to protect yourself from those who misuse social networking sites?
Do’s and Don’ts
Don’t -
• post personal images • post your true full name • post your home or cellular phone number • post your true age or date of birth • post your true home or business address • post your school name or the grad that you are in • post your calendar of upcoming events or information about your future whereabouts.
Do -
• discuss Internet risks with your child • enter into a safe-computing contract with your child • enable computer Internet filtering features if they are available from your Internet service • consider installing monitoring software or keystroke capture devices on your family computer that will help monitor your child's Internet activity • know each of your child's passwords, screen names and all account information • put the computer in a family area of the household and do not permit private usage • report all inappropriate non-criminal behavior to the site through their reporting procedures • report criminal behavior to the appropriate law enforcement agency including the NCMEC Cybertip line or the Internet Fraud Complaint Center • contact your legislators and request stronger laws against Internet crime • contact the corporations who place advertisements on the sites and let them know that their advertising is helping to support inappropriate Internet behavior. Also, let the corporations know that you intend to boycott or discontinue using their product or services because of the behavior they are supporting. • visit the NCMEC Netsmartz Workshop at http://www.netsmartz.org for more information • remember that every day is Halloween on the Internet. People on the Internet are not always as they first appear.
Making Social Networking Sites Safer
The following suggestions would make social networking sites safer for users and more law- enforcement friendly.
On every social networking site web page, display a clearly visible hyperlink permitting users to easily report misconduct.
For new users, make the default settings for viewing and sharing all account information ‘private’. This means that new accounts would be automatically set to exclude others and to not share information. The new subscriber would have to actively choose to share account information by checking the appropriate boxes in the account settings section.
On every web page, display a link to the national sex offender registry.
Proprietors of social networking sites should install filtering software to eliminate users from posting obscene words.
Require that all new users enter verifiable credit card information when first subscribing.
Require that all subscribers pay a nominal monthly fee.
Include a provision in the social networking sites terms of use that notifies users that they have no expectation of privacy with regards to any of the content they post and that law enforcement may obtain any and all of their postings through the use of a subpoena only - without a search warrant.
Retain profile information for deleted accounts for 90 days.
Remove the browse and search functions that permit users to locate one another.
On every social networking site page, display a link to the Internet Crime Complaint Center for incidents of theft or fraud. Their link is www.ic3.gov
Include an admonition on social networking sites profile pages advising users that revealing personal information could lead to identity theft or victimization by offenders who are intent upon harassment, stalking, fraud or identity theft.
Preserve changes to user’s pages and the Internet protocol address associated with the changes for 90 days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELECTED ICAC CASE STUDIES – ARIZONA ICAC TASK FORCE
Milwaukee Boy Found in Phoenix Home of Sex Offender
From the Arizona Republic, Aug. 23, 2005, Reported by William Hermann
Phoenix police say the experience of the 13-year-old Milwaukee boy they found Monday night in the company of a man they suspect of using the Internet to lure the child to town is one that parents need to take to heart.
Phoenix Police Sergeant Kardasz said Milwaukee police on Aug. 17 had received a missing persons report from the boy's mother. Investigators went into her son's computer and found that he had been communicating regularly with a person using a Phoenix wireless Internet site. "We went to the address of the wireless user and pretty quickly found he was an innocent person whose wireless service was being used by someone else," Kardasz said. "Through investigative work my staff established who was using the wireless connection, we watched his house, and soon the man drove up with the boy in his car."
At about 11:30 p.m. police arrested Vernon Monk, 31."The suspect had no ID and was using a false name and a fictitious license plate and pretending to be the boy's father to people in the neighborhood," Kardasz said. Monk was arrested for custodial interference and booked into a Maricopa County Jail. Police also learned that there is an outstanding arrest warrant on Monk from Seminole County, Okla., for a sexual offense against a minor. The boy was taken to the county's Juvenile Court Center to stay until his mother could arrange for his return home.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Sexual Predator / Traveler Arrested and Imprisoned
Offender: David Jackson Donan, w/m, age 61
In September 2003, an investigation began involving an unidentified person using the Internet screen name "Brasshatter." Investigators learned that "Brasshatter" intended to travel via commercial aircraft from Austin, Texas to Phoenix, Arizona for the purpose of meeting a minor to engage in unlawful sexual intercourse.
"Brasshatter" was later identified as David Jackson Donan, age 61, with residences in both California and Texas. On October 20, 2003 Donan boarded a commercial aircraft and traveled from Texas to Arizona. To groom and entice his intended victim, he brought several packages of the candy - Skittles. To aid in his intended unlawful sexual acts he brought nine sexual aide devices, KY Jelly, a male sexual enhancement drug, a prescription for Viagra, and a digital camera - all in his carry-on baggage.
Donan was arrested without incident upon his arrival at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. He made no statements and was booked. Arizona ICAC investigators and FBI agents in Arizona, California, and Texas worked cooperatively in the subsequent investigation and search of Donan's residences for evidence. They uncovered computer evidence, firearms and other sexual aid devices belonging to Donan. Later forensics examinations of his computer also revealed a collection of child pornography.
Computer evidence indicated that Donan had bragged during Internet chat conversations about having victimized children while he had visited Thailand many years ago. Donan waived his right to trial plead guilty to one count of the Federal offense: Travel with intent to engage in a sexual act with a juvenile (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 117, 2423b).
Donans' presentence report was not favorable with indications that he had prior "hands-on" offenses with as-yet unidentified victims. On September 29, 2004, he plead guilty in U.S. Federal District Court (Phoenix).
Honorable Earl H. Carroll presided. Judge Carroll sentenced Donan to 7 years, 3 months prison, followed by one year residence in a transitional facility, $25,000 fine and lifetime supervised release. -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Cooperation Leads to Child Pornography Trafficker
Offender: Lee McCulloch, w/m, age 26, resident of Gwent, South Wales, U.K.
Occupation: Factory worker, Marital status: single
Arrest Location: Abertillery, Gwent - South Wales, United Kingdom Charge: Distributing Indecent Photographs of Children (United Kingdom)
Sentence: Eight months prison, Sex offender registration for five years. Agencies involved: Arizona ICAC Task Force, Phoenix P.D., Phoenix F.B.I., Heddlu Gwent P.D. South Wales, U.K.
In April 2003, an investigator from the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force / Phoenix P.D. initiated an investigation into an unidentified child pornography trafficker. the investigation led to an unknown suspect in the United Kingdom.
Working with the FBI and the Heddlu Gwent (UK) Police Department, investigators assembled a case that led to the identification and arrest of 26 year old Lee McCulloch in South Wales, UK. McCulloch, a factory worker, used computers at his home in the United Kingdom to collect and traffic images of child pornography with other nefarious Internet associates. cCulloch, who is unmarried, was arrested on November 28, 2003.
Investigators in the UK developed further information leading to twenty (20) other suspects there with whom McCulloch traded unlawful images of child pornography. On August 26, 2004, McCulloch was sentenced to 8 months in prison in the UK and five years of sex offender registration status.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Mojica Santos - Internet Sexual Predator
Arrest Date/Time: October 8, 2003, 1530 hours.
Offense: Luring a Minor for Sexual Exploitation
On October 8, 2003, David Mojica Santos, age 65, was arrested for luring a minor for sexual exploitation in northwest Phoenix. Santos first came to the attention of law enforcement in July 2003, when he used the Internet to solicit sexual conduct with a minor. Santos traveled from his residence in Mesa to a location in Northwest Phoenix where he intended to meet a minor for sex. He was arrested, booked, and subsequently released on bond. He later plead guilty to the court.
SENTENCING HEARING – STATEMENT OF SGT. KARDASZ
(The recent trend among judges in Maricopa County is to sometimes sentence such offenders to probation only, with no jail time. Anticipating this, we prepared a detailed statement to the sentencing judge. Here is an excerpt):
...Your Honor, the innocent children we struggle to protect are unable to appear here today. They are children whose innocence was stolen by Internet sexual predators like this defendant. Most of those children will never come forward due to fear or a misplaced sense of guilt. A few of them, like 13 year old Kasie Woody of Arkansas, and 13 year old Christina Long of Connecticut, were forever silenced by Internet sexual predators. According to reports from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, one in five girls and one in ten boys will be sexually victimized before they reach adulthood, and less than 35% of these crimes will ever be reported.
The Internet provides an unparalleled opportunity for criminals to unearth themselves and victimize unwary young people. Research indicates that of the estimated 24 million child Internet users, one in five received a unwanted sexual solicitation, but only one in four told a parent.
Curious and innocent youngsters are flocking to the Internet seeking friendship and information but are instead finding sexual deviants and predators. My undercover investigators and I have witnessed no shortage of adults chatting on the Internet with the stated intention of sexually victimizing minors. Over the past few years our caseload has skyrocketed while our resources have not.
Our investigation of this defendant revealed that his Internet chat was not an isolated incident but part of a series of ongoing offenses occurring against multiple victims over an extended period of time. He was not the unfortunate victim of a "sting" caught at the wrong place at the wrong time. He is a practiced Internet sexual predator. Forensics analysis of his computer revealed that he did not spend his idle time enjoying normal retirement hobbies or mentoring his family or community.
This former missionary spent his day prowling cyberspace in search of young sexual prey. We discovered Internet chat conversations he had with four as yet unidentified girls aged fifteen, fourteen and eleven. In each of the chats he quickly turned the conversation to sex and began to manipulate each girl towards meeting him for sex.
I am going to read brief excerpts of the chat conversations the defendant had with various young girls he contacted on the Internet. Much of the language is so sexually graphic that I will not repeat it verbatim.
"Do you like older guys?"
"Have you had sex yet?"
"Are you curious about having sex?"
"Do you think you would like to have sex sometime soon?"
"I wish I was next door to you....and then maybe not. I might rape you."
"What city do you live in....I was just wondering if there is a large airport nearby."
"You just don't know how badly I want to (expletive deleted) you right now."
And I will stop there your Honor because the conversations deteriorate graphically from there.
Your Honor, I have watched defendants in similar circumstances appear in these courtrooms arguing that everything they did was fantasy role-playing and that they were the unfortunate victims of zealous police operations. That's hogwash. Was it fantasy when this defendant drove over 20 miles from Mesa to Northeast Phoenix for the expressed purpose of meeting a minor for sex? Was it fantasy when the defendant brought condoms with him to the meeting? Condoms that he admitted that he does not use with his wife. Apologists for this defendant may look at his age and surmise that he has little capacity for future offenses - I disagree.
This defendant had the physical capacity to proudly display on the Internet, graphic sexual images of himself, captured with a computer web camera and in a variety of poses. In similar cases my colleagues and I have watched defendants receive minimal sentencing by other courts, only to re-offend later. In one recent case the defendant mocked the court by continuing to solicit minors for sex while the defendant was out on bond only days after his original arrest. In another of our cases, the convicted defendant, while free on probation, immediately began producing, acting in, and trafficking child pornography, including images of himself sexually abusing three young children under shocking and horrifying circumstances.
The Arizona law as it stands permits the court to exercise wide discretion in sentencing this offense. We trust that this court will act in the best interest of our community and send a strong message to this and all other Internet sexual predators. Finally your honor, we request that this court's judgment provide a message of reassurance to the children unable to appear in your courtroom today that their rights are being defended at this, the highest level of County justice.
SENTENCE - On June 18, 2004, Santos was sentenced before Judge Hotham of the Maricopa County Superior Court. He received ten months jail and lifetime probation.