08.26.09
Posted in Ethics at 22:24 by Administrator
Interesting advice below from Dr. Richard B. Weinblatt concerning things to think about related to your off-duty use of social networking sites.
1) No gun glorification. While this may upset Second Amendment supporters out there, the reality is that a many members of the public do not like to see firearms glorified in pictures of law enforcers. Several officers have lost their jobs after posing with weaponry in a way perceived as offensive or too “warrior oriented.” While the depiction of guns in the course of their normal scope and use is not problematic, aiming the gun at the camera triggers problems. Images of officers engaged in their normal course of fire at the gun range have not brought about a backlash. Posing with weaponry, involving either the officer or (worse yet) a civilian, has been problematic for the employee.
2) No alcohol. Officers have also found themselves in the hot seat after posting pictures of themselves partying and drinking alcohol. Many agencies view this to be contrary to a professional image. Of greater concern is that sometimes others identified in the pictures turn out to be minors in possession of alcohol which opens up another can of issues.
3) Watch your comments. Posted comments on social networking sites are being dragged into legal proceedings especially when use of force is involved. Comments that imply the officer enjoys using force on people, especially certain groups of people, are being seized on by criminal defense and civil plaintiffs attorneys to show the officer had a pre disposition to be physical or has a documented bias against their client. Remember that discussion boards and the like are a public written record of your communication. Like reports and radio dispatch conversations, they can be discovered and frame your actions in a context that you may not like. Much like reports, if you don’t want it dragged into the legal arena, don’t type it online.
4) Avoid bashing the department. Another area that has gotten some officers into trouble – the First Amendment freedom of speech not withstanding – are comments which bash the agency. Depending on how it’s framed, it could open you up to administrative charges and possibly civil liability. More and more bloggers and online posters are being held responsible for their critical speech online. Especially if it is later proved that the postings lack a factual basis and are intended to damage the target of the criticism. At the very least, launching such a site or contributing to an existing Web site that bashes the agency does not endear you to the powers that be or position you as a “team player” ripe for promotion.
5) Restrict personal information. Much like we can use Facebook and the like as a tool to find people and research information, so can the bad guys. Be judicious in the posting of information and pictures. For example, some officers will not use pictures of their family members or going even further, of themselves. Others withhold their cell phone number.
6) Picture Choice. Make sure that the pictures that you do choose to post don’t have any of the aforementioned problem areas or have nudity. Many officers, including myself, have shirtless bodybuilding or fitness oriented photos online. That is not a problem. The topless woman drinking at the party with you exemplifies what is a problem.
7) Minimize status update complaints. In this year of economic contraction, there are many people waiting in line for your spot in the agency. Administrators know this. This goes back to number four above, but we’ve all seen the officers that post their status with complaints about the shift, their sergeant, or the job. Some supervisors, after reading such negatively tinged status updates, say, “OK, let so and so find another job if they are so unhappy here.” While not every job is going to be great each and every day, gripes should not be aired via status updates. The agency may be perfectly happy to find someone else that would appreciate them.
8) Highlight accomplishments. Many look to Facebook, Linkedin, and the like as electronic resumes. Take advantage of that and use it to highlight your professional accomplishments. Post pictures of you learning some new technique (being careful not to show scores or other information). Post status updates of that advanced training course you take.
9) Manage your privacy settings. While I have my online presence open to the public, many have privacy settings that restrict access to family and friends that you have predetermined. While not foolproof, the settings should keep most interlopers locked out of your pages.
10) When in doubt, leave it out. I have long coached academy students and officers to pretend that I am perched on their shoulder and watching what they are doing. In the same vein, they could have their mother hovering overhead. If you wouldn’t want us to see it or if either of us would be displeased with what is being contemplated to go online, it probably is not a good idea to upload it.
Permalink
08.06.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 05:41 by Administrator
Dr. Frank Kardasz, July 31, 2009 (revised August 5, 2009) email: kardasz@kardasz.org
Cybersexting
Cybersexting is now a popular Internet activity. It occurs when two or more users of electronic communication devices send sexually explicit text or images to each other. Cybersexters may communicate via cell phones, computers, IPods and/or video games that connect to the Internet. Depending upon the circumstances, cybersexting in the U.S. is a lawful activity when both participants are consenting adults. When the cybersexter is a predatory adult seeking to target a curious minor, the situation is a parental nightmare.
The Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force receives many complaints from parents and from the administrators of social networking sites involving minors receiving cybersex communications from strangers via the Internet. In some cases the predatory adult communication comes from someone living in a different state than the young victim. In many cases the police investigation does not produce sufficient evidence to warrant criminal charges. In many past cases the communications were stopped before the situation escalated into a criminal offense. After the police step away, the parent must then find a way to prohibit any future communication between the adult predator and the child.
One obvious solution is to revoke the child’s communication device privileges. But completely eliminating a young persons’ communications device is not always practical. Computers, cell phones, messaging devices and video games have become indelible fixtures in many young lives. E-mail, texting, gaming and cell phones are part of the accepted social communication patterns and educational practices of many modern youth. Internet social communications are incredibly important to some young people. Internet access was so important to one Arizona boy that in 2008, when his father revoked the boy’s computer privileges he shot and killed his dad. Parents need another tool with which they can protect children from Internet predators.
Injunction Against Harassment – Restraining Order
Another tactic for thwarting Internet predators that is often recommended when criminal charges are not possible is the injunction against harassment, also called a restraining order or protective order. Most states have some form of restraining order or injunction that can help prevent a troublesome person from contacting an innocent victim under circumstances where sufficient cause does not exist to pursue a criminal complaint.
Example Arizona Incidents
Here are some examples of cases reported to the Arizona ICAC Task Force that involved injunctions against harassment: – An Arizona parent reported that his 17 year old daughter was cybersexting on line with a 26 year old Utah man. The girl admitted to her father that she intended to meet the man in the future when the man traveled to Arizona for business and that she intended to have sex with him. A detective contacted the man and he refused to speak with the investigator. The investigation is continuing and the suspect was served in Utah with an Arizona injunction against harassment. (case 7827) – An Arizona parent reported unusual messages between her daughter and a 41 year old Nevada man using a popular social networking site. There was insufficient information to pursue criminal charges. The parent obtained an injunction against harassment for the Nevada man. (case 1621) – An Arizona parent reported that her 16 year old daughter used the Internet to chat with a 49 year old Virginia man. The woman requested information about how to obtain an injunction against harassment to help stop the communications. (case 1231) Many more Arizona cases are listed at the end of this article.
Arizona Law
Investigators sometimes recommend that parents of cybersexting victims obtain injunctions against harassment from an Arizona court (1). Pursuant to the Arizona process for obtaining the injunction the parent goes to a local court and swears to the court order. Typically the injunction orders the respondent (predator) not to have any contact with the complainant (child victim). Once the judge approves the injunction it must then be served on the respondent. The respondent can appear in court to dispute the order but in most Internet predator cases the respondent does not appear and the order is validated. Once the order is validated any violation is the misdemeanor crime of interference with judicial proceeding (2).
Local Injunctions Unenforceable Against Out-of-State Predators
The problem with the Arizona injunction, and other states are in a similar situation, is that when the injunction is served on an out-of-state predator, the offender has little incentive to comply with the order. Predators know that it is highly unlikely that any agency in Arizona would ever extradite a misdemeanant offender from another state for violating an injunction against harassment.
Federal Injunction Would Have Interstate Nexus
A Federal protective order with interstate jurisdiction would resolve the problem of out-of-state violators. A victim in one state could obtain an order and it could be served on the offender in another state. A Federal law would overcome the problems that states have in trying to enforce injunctions across state lines. The existing Federal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 2261A, is not sufficient for Internet cyber-communication cases because it requires that either the victim or suspect travel across state lines and that the victim suffer substantial emotional distress (3).
Draft Language
Below is some draft language, modifiable to incorporate with the US Code, that may be useful to begin a discussion about a Federal injunction against electronic harassment. U.S. Code Title 18 – Injunction Against Electronic Harassment A person may file a petition with the court for an injunction prohibiting electronic harassment. If the person is a minor, the parent, legal guardian or person who has legal custody of the minor shall file the petition unless the court determines otherwise. The petition shall name the parent, guardian or custodian as the plaintiff. If the court issues an injunction, the court may do any of the following: – Enjoin the defendant from acts of harassment via electronic communications. – Restrain the defendant from contacting the plaintiff via electronic communications.
References
(1) Arizona Revised Statutes. (2009). 12-1809. Injunction against harassment; petition; venue; fees; notices; enforcement; definition. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/12/01809.htm
(2) Arizona Revised Statutes. (2009). 13-2810. Interfering with judicial proceedings; classification. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02810.htm
(3) U.S. Code. (2009). 18 U.S.C. 2261A. Stalking. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2261A.htm
Selected Arizona ICAC Incidents Involving Injunctions Against Harassment (2004-2009)
An Arizona parent reported unusual Internet communications between her 14 year old daughter and a 21 year old California man. The parent stated that the girl may have lied to the man about her age. The parent wanted the communications to stop. A detective recommended that the parent obtain an injunction against harassment. (1536)
An Arizona woman reported that her 16 year old sister lives in Illinois. The girl exchanged cybersex messages with a 23 year old Mesa Arizona man whom she met in an online game site. The woman wanted to make the communications stop. A detective contacted the suspect and ordered him to stop communicating with the girl and he agreed. The detective recommended to the woman that she follow-up with an injunction against harassment. (1709)
An Arizona parent reported that her 14 year old daughter was enticed by an 18 year old Canadian man who used a popular social networking site. The man stated that he wanted to marry the girl. A detective asked the parent to provide more evidence of illegal activity and also suggested an injunction against harassment. The parent never re-contacted the detective. (2115)
An Arizona grandmother reported that her 16 year old granddaughter was communicating with a 21 year old California man via a popular social networking site. The girl is in the custody of a guardian and is on juvenile probation for prior unlawful acts. The grandmother learned that the girl plans to go to California to visit the suspect. The girl’s guardian was contacted, the girls Internet privileges were revoked and the detective suggested that the grandmother and/or guardian obtain an injunction against harassment. (2358)
An Arizona parent intercepted romantic chat conversations and web page postings to a popular social networking site by his 16 year old daughter. The girl communicated with an 18 year old California man. There was insufficient evidence to pursue an investigation and the detective recommended that the parent obtain an injunction against harassment for the man. (2958)
A popular social networking site reported sexually explicit chat between a 16 year old Louisiana girl and a 52 year old Arizona man. There was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges against the man. The investigator suggested that the Louisiana victim obtain an injunction against harassment for the Arizona suspect. (8012)
A 21 year old Tucson man communicated via the Internet with a 14 year old girl from Surprise, AZ. There was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. The parents obtained an injunction against harassment to help keep the suspect away from the girl. (1433)
An Arizona parent reported that her 16 year old daughter met a 19 year old Arizona man via the Internet. The parent intercepted sexually oriented communications between the man and the girl. The parent did not wish to pursue prosecution and restricted the girl’s Internet use. The parent will seek an injunction against harassment if the contact continues. (1695)
A parent from Yuma, Arizona reported that her 15 year old daughter was chatting with an 18 year old man and that via web cam the man exposed his genitals to her and masturbated. The parent reported the incident to local law enforcement authorities and criminal charges were pursued. Investigators also suggested that the parent follow up with an injunction against harassment. (1899)
A Phoenix parent reported that she intercepted Internet communications between her 17 year old son and a 23 year old man whom the boy met via a web site that is oriented towards homosexual men. The parent learned that the boy and the man spent a weekend together. The boy would not disclose what, if any, sexual contact occurred and criminal charges could not be proven. The parent wished to stop the contact between the two. Detectives suggested an injunction against harassment. (2071)
An Arizona parent intercepted communications between her 17 year old son and a 22 year old man. The two used a popular social networking site to communicate and also exchanged sexually explicit emails. When they met at a Phoenix public library the parent intervened and confronted the man. The 17 year old deleted the sexually explicit emails and there was not sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. A detective recommended that the parent obtain an injunction against harassment. (2420)
The reporting person, a Pima Arizona case manager for disabled persons, reported that a 65 year old Yuma man befriended a mentally impaired 19 year old man. The two exchanged sexually oriented emails. The older man has made attempts to intervene in the life of the disabled man and contacted the victim’s mother suggesting that he be made guardian of the 19 year old. The investigation did not produce sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. A detective recommended that an injunction against harassment be obtained prohibiting the 65 year old man from contacting the disabled victim. (2549)
An Arizona parent reported a suspicious on-line relationship between her 15 year old daughter and a 21 year old Scottsdale man. The 21 year old was grooming the girl and discussed marriage with her. There was not sufficient evidence of a crime but the parent wants to end the relationship. The detective recommended an injunction against harassment. (2695)
A Phoenix school resource officer reported cyber-bullying and gang activity by students using a popular social networking site. Along with possible criminal charges, detectives recommended that the parents obtain injunctions against harassment. (2783)
An Arizona parent reported that someone hacked into the social networking web page of his 17 year old daughter and sent vulgar messages to her friends. Investigators sought criminal charges and also recommended an injunction against harassment. (2800)
An Arizona parent reported that her 17 year old daughter met an unknown older man in a popular Internet gaming site. The parent learned that her daughter and the man exchanged over 500 messages including offers to marry her when she turns 18. Although there is no indication of sexual talk the parent wants to end the contact and has changed the family phone number and revoked the girls’ Internet privileges. Detectives also suggested an injunction against harassment. (2813)
An Arizona parent reported Internet and personal contact between her 15 year old daughter and an El Mirage, Arizona man whom the girl met on-line. The mother intercepted e-mail communications indicating that the man is 19 years old. The mother also obtained the man’s phone number. She called the man and he admitted to knowing that the girl was 15 years old. He agreed to stop communicating with her. The mother then found pictures of the man’s penis on the girls’ computer and later caught the girl and the man together at a movie theatre. A criminal investigation was initiated and the detective also suggested that the mother obtain an injunction against harassment against the man. (2842)
An Arizona parent reported unusual text messages between her 15 year old daughter and a 24 year old married Phoenix man. The man sent suggestive messages but also stated that he could not be alone with the girl, saying that he might make a “mistake”. A detective interviewed the man and he admitted knowing that what he was doing was wrong. There was insufficient evidence to prefer criminal charges. The investigator suggested to the parent that she obtain an injunction against harassment. (2862)
An Arizona parent phoned to report that she found “alarming” text messages on her 16 year old daughter’s cell phone. The messages were between the daughter and a 28 year old woman but the parent did not describe the messages in detail. A detective explained possible criminal violations if the messages were sexual in nature and also suggested an injunction against harassment. (2967)
An 18 year old Arizona woman reported that a 23 year old male acquaintance sent her pictures of his penis via email. Insufficient evidence existed to file criminal charges. The woman also reported that the man used a popular social networking site to communicate with her 14 year old sister but there was no information about criminal sexual acts. A detective suggested that the woman pursue criminal charges of harassment and obtain an injunction against harassment for the suspect. (3067)
Permalink
