Charges filed against an Oklahoma State University professor for soliciting sex with minors online call into question incongruous age of consent laws in Oklahoma.
He allegedly fell victim to a sting operation, going on gay dating app Grindr and messaging who he thought were teenagers aged 16 and 17-years-old, but who were in fact undercover deputies.
According to the affidavit, the deputy posing as a minor messaged Schrader, saying he was 17-years-old, and Schrader replied, “That’s legal.”
Schrader allegedly planned to meet him at his campus office, but deputies showed up instead.
Turns out, what he’s accused of actually isn’t legal in the state.
“If he did meet up with this minor, he could argue that what he did after he met up was not illegal, but the actual solicitation would still be illegal,” said Pawnee County Asst. District Attorney Jeff Jones.
Jones explained that in Oklahoma, it’s legal to have sex with 16-year-olds, but not legal to seek out sexual partners online unless they’re over 18.
“This is one of the areas in Oklahoma where our statutes are incongruent with one another,” said trial attorney Jacqui Ford. “It’s confusing, it doesn’t make sense on a cognizant common sense level, and oftentimes, people find themselves in this trap.”
It’s a law Ford takes issue with because she said it, and other computer crimes related to it, unfairly creates criminal behavior or worsens criminal punishment.
“This is one of the areas in Oklahoma where our statutes are incongruent with one another,” Ford said. “If he met this 17-year-old in a park or at the grocery store, any encounter they have would have been legally acceptable and not criminal, but because we’re doing it online where everybody is right now, especially in the middle of COVID, the only way to communicate is through our screens. So this is how he’s choosing to meet someone, and this is a crime, and you can tell from his messages that he did not know that.”
Ford compared it to prostitution – a misdemeanor if a prostitute is caught working on the street, but the charge is raised to a felony once it’s done online.
In this case, she said it fails to take into account the alleged suspect’s intent.
“If he was out there hunting for underage children to perpetrate on, that is a starkly different thing than what’s happening here,” Ford said. “But unfortunately, he may very well be subject to sex offender registration for the rest of his life.”
In most states and under federal law the age of consent is 16. The age limit describing child pornography is generally 18.
So it is lawful to have sex with a 16 year old, but production of pornography if you were to take her picture. If she (or he) sent you a selfie, both could be charged; her for production and distribution, and you for receipt and possession. No doubt, the minor would not be prosecuted in exchange for her cooperation in your case.
There are many traps set for the unwary.
So, Therefore, a ‘Parallel Codification of Laws’, does not exist?
Hmm…double standard…Constitutional Violation of Equal Protection…..
Capricious and Arbitrary!
Law enforcement should be law enticement. Ah the tangled web they weave when all they do is deceive. Law enforcement wonders why they are losing respect. Could it be they break the law and nothing happens. Citizens break the law and law enforcement uses extreme force like in my hometown of Minneapolis on Monday.
Again Grindr etc are adult site and reminder they have to check a box that stating they 18+ and in them statements above being the law that you check it and lie can be prosecuted for lying. So it’s ok for LE not obey. They make a cake adult profile etc and later say they 14-16. Sorry but that’s wrong and sound to be entrapment. I am myself fighting my like that for traveling. They got on adult site lie and solict you and make it your doing it wrong and out for younger. Why do you go on adult site and calm people there are after children hello… Adult site. Need to be fighting that and I would find away sue them for unlawful etc. It’s another class they get people with no records to boost the arrest number and there 5 mins of TV game to save there jobs money and rates . . . There not protecting shit but their own political agenda and salaries etc. Just a easy way to do it and be lazy at their jobs.
Soooo…. attempting to meet someone via the Internet somehow constitutes “prostitution”? That’s why they claim it was illegal? Meeting first over the Internet is somehow “solicitation” but randomly meeting someone at a bar and both consent to go home with each other is “a-ok”? This doesn’t make an ounce of sense.
If this be the case just because of the age (which apparently is legal age), then this would mean that ALL dating sites and apps are ILLEGAL because no one can know for sure if people are seeking serious relationships or sex hook ups. So, since big daddy government and LE want to turn this country into a dictatorship, force ALL online dating into the “illegal” category and let’s see how fast such sites files suits in federal courts. See how fast the users join in on such suits.
And think about this – Most sites and apps make you PAY to be able to message someone. Wouldn’t this dictatorship view THAT as the site/app soliciting prostitution? Making people PAY to talk to each other? Man, oh man, what a hell of a bind the system would get itself into. Actually, a GOOD ATTORNEY would point all this out in front of a judge. Police need to go after crimes, not create crimes to go after.
That is not what this article is saying and I think you are missing the point.
They are saying that there’s an illogical contrast between doing something online vs. in person. If you solicit a prostitute in person it’s a misdemeanor. If you solicit a prostitute online it’s a felony. In Oklahoma, where the age of consent is 16, you can meet a 17 year old in person and have sex with them and it is legal, but if you meet them online and arrange for sex it’s a felony.
It makes no sense. Many of the laws concerning sex make no sense. For example, if you pay someone (an adult) for sex – that’s prostitution, but if you pay for someone for sex and film it – that’s pornography, which is legal.
But that actually where I was going with what I was saying. And none of it makes sense. We have both gay “bois” and women and transgenders on YouTube literally admitting that they go for “sugar daddies”. I hope I don’t need to describe what a sugar daddy is so if we live in a society that is aware of men being sugar daddied by some people and many condone it (comments on YouTube videos saying “I need to find a sugar daddy, too) then we are not making ANY sense in our sex laws. Personally, being an independent in my political views, I don’t think it’s anyone’s business what people do with each other sexually so long as it is consensual and both parties are of consenting age.
There is a popular gay YouTuber named James Charles who admits to having been on Grindr when he was 16 and claiming to be 18 to get guys on dates to spend their money AND have sex. LE would see him as a “victim”, yet he’s a “victim” knowing full well what he was doing. He’s in his early 20’s now. But, if LE and the legislature doesn’t MAKE someone a victim, it means they have no way of sending people to prison and to the SOR as away to get that Federal $$$.
That’s very true. If it’s an adult site, you should be able to argue that, regardless of what the person on the other end says, you were under the assumption that they were 18+ because that person must’ve consented to that when they signed up. I don’t like people trolling for minors, but I abhor the bullshit tactics that are used to draw people in. This isn’t the movie “Minority Report.” You actually have to commit a crime in order to be prosecuted for a crime. How can law enforcement say that you “would’ve” done it. They must all be prophets or something.
Another question is did he actually do the soliciting or did they solicit him?
Most of the time, in these sex sting operations, it’s the police doing the soliciting, posing as teens who are pushing sex on random adult strangers (on adult sites). Many times, they’ll keep reaching back out to someone who stopped responding to them. They are not catching “child predators” at all, like they claim to be doing. It’s all about money. They need as many arrests as they can get, for money purposes. So, they play mind tricks and continue to push for sex until they convince people to go out and meet them. Many end up showing up just out of curiously. Why is someone on an adult site claiming to be a teenager and is obviously very desperate for sex with random adult strangers? It just doesn’t add up. There are many reasons for why people keep falling for this trap.
It doesn’t mean, at all, that they would have had sex with a teenager, had it been real. Many show up just to find out who is doing this.
Then police end up using a lot of dishonesty, even afterwards, to get the convictions they desperately want. Many times they hide important evidence that shows they, themselves, were the predators. Juries will believe any lies they are told by police and/or by corrupt prosecutors. Most people never even question whether police or prosecutors are being honest. It’s very easy for them to get away with it. That’s why they keep doing. There is no accountability on them for using dishonesty to force the convictions they want. It’s one of the top reasons for wrongful convictions. Unfortunately, it’s very common.
And more common than not, a REAl underage person looking for sex online is going to lie and say they are 18 and stick with that as they would get their profile taken down if they admitted that. So someone bragging about being 15 #1 is a red flag and #2 IF I was on a site I would block them.
I stay off those sites. If I want a date I try and meet someone to spend time with at church. However I am a crotchety old fart that lives with his parents so until I get off the registry, I am not dating anyone. One divorce was enough for me.
Most of these post accurately and justly defend Shrader or argue the inconsistencies in the statues. I agree. However, CherokeeJack, brings a point that all of us should take note. CJ said, “I stay off those sites.”
I hear some saying, “But what’s wrong with this as long as both are of legal age.”
Yes, it’s not fair, but I know that as long as I am a registered citizen, I must remember: If it looks like a duck…. I will not take any chances. I understand that I may be permitted to engage in any activities (Like the Circus or Fair), “Just like anyone else.” It may not be prudent.
My best friend use to get angry when I told him that I couldn’t attend his granddaughter’s birthday party. My friend accepted that I was on the registry and that I am cautious to avoid the quacking ducks.
Sometimes all these exceptions put me in a funk. It’s not fair and it INFECTS my loved ones. However, I have to except that while I am on this illegal and dangerous Registry, I CAN’T DO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE CAN DO.”
Legislature will fix this by simply updating age of consent to 18, no?
He’s 65. I don’t think anyone here would advocate 17-year-olds being exposed to 65-year-olds coming onto them. The only question is what should happen to him. He needs to stop talking to minors, stay off grindr, and undergo treatment. I realize, though, that the state has a lot more in store for him.
If the age of consent is what it is, it’s no one’s business what people of varying ages do with each other CONSENSUALLY. None. Of. Our. Business. Period.
It’s really a question of, at what age is it consensual. That’s where the law needs to be more consistent.
The article makes it very clear that the age of what the sting cop gave was the age of consent. They’re making it illegal because it was online vs a random in person meeting like walking on a beach and seeing someone you find attractive and go talk to. How can they make something illegal just because it’s online when online is the way of the world today? This has got to stop. We are literally having our sex lives DICTATED to us. Is this the United States or Cuba? Enough already!
I still don’t get something. If the person on the other end of the “solicitation” is actually an adult (police officer) then you never actually solicited a minor. Couldn’t a defense be that you knew it was an officer, that’s what you’re attracted to, and wanted to meet up with them, I don’t like these sting operations where you haven’t committed a crime because the “victim” doesn’t actually exist. If I walk around a bank, look at the Vault, fantasize about stealing the money, and go to the bank in hopes of stealing the money, if I don’t actually attempt to steal the money I haven’t committed a crime. In the case of these “stings” the “bank” doesn’t even exist, so how can 8 be accused of attempting to steal the money?
Raymond
as former law enforcement, if you were to go online and tell a friend you were on the way to the bank to rob it. Then arrived and changed your mind and stood there thinking about it. Then went inside to make a deposit instead, as soon as you pass through the banks doors they would slam you to the ground, even though you did not go through with it. AND you would be charged with conspiracy to rob a bank.
However, when you get arrested with a fake underaged / of age cop, they do not arrest you for conspiracy to have sex with a minor, they arrest you for solicitation. Even if you put up and ad stating you were looking for sex with a minor, they could come arrest you even if you never met anyone.
I looked 16 when I was in law enforcement and they use to try and get me to be a decoy in stings and I wanted nothing to do with it.
Nothing new here. If you actually have sex with a 21-year-old who claimed to be 15, in most jurisdictions that’s not technically illegal because “statutory rape“ is a strict liability crime. However, if you attempt to meet someone claiming to be a 15-year-old it’s actually a 40-year-old deputy, then it’s a crime.
THE FACT STILL REMAINS, that even if he DID meet, it was OF AGE cops so no REAL crime happened. Even if a law says you can be arrested for the intent, the punishment should not be as long as someone who actually did the deed, but often does.
Officers should spend more time investigating “REAL” crimes, including sex crimes that actually hurt a “REAL” person, not made of fairy tales of what they think “COULD” happen if they met a minor.
Still not sure why these stings are not considered entrapment. Not at all saying I agree with adults meeting minors for sex, just saying these stings are a waste of taxpayers funds. My friends Mom who is 84 had two guys who pretended to be from the power company, come into her home and one distracted her while the other stole her money, purse, jewelry and silverware. A report was written but no other effort to find the culprits and NO follow up with her.
They are considered entrapment. However there is an almost unattainably high bar for it to become unlawfully so, at least in Florida.
There are also 2 paths to pursue regarding entrapment (in Florida). Subjective, and Objective. Subjective is the unreachable bar. Objective… get ahold of the arrest reports of anyone that has been arrested for the crimes of soliciting online and/or traveling in the county you were arrested in. You will more than likely see a dramatically higher number of arrests as the result of stings. Make sure you go over those reports with your counsel to find duplicates or arrests unrelated to your search. You will also note that most, if not all of the sting arrests will be the same set of charges as well.
*This is for anyone in need of advice from someone who isn’t a lawyer 🙂