PHOENIX -- Reporters pretending to be teens on the Internet to lure adults may be great television. But the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday it isn't enough to get their targets arrested.
In a unanimous decision, the justices concluded that people lured to meet with what they think are teen girls can't be charged if it turns out the person during the luring is not a minor but in fact a TV reporter -- or any other adult for that matter. The court concluded that charging someone with luring a minor for sexual purposes, by definition, requires an actual minor.
The only exception, they said, is if the person doing the luring is a police officer.
Wednesday's decision does not bar TV stations from what has become an increasingly popular tactic, especially during rating periods.
But Barnett Lotstein, a special assistant Maricopa County attorney, said those TV "sting" operations may still have some use: Lotstein said his office will now charge the man whose indictment was tossed out by Wednesday's ruling with the crime of attempted luring -- a crime that the court decision suggests could be prosecuted without a real teen-age victim.
People are also reading…
The case against Jeremy Mejak stems from actions three years ago by a Phoenix television reporter who, pretending to be a 13-year-old girl, engaged in conversations on "chat rooms" as part of an investigation to show how the Internet can be used to lure minors for sex.
According to court records, Mejak chatted online with the reporter, believing her to be a teen, and set up a meeting to have sex with her. When he showed up, though, he was greeted with video cameras.
Police were given copies of the tapes and transcripts of the online chat. That resulted in the Maricopa County Attorney's Office taking the case to a grand jury and securing an indictment.
When a trial judge refused to throw out the case, Mejak appealed.
Justice Michael Ryan, writing for the high court, pointed out that the law says it is illegal for a person to lure someone that the person knows or has reason to know is a minor.
"The use of the phrase 'is a minor' suggests that the crime cannot be committed without the luring of an actual minor," Ryan wrote.
He pointed out that lawmakers created only one exception: Someone can still be charged if the person being lured is "a peace officer posing as a minor."
The justices rejected arguments by prosecutors that Mejak's conduct fell under the provision which said he had "reason to know" that the person with whom he was chatting was a minor, as based on his own belief.
"Although a person may subjectively believe, as Mejak did, something that is not true, it is entirely different to have knowledge or a reason to know a fact," Ryan said.
But Ryan also said that, given the facts of this situation, a person could legally be charged with attempted luring or attempted sexual conduct with a minor.
Michael Terribile, Mejak's lawyer, said he concurs with that legal conclusion. But Terribile said he will still attempt to get any new charges against his client dismissed on other grounds.
