Dallas, San Antonio, Houston and Austin Offices of the Charles Johnson Law Firm
Charles Johnson Law Firm
Charles Johnson Law Firm Home See Our Case Results About Us Resources Contact Us Austin Criminal Lawyer Blog
Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer
 

Download our
Texas DWI Lawyer
iPhone App!

You can always be assured
that help will be there
when you need it.

Texas DWI Lawyer iPhone App
Call now
 

Austin Criminal Defense Blog



Tag Archive for online

Facing Charges of Online Solicitation of a Minor? The Right Austin Criminal Lawyer Can Make a Difference

Online Solicitation of a Minor Lawyer Charles Johnson

As a result of the increased efforts of local and national law enforcement task forces to discover Online Solicitation of Minors or Importuning, Austin Sex Crimes Lawyer Charles Johnson has frequently represented individuals who have been accused of communicating with a minor using the computer. In fact, the law in most jurisdictions allows for an officer to pose as a minor while communicating with a suspect. Soliciting either an actual minor or a police officer posing as a minor may result in the filing of charges and subsequent prosecution. A common misconception is that no crime is committed unless there is an actual meeting. In actuality, the offense of On-line Solicitation or Importuning may be completed merely through the communication or “chat.” If there is an attempt to actually meet, additional charges may be warranted.

Austin Criminal Lawyer Charles Johnson is well-versed in the various defenses that must be explored in all cases of this kind. These defenses may include issues of entrapment, client knowledge, or jurisdictional questions.

Accusation of soliciting a minor online can often result from entrapment-type situations commonly depicted on televisions shows. However, soliciting a minor online can also be the result of a mistake or an accident. For example, an individual can be charged with soliciting a minor when they thought they were communicating with an adult on the computer, but may have actually been talking to an underage person. No matter the reason for the false claims against you, it is important to contact an experienced sex crimes defense lawyer who will make every effort to find defenses or other mitigating factors that will result in an acquittal of the charges against you.

An allegation of On-line Solicitation or Importuning calls for great effort and resources, as the stakes are high – one faces not only a potential prison term, but also the stigmatizing and debilitating effects of sex offender public registration, which makes it difficult if not impossible to obtain employment, and may even severely restrict one’s ability to reside in certain locations.

Jurors are often familiar with programs like “To Catch a Predator”, giving them preconceived notions which need to be addressed and diffused. Our lawyers know first-hand that with thoughtful and extensive examination of pertinent case law and pre-trial motions, a successful defense of On-line Solicitation and Importuning allegations can be achieved.

It is important to remember that if you have been accused of soliciting a minor online, the state prosecutor is required to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be a very difficult burden of proof to meet, and any doubt in the mind of the judge or jury can result in a dismissal or reduction of the charges against you. Therefore, it is essential to contact an experienced Child Sex Abuse lawyer to help you begin developing the best legal defense for your particular case. Contact Austin Criminal Lawyer Charles Johnson for a free consultation today at 512-832-1200 anytime, night or day if you have been falsely accused of soliciting a minor online.

Online Solicitation of a Minor Defined

Since the 1990’s, the internet has changed the way we communicate, do business, meet people, and almost all other aspects of our lives. Unfortunately, it has also led to new criminal charges, many of which carry steep penalties. The most severe online offenses are those related to the potential harm of an underage person, such as online solicitation of a minor.

Online solicitation of a minor is communication with a minor via the internet that aims to arouse, sexually gratify, harass, or arrange to meet a minor face-to-face in the real world. In Texas, a minor is any person who is 17 years of age or younger. Exchanging sexually oriented materials, conversations, or invitations with a minor is a serious legal offense in our state.

Sexual exploitation can result in numerous physical and psychological consequences for children that may be multiplied for victims of child pornography because they face a lifetime of possible revictimization through the continued distribution of videos, photographs, or computer images depicting their exploitation (Klain, 2001). The mass media continues to feed into the stereotype that all Internet offenders are “predators” or “pedophiles”. According to ABC World News Tonight in June 2006, there are approximately 563,000 registered sex offenders nationally. However, decades of research indicates that only ten percent (10%) of sex offenders are truly predatory in nature.

This is not to discount that Internet victimization is one of the most dangerous Internet threats, but society must be cautious in using such characteristics without empirical data to support such a homogenous label. In the National Juvenile Online Victimization (N-JOV) study, approximately seventy-eight percent (78%) of cases, the offender was one of the victim’s family members, second generation family member such as grandparents, uncle or aunt, or stepparents or parent’s intimate partner.

Children exploring the Internet for education and entertainment are at risk of encountering sexually explicit material, sexual exploitation, and Internet offenses while remaining undetected by parents. The Internet has become a conduit for sexually explicit material and offenses against children. Children are extremely vulnerable to victimization due to their curiosity, naiveté, and trusting nature. These crimes present law enforcement with many complex problems due to the fact that they transcend jurisdictional boundaries and often involve multiple victims in multiple states and countries. Internet crimes must be pursued vigorously by law enforcement.

The greatest obstacle facing law enforcement is that children and parents do not report the majority of Internet crimes. In situations where the abuse is a parent, a relative, or acquaintance, the abuse may be more likely to come to light inadvertently as a result of inquiries by social welfare and reports from neighbors, rather than as a result of police inquiries into online crime (Wolak, 2005, in press). Community involvement, parental supervision, and early intervention and prevention programs on Internet safety are essential in protecting children from online solicitation and exposure to pornography.

General Information

The computer age presents complex challenges for law enforcement, victim services, parents, legislators, and the community. The proliferation of computer technology obviously has enhanced our lives in many ways, such as enabling improved productivity and efficiency at work, school, and home (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001). Unfortunately, this technology is not without potential threats and harm for criminals to prey upon innocent victims. According to ABC World News Tonight in June 2006, there are approximately 563,000 registered sex offenders nationally. End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes (EPCAT) International reports violence and harms against children and young people in cyberspace include: the production, distribution, and use of materials depicting child sexual abuse; online solicitation; exposure to materials that can cause psychological harm, lead to physical harm, or facilitate other detriments to a child; and harassment and intimidation.

Today the Internet has approximately two hundred (200) million users worldwide who can communicate with each other. Children of all ages are browsing the Internet. Forty-five (45%) of children in the United States, more than thirty (30) million of whom are younger than eighteen (18) use the Internet. By 2005, it was estimated that there are seventy-seven (77) million children online. Approximately one hundred three (103) million people use instant messaging (IM) programs such as AOL’s AIM, Microsoft’s MSN Messenger, and others. MySpace.com reports more than eighty-five (85) million members and the number of visitors to MySpace went from 4.9 million in 2005 to currently over sixty-seven (67) million. Like most new technological developments, this brings both positive and negative implications, especially for parents and their children.

Some children are especially at risk due to a range of vulnerability-enhancing factors common to all environments. They are in socially and economically difficult situations, have experienced sexual abuse and exploitation, are lonely, or feel alienated from their parents. Others have low self-esteem, feel awkward, are confused about their personal identity and sexuality, and lack confidence. Gender is also seen to be a risk factor, with seemingly more girls than boys appearing to be harmed through cyberspace interactions (although boys are increasingly featured in pornographic images circulating online).

Top Austin Sex Crimes Lawyers

Demographics of an Internet Offender

Sex offenders and child pornographers are a heterogeneous mixture. Before the advent of the Internet, between one-fifth and one-third of people arrested for possession of child pornography were also involved in actual abuse. The majority are male and come from all socio-economic and racial backgrounds. Many are skilled in technology. Not all fit the clinical classification of “pedophilia”. The mass media continues to feed into the stereotype that all Internet offenders are “predators” or “pedophiles”. This is not to discount that Internet victimization is one of the most dangerous Internet threats but society must be cautious in using such characteristics without empirical data to support such a homogenous label. We have to remember that in a previous generation, campaigns to prevent child molestation characterized the threat as “playground predator” or “stranger danger” so that for years the problem of youth, acquaintance, and intra-family perpetrators went unrecognized.

In an analysis of 600 cases of child sexual abuse in which the Internet played a role, either the offender- victim relationship was initiated or conducted online, the case involved the online sharing or distribution of child pornography, or the case involved child pornography stored on a computer or digital media. One hundred twenty six (126) cases involved a face-to-face relationship between the offender and the victim prior to any use of the Internet in committing abuse. N-JOV data indicated that the Internet was involved in eighteen percent (18%) of all sex crimes against minors and that nearly half of the eighteen percent (18%) were committed by acquaintances or family members, with a total of at least 460 arrests a year. This study found ninety-five percent (95%) were non-Hispanic Caucasians and forty-seven percent (47%) were twenty-six (26) or older. Thirty-five percent (35%) were married and over a third lived in small towns. Eighty percent (80%) were employed full time and fifty-one percent (51%) had incomes ranging from $20,000-$50,000 per year.

Identifying Internet Offenders

There is no one type of Internet child pornography user, and there is no easy way to recognize an offender. In the 2005 Wolak survey, solicitors did not match the stereotype of the older male “Internet predator”. Many were identified as other youth and some were female. Having a preconceived idea of a child sex offender can be unhelpful and prove a distraction for investigating police. Those convicted of sexually abusing children will not necessarily seek out or collect pornography, with one study putting the number of offenders who do so at around ten percent (10%).

This explosion of computer use, and the ease with which identities can be concealed on-line, has offered obvious opportunities to those who produce and consume pornography and those who seek to exploit vulnerable populations for sexual gratification. The Internet technology affords perpetrators a foundation for repeated, long-term victimization of a child. These crimes present law enforcement with many complex problems due to the fact that they transcend jurisdictional boundaries and often involve multiple victims in multiple states and countries.

N-JOV data reflected that the most common use of the Internet with family (70%) and acquaintance (65%) offenders was for seduction or grooming of victims either through online conversations or sharing of pornographic images. Forty-nine percent (49%) of family offenders and thirty-nine percent (39%) of acquaintance offenders produced pornographic images of their victims, which they stored or disseminated using the Internet. Forty-three percent (43%) used the Internet to arrange a face-to-face meeting. Relatively small numbers of offenders (2-4%) used the Internet as an inducement to enter the offender’s home and use it to advertise or sell victims online. Seventy-five percent (75%) of these cases involved some form of sexual contact and forty-five percent (45%) involved intercourse or other penetration. In a quarter of these cases, the sexual contact continued for over a year before being reported to the police.

How Sex Offenders Select Victims

A greater number of sex offenders are using the Internet searching for potential child victims through “kid only” or “kid friendly” chat rooms, online games, and instant messenger. The “set-up” for victimization requires long-term thought and planning. But a distinctive aspect of interaction in cyberspace that facilitates the grooming process is the rapid speed with which communication can become intimate. Chat rooms can be frequented by sex offenders that groom and manipulate their victims by playing on the emotional immaturity of children in virtual anonymity. The goal of the “set-up” is to gain control over the victim. The length of time spent during the “set-up” varies upon the vulnerability of the child. The longer an offender knows a child the better they are at “zeroing” in their grooming tactics and strategies.

Grooming is a term used to describe the process of desensitizing and manipulating the victim(s) and/or others for the purpose of gaining an opportunity to commit a sexually deviant act [Title 22, Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 810.2(b)(15)]. Grooming inflicts psychological harm on the child. In teen chat rooms, the activities that precede the process of initiating direct contact with a child may simply involve the offender providing a description of themselves to all of the users of the public chat room so that the offender is masquerading as a particular kind of child, of a particular age, in the hope of attracting an equivalent age and the same or opposite sex child (i.e. 14/m/tx) (O’Connell, 2001). A sex offender may begin victim selection by observation in which an offender may “lurk” in chat rooms or massive multiplayer online games listening to conversations between children. An offender may search public profiles that include information such as name, age, location, hobbies, interests, and photographs. The offender will then wait for a child’s response and determine if they will initiate a conversation. After selecting a victim, the offender will introduce him or herself by instant message (IM) or by a private message to the child. Additionally, victim selection can involve viewing the child’s public profile. A victim’s information may be obtained through an Internet service provider request or a URL a child must provide in order to create their own website.

In the initial stages of grooming, the offender will suggest that the child move from a public domain to a private chat room or IM for an exclusive one-to-one conversation. The offender will engage in conversations related to school, home, hobbies, parental relationships, or interests of the child. The offender will gather information regarding the likelihood of activities being detected. The offender will manipulate the child to create an illusion of being the child’s best friend. The interactions take on the characteristics of a strong sense of mutuality (i.e. a mutual respect club comprised of two people that must ultimately remain a secret from all others). During these interactions, the child is praised, made to feel special, and very positive conversations are tailored to the age of the child. Gifts or money may be offered to the child. Sadly, sex offenders tend to target children who are neglected or come from dysfunctional homes. For these children, the sex offender offers an alternative relationship that makes the child feel special and loved.

The offender introduces the idea of trust, affection, and loyalty but it is based on deception and manipulation. This grooming tactic provides a forum to move into the next stage of victimization. The offender will begin to exploit social norms and test the child’s boundaries. The offender could ask the child “have you been kissed?”, “have you ever been skinny dipping?”, or “do you wear a bikini?” If the child does not respond negatively to the boundary violation, it is tantamount to accepting the behavior or language. During boundary violations, the offender has positioned the child into believing that they share a deep sense of mutual trust.

Offenders who intend to maintain a relationship with a child will progress carefully and methodically into sexually explicit language. The nature of the conversations will progress from mild conversations (i.e. “I love you” or “I want to kiss you”) to extremely explicit (i.e. masturbation or oral sex). The target child may be drawn into producing pornography by sending photos, using a web-cam or engaging in sexual discussions. To silence the child and ensure their continued compliance in sexual exploitation, the offender may use a variety of tactics including rewards, violence, threats, bribery, punishment, coercion, peer pressure, and fear (Klain, 2001). Research indicates that this pattern of conversations is characteristic of an online relationship that may progress to a request for a face-to-face meeting.

Child Pornography Under federal law, child pornography is defined as a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it

  • depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or
  • depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (18 U.S.C §1466A and 18 U.S.C. §2256)

Sexually explicit conduct includes various forms of sexual activity such as intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, and lascivious exhibition of the genitals. It is illegal to possess, distribute, or manufacture these images.

Pornography and Child Pornography on the Internet

Both adult and child pornography has saturated the Internet due to the lack of censorship by the industry. The Internet provides the social, individual, and technological circumstances in which an interest in child pornography flourishes. Cyberspace is host to more than one (1) million images of tens of thousands of children subjected to sexual abuse and exploitation. Of the estimated 24.7 million Internet users between the ages of ten (10) and seventeen (17), approximately 8.4 million youths received unwanted exposure to sexual material.

Child pornography is the second highest category, after indecent exposure, of sexual re-offense behavior. The vast majority of children who appear in child pornography have not been abducted or physically forced to participate. In most cases the child knows the producer and it may even be their father who manipulates the child into taking part by more subtle means. Most children feel a pressure to cooperate with the offender and not to disclose the offense, both out of loyalty to the offender and a sense of shame about their own behavior.

Physical contact between a child and a perpetrator does not need to occur for a child to become a victim or for a crime to be committed. Innocent pictures or images of children can be digitally transformed into pornographic material and distributed across the Internet without the victim’s knowledge (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001). Digital graphic software (i.e. Photoshop, Illustrator, Microsoft PhotoEditor) allow offenders to edit “innocent” pictures. After a picture is scanned into a computer, these image-editing programs can be used to put several photos together or to distort pictures and create a believable image of a reality that never existed. This process is called “morphing”. In some countries, morphed images or pictures are not illegal. Offenders may claim in court that a picture is morphed, no matter how disturbing, is not a picture of a real child or a situation which actually took place, and thus is not illegal.

In April 2002, the United States Supreme Court found that provisions of the Child Pornography Act (CPPA), which prohibited the depiction of virtual and simulated child pornography, were invalid under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court found that in the absence of a “real” child, the Court could see no “direct link” between such images and the sexual abuse of children. The Court’s majority could not see a substantial risk of producers of child pornography using virtual images of children. Additionally, children can be exposed to “virtual” pornography. Virtual pornography is legal the United States and in some other countries.

In the 2005 Wolak study, almost all of the arrested child pornography possessors (91%) used home computers to access child pornography and almost one (1) in five (5) arrested (18%) used a home computer in more than one (1) location to access child pornography. Additionally, Wolak found that in fourteen percent (14%) of child pornography investigations, the offenders not only had possessed pornography but had sexually victimized children and two percent (2%) possessed pornography and attempted to sexually victimize children. Eighty-four percent (84%) of the investigations involving child pornography did not detect concurrent child sexual victimization or attempts at victimization (Wolak, 2005). According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, forty percent (40%) of child pornographers investigated have sexually molested children. From January 1997 through March 2004, 1,807 child pornographers were arrested and 620 (34%) of these offenders were confirmed child molesters (Kim, 2004).

Although most Internet pornography is created offline, technology has evolved to create “real” life pornography that can be viewed in real time, using web-cameras, phone cameras, digital cameras, and streaming video. A user can be notified of the date and time to log on the computer to view a child being sexually abused. The advent of mini-cameras has allowed for pictures and videos to be created without the subject’s knowledge. The user may pay money or exchange images with the direct abuser (Palmer, 2004).
These illegal images can be presented in various forms including print media, videotape, film, compact disc, read-only memory (CD-ROM), or digital versatile technology (DVD) (Klain, 2001) and can be transmitted through computer bulletin-board systems (BBS), USENET Newsgroups, Internet Relay Chat, web-based groups, peer-to-peer technology, and an array of constantly changing world wide web sites.

Using Child Pornography to Groom Children

Children can be exposed to pornography through spam or potential abusers. The accessibility of pornography online, the ease and perceived anonymity of transmission, and the environment of “virtuality” itself makes the use of pornography in online grooming easier for an abuser. Pornography is a tool for inducting and socializing a child into behaviors that reflect the content of the pornographic materials. Sex offenders frequently use pornography as a tool to assist them in the grooming process.

Children exploring the Internet for education and entertainment are at risk of encountering sexually explicit material, sexual exploitation, and offenses against children while remaining undetected by parents. Children are extremely vulnerable to victimization due to their curiosity, naiveté, and trusting nature. The Internet has become a conduit for sexually explicit material and offenses against children. In 2006, Wolak reported fifty-four percent (54%) of boys and forty-six percent (46%) of girls received unwanted exposure to sexual material. Ninety percent (90%) of all solicitations happened to teenagers (ages 13 to 17). Eighty-six percent (86%) received images of naked people and fifty-seven percent (57%) received pictures of people having sex and/or violent or deviant images. Lastly, eighty-three percent (83%) of unwanted exposures occurred when youth were surfing the web and eighty-nine percent (89%) of incidents the senders were unable to be identified.

Sex offenders use pornography to escalate the relationship with the child. According to the Klain study, the most common purposes for which offenders use child pornography are:

  • Pornography creates a permanent record for sexual arousal and gratification.
  • Pornography lowers the child’s inhibitions to engage in sexual behavior.
  • Pornography may be used to teach children how to behave, pose, or re-enact scenes.
  • Pornography may be used to blackmail child victims by threatening to show the photographs, videos, or other depictions to parents, friends, or teachers. The threat becomes more potent because the child may fear punishment by the criminal justice system.
  • Pornography created to sell for profit or trade between individuals. The Internet’s anonymity, enhanced by increasingly sophisticated encryption technology, facilitates the increasing demand for child pornography.

Repeated exposure to adult and child pornography is deliberately used to diminish the child’s inhibitions, break barriers to sexual arousal, desensitize the child that sex is normal, and arouse the victim. Children depicted in pictures are often smiling or have neutral expressions, a factor that appears to be designed to represent the children as willing participants in sexual or degrading acts. There is a recent trend for pictures to be taken in domestic settings such as a kitchen or bedroom, thus further “normalizing” the activity for children who view images.

It has been reported that children under ten (10) who have been exposed to sexually exploitative material have themselves become users of it. Eight percent (8%) of youths admitted to going voluntarily to X-rated sites. Children at most risk of being violated through pornography productions are within the home and family. The child knows their abuser as a parent, a relative, a guardian, or an acquaintance. In these situations, the abuse may be more likely to come to light inadvertently as a result of inquiries by social welfare and reports from neighbors, rather than as a result of police inquiries into online crime.

Reporting Internet Crimes

The impact of online child victimization (i.e. solicitation and harassment) is not completely understood. Family dynamics often play a significant role in children’s denial of a crime and their willingness to participate in the investigation and prosecution. A child’s ability to acknowledge and accept the crime can be linked to family values, peer pressure, and feelings of guilt, shame, and embarrassment. Only three percent (3%) of all incidents of predators harassing children on the Internet is reported. The Crimes against Children Research Center found less than ten percent (10%) of sexual solicitations and only three percent (3%) of unwanted exposure episodes were reported to authorities such as a law-enforcement agency, an Internet service provider, or a hotline. In 2005, only one (1) incident out of more than 500 incidents of sexually explicit material was ever reported to an Internet service provider.

Online Language

Ninety-five percent (95%) of parents could not identify common chat room lingo that teenagers use to warn people they are chatting with that their parents were watching (NCMEC, 2005). Ninety-two percent (92%) of parents did not know the meaning of A/S/L (Age/Sex/Location) (NCMEC, 2005). Parents should watch for the following questionable abbreviations:

  • 53x means “sex”
  • 121 means “one to one”
  • A/S/L means age, sex, location. Watch for personal information being exchanged (i.e. 14/m/tx). This is a 14 year old male from Texas.
  • CYBER used as a verb and means “cybersex”
  • CONNECT means “to talk privately”
  • DIKU means “do I know you”
  • ESAD means “eat sh*t and die”
  • F2F, FTF means “face to face” or “let’s meet F2F”
  • FOAD means “f*ck off and die”
  • GP means “go private”
  • H4U means “hot for you”
  • H&K means “hugs and kisses”
  • ILU means “I love you”
  • IWALU means “I will always love you”
  • KOC means “kiss on the cheek”
  • KOL means “kiss on the lips”
  • LTR means “long term relationship”
  • LMIRL means “lets meet in real life”
  • LUWAMH means “love you with all my heart”
  • LU means “love you”
  • MOSS means “member of the same sex”
  • MOTOS means “member of the opposite sex”
  • MUSM means “miss you so much”
  • NIFOC means “naked in front of the computer”
  • OLL means “online love”
  • P2P means “person to person”
  • P911 means “my parents are coming”
  • PA means “parent alert”
  • PAL means “parents are listening”
  • PANB means “parents are near by”
  • PM means “private message or one on one chat”
  • POS means “parent over shoulder”
  • pr0n is an alternate spelling for porn or pornography
  • PDA means “public display of affection”
  • RL, IRL means “in real life as in “wants to see you IRL”
  • SWAK means “sealed with a kiss”
  • TOY means “thinking of you”
  • WIBNI means “wouldn’t it be nice if”
  • WTGP means “want to go private”
  • WUF means “where are you from”
  • WTF means “what the f*ck”

Acronyms and words used in daily IM or discussion boards

  • AFAIK means “as far as I know”
  • BTW means “by the way”
  • CUL means “see you later”
  • HHOK means “ha ha only kidding”
  • IANAL means “I am not a lawyer”
  • IIRC means “if I remember correctly”
  • IMHO means “in my humble opinion”
  • KEWL means “cool”
  • OMG means “oh my god”
  • OTOH means “on the other hand”
  • WUT^2 “what up with you too”

Characteristics of Youth Who Form Close Online Relationships

  • Sixteen percent (16%) of girls and twelve (12%) of boys have close online relationships.
  • Girls aged fourteen (14) to seventeen (17) were twice as likely as girls ten (10) to thirteen (13) to form close online relationships.
  • High parent-child conflict and being highly troubled were associated with close online relationships. Girls with high levels of parent-child conflict report yelling, nagging, and privileges by parents at higher levels than other girls. The highly troubled girls had levels of depression, victimization, and troubling life events at higher levels than other girls.
  • Boys who had low communications with their parents, and who also reported that their parents were less likely to know where and who they were with were the most strongly associated with close online relationships.
  • Girls and boys who reported high levels of Internet use and home Internet access were more likely to report close online relationships.
  • Youths with problems were most likely to attend a face-to-face meeting with people they first met online.

Warning Signs that a Child may be at Risk

  • Excessive use of online services especially during the late night hours
  • Unsupervised time in unmonitored chat rooms
  • Mood swings and withdraws
  • Greater desire to spend time with people online than with “real life” people
  • Unexplained files downloaded (i.e. .jpd, .gif, .bmp, .tif, .pcx, .mov, .avi, .wmv, or .mpg)

Defenses to Online Solicitation of a Minor

People are often arrested and charged with online solicitation when they meet the minor in question in person. However, it is important to note that a person can still be charged with this offense even if the meeting never occurs. Despite this, a person may be found innocent of online solicitation if one or both of the following apply:

  • He or she is legally married to the minor in question
  • He or she is less than three years older than the minor

Solicitation of a minor laws have frequently been challenged by defendants on the basis that they violate a defendant’s right to free speech, but have survived such claims. Viable defenses remaining will depend on a particular state’s laws. Some earlier laws required a defendant to actually communicate with a child and defendants could raise the defense of impossibility where prosecution involved communication with an officer who was merely posing as a child but who was in actuality an adult. In response to the success of the impossibility defense, many state statutes changed their laws to permit a conviction based on a defendant’s belief that they were talking to a minor. Other states have also built in “Romeo and Juliet” defenses for a defendant who is involved in a dating relationship with a child who was not more than three years younger than the defendant.

Although not an outright “defense,” another defensive angle is to prove that the defendant did not know that the person on the other end was a minor. Most states have strict liability laws — which means the state is not required to prove that a defendant knew how old the child was, only that the child was underage. However, some juries have engaged in “jury nullification,” by finding a defendant not guilty if they believed that the defendant did not have a reason to believe the child was underage. Showing that the conversation was just an online fantasy or proving that they never intended to actually meet the minor are generally not good defenses. Before a defendant decides to pursue a defensive theory, they should discuss the practicality of the defense with a criminal attorney in their area.
Top Austin Sex Crimes Lawyers

Solicitation of a Minor: Misdemeanor or Felony?

Online solicitation of a minor is usually classified as a felony level offense. As with most felonies, the range of punishment can include a deferred or suspended sentence, up to several years in prison. A defendant in Texas can receive anywhere from two to twenty years in prison. Although a deferred sentence can allow a defendant to remain free, the restrictions of probation tend to be more intense for online solicitation charges because they are considered sexually related offenses. The court can order a defendant to submit to maintenance polygraphs, complete individual or group sex offender counseling, to submit to a sex offender evaluation, and to refrain from being around any children while on probation. The court can also require a defendant to pay for these programs which can run up to $500.00 or more per month.

The long-term consequences can be even more severe. Because online solicitation of a minor is considered a sexually related offense, a defendant can be required to register as a sex offender. If a defendant fails to register, they can be charged with a new felony offense of failure to register as a sex offender. Once a defendant has a sexually related offense on their record, some states will significantly increase the punishment for a second offense if a defendant is ever charged with another sexually related offense. Beyond the court system, online solicitation will also affect employment opportunities. With more open access to the court systems, more employers are performing background checks and will not hire certain candidates. Applicants with sexually related offenses are generally the first to get cut.

Contact Us

When you have been charged with a severe legal offense, it is very important to understand your rights and defense options. An experienced Austin Criminal Lawyer can help you decide what steps you need to take next. The attorneys of the Charles Johnson Law Firm are aggressive child sex crime defense lawyers who will make every effort to fight the allegations against you. Contact us for a free consultation today at 512-832-1200 anytime, night or day if you have been falsely accused of soliciting a minor online.

Arrested For Online Solicitation of a Minor? The Right Austin Criminal Lawyer Can Make a Difference
by Charles Johnson

Find us on Google+

 

News Stories Related to Online Solicitation of a Minor Arrests in Austin:


KTRK-TV

Austin ISD principal charged in Montgomery Co. solicitation of minor case
KTRK-TV
Austin ISD sent a letter home with parents explaining that the district police department was notified by the Attorney General's Office and the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office that their beloved principal had been arrested for online ...

and more »

Austin American-Statesman

Austin middle school principal charged with solicitation of minor
Austin American-Statesman
Burnet Middle School Principal David Dean was arrested Monday morning on a charge of online solicitation of a minor, a second-degree felony, according to Austin district officials. The Austin school district has placed him on administrative leave ...
Austin ISD middle school principal arrested for online solicitation of a minorKEYE TV
Burnet Middle School principal arrested for solicitation of a minorFOX 7 Austin
AISD's Burnet MS principal charged with online solicitation of minorKXAN.com
Breitbart News -KVUE.com
all 38 news articles »

MyStatesman.com

Cases of improper teacher-student relationships hit 8-year high
MyStatesman.com
At least eight Central Texas teachers were arrested in fiscal 2016 after accusations of sexual misconduct, including improper relationships with students. ... Although an improper teacher-student relationship is narrowly defined in the penal code as ...


Fauquier Now

Online sex solicitation investigation nets 4th arrest
Fauquier Now
The Fauquier County Sheriff's Office continuing investigation of online solicitation of sex with minors resulted in a fourth arrest Monday. Lead detective Candyce Shaw works online ... to Warrenton to meet a minor for sex. Austin Tyler Martin, 29, of ...
Fourth arrest in child solicitation caseFauquier Times

all 3 news articles »

KVUE.com

Six suspects arrested in online solicitation of a minor sting
KVUE.com
The sting operation targeted child predators who use the internet to solicit and then travel with the intent of committing sex crimes against a child. “Six individuals have been arrested and no longer pose a threat to the children of Texas,” said Texas ...
Suspected child predators arrested, including College Station manKBTX
College Station man among 6 arrested in sex stingBryan-College Station Eagle

all 9 news articles »

Improper Relationship Between Educator and Student

Best Austin Sex Crimes LawyerAt least once a year a case involving allegations of a sexual relationship between a teacher and student comes blaring across the metro section of the paper. Although the relationships are typically consensual, the teacher is prosecuted under a specific provision of the penal code prohibiting an Improper Relationship Between Educator & Student. It is important to note that the offense is neither limited to teachers nor limited to sexual contact; risqué text messages are enough:

  1. An employee of a public or private primary or secondary school commits an offense if:
  2. the employee engages in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with a person who is enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school at which the employee works and who is not the employee’s spouse, or
  3. with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, the person, over the Internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, intentionally:
  • communicates in a sexually explicit manner with a minor; or
  • distributes sexually explicit material to a minor, or
  • the person, over the Internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, knowingly solicits a minor to meet another person, including the actor, with the intent that the minor will engage in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with the actor or another person.

All three different acts could be prosecuted under separate statutes. For cases involving minors under 17, the educator could be prosecuted under the Aggravated Sexual Assault statute, the Indecency with a Child by Contact statute, or the Indecency with a Child by Exposure statute. For situations involving sexually explicit communications with a minor, the educator could also be prosecuted under the separate computer crime of online solicitation of a minor.

The only difference between this statute and the laws prohibiting otherwise consensual sexual contact is age. While the sexual assault statutes prohibit sexual contact for minors under 17, the student-teacher statute makes it a crime for consensual sexual contact involving students who are 17 years of age and older. Under the strict mandates of the statute, a person who is legally an adult cannot have sexual contact with their teacher or school administrator so long as he or she is enrolled in the same school. For those adults in night school with a crush on their teacher: you now have a reason they’re ignoring your advances.

Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer: The Charles Johnson Law Firm

Depending on the facts of your case and the evidence against you, we work to help you beat a false accusation or try to lessen the punishment. We understand your freedom is at stake and that a conviction of Improper Relationship Between Educator and Student may result in incarceration and the loss of your Teaching Certificate. To protect your rights and liberty, we conduct thorough investigations to prepare for trial or to minimize the consequences or sentence.

can be reached 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Call us at 512-832-1200 or toll free at 877-308-0100.
Major Credit Cards Accepted.

Related News Stories – Improper Relationship Between Educator and Student

Charged with Possession of Illegal Bath Salts? Protect Your Freedom by Hiring Austin Lawyer Charles Johnson

Illegal Bath Salts Lawyer

Anyone can find themselves facing a drug charge. It all depends on what the government decides to make illegal. In 2011 the Texas legislature placed a ban on the chemicals found in bath salts, effectively outlawing bath salts for recreational drug use. Last month the DEA outlawed the drug from being sold. Prior to the ban, certain types of these bath salts were available to buy in stores. Many of the chemicals found in bath salts are now Schedule I controlled substances, based on recently enacted Texas law. Schedule I controlled substances come with a real possibility of jail time and are generally charged as a felony – just for first offense possession.

As with any change in the law, law enforcement authorities can overstep their bounds when it comes to those who are accused of drug possession. People still aren’t sure what to do with bath salts. Unlike marijuana possession, bath salts possession is a new concept in criminal law. If you’ve been arrested for possession of bath salts in Austin or anywhere else in Texas, call Austin Lawyer Charles Johnson anytime night or day at 512-832-1200 or contact us online to discuss your case. Attorney Johnson will do everything in his power to defend you and your rights if you’ve been accused of Bath Salt possession. Your consultation is free and absolutely confidential.

What are “Bath Salts” (aka synthetic cathinones)

“Bath salts” are not for use in the bath, nor do they contain salt. While the formula of this drug changes regularly, most of the now illegal bath salts refer to commercially available products that have as part of their composition a legal stimulant called 3, 4-Methylenedioxypyrovalerone, or MDPV (sometimes another synthetic stimulant called Mephedrone and less commonly a synthetic stimulant called Methylone). These synthetic stimulants are in a class of drug known as synthetic cathinones.

Synthetic cathinones are related to the parent compound cathinone (found naturally in the plant Khat, which has cathinone producing a mild stimlative effect). Since the mid-2000s, unregulated ring-substituted cathinone derivatives have appeared in the European and American recreational drugs market. The most commonly available synthetic cathinones sold on the recreational market in the period up to 2011 appear to be 3, 4-Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV), mephedrone, and methylone. These products are usually encountered as highly pure white or brown powders. Cathinone derivatives are claimed to have effects similar to those of cocaine, amphetamine or MDMA (ecstasy), but little is known of their detailed pharmacology.

Currently illegal in Texas, they are sold mostly on the internet but can also be found in select shops locally. They’re known by a variety of names, including “Red Dove,” “Blue Silk,” “Zoom,” “Bloom,” “Cloud Nine,” “Ocean Snow,” “Lunar Wave,” “Vanilla Sky,” “Ivory Wave,” “White Lightning,” “Scarface” “Purple Wave,” “Blizzard,” “Star Dust,” “Lovey, Dovey,” “Snow Leopard,” “Aura,” and “Hurricane Charlie.” While they have become popular under the guise of selling as “bath salts”, they are sometimes sold as other products such as insect repellant, or the latest iteration of products called jewelry cleaner or IPOD screen cleaners, pump-it-up powder, IPOD cleaner, etc.

Much like the marketing of Synthetic Cannabinoids (Spice/K2) as incense, MDPV has been market as “bath salts” and just like Spice/K2 MDPV is specifically labeled “not for human consumption.”
Top Austin Criminal Lawyers

What are MDPV and Mephedrone?

As stated before, MDPV is a legal stimulant who’s chemical name is 3, 4-Methylenedioxypyrovalerone, and is the active ingredient in “Bath Salts”. A DEA report from December 2010 states that “preliminary testing indicates that the active ingredients in many brands [of bath salts] contain MDPV (3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone) and/or mephedrone.” Mephedrone, also known as 4-methylmethcathinone (4-MMC), or 4-methylephedrone, is a synthetic stimulant drug of the amphetamine and cathinone classes. Slang names include “meph,” “drone,” “MCAT,” and “meow, meow.”

Mephedrone is reportedly manufactured in China and is chemically similar to the cathinone compounds found in the khat plant of eastern Africa. It comes in the form of tablets or a powder, which users can swallow, snort or inject, producing similar effects to MDMA, amphetamines and cocaine. Because of the emergent nature of this class of substances, there has been some questioning as to what is in the composition of ‘bath salts’, though most evidence is leaning towards MDPV as being the compound of choice currently in ‘bath salts’.

In the United States, MDPV was packaged as “bath salts” but easy research from the internet showed that “bath salts” such as ‘Ivory Wave’ were being packaged as legal alternative stimulant drugs, and avoid prosecution by putting “Not For Human Consumption” on the packaging. However, some of these can barely contain themselves for what they really are, with one brand having a picture of Al Pacino’s ‘Scarface’ on its packaging.

They are sold over the internet, and on the street, in convenience stores, discount tobacco outlets, gas stations, pawnshops, tattoo parlors, and truck stops, among other locations. The various brands are sold in 50-milligram to 500-milligram packets. Prices range from $25 to $50 per 50-milligram packet.

What are will be in Generation 2 and 3 of Bath Salts?

Generation 2 of Bath Salts have been hitting the internet market already, with the DEA’s temporary ban of MDPV, Mephedrone and Methylone. Naphyrone has been found in samples of what is being labeled online as “Cosmic Blast” a “jewelry cleaner”. There are products (of substances unknown) that are on the internet labeled as “IPOD/Phone Screen Cleaner” and other various covers, as it appears that “bath salts” became too viral of a product name and drug dealers have now moved on to other, more obscure product naming schemes.

Cosmic Blast, marketed as a jewelry cleaner, is a stimulant/hallucinogen that is being marketed in the same way bath salts were. Drug sellers don’t seem to care about US drug law in that samples of Cosmic Blast that have been tested in toxicology laboratories which came up positive for not only Naphyrone, but also MDPV. Naphyrone (which became popular in the UK after their ban of Mephedrone in 2010), is also known as O-2482 and naphthylpyrovalerone, is a drug derived from pyrovalerone that acts as a triple reuptake inhibitor, producing stimulant effects and has been reported as a novel designer drug. No safety or toxicity data is available on the drug). Anecdotal reports of Naphyrone are it can stay in your body for long periods and since it is a reuptake inhibitor of Serotonin, which is implicated in body heat regulation, body temperatures can soar upwards of 107-108 degrees.

Bruce Talbot, a former police officer and expert on emergent drug trends expressed the following concerns regarding MDPV and what could likely happen now that MDPV, Mephedrone and Methylone have become illegal. He suspects that now that MDPV, Mephedrone and Methylone have finally been added to an emergency ban, they will likely “be replaced by 4′-methyl-a-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (MPPP) and 3′,4′-methylenedioxy-a-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (MDPPP).”

What has been seen with K2/Spice is the U.S. government pushing to ban certain of the synthetic cannabinoids (JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP 49,479 and CP 49,479 C8, though they are trying a global sweep of this class by banning anything that binds to the CB1 receptors), but the companies making K2/Spice came out with the same product sprayed with chemicals not covered by state or national bans.

The same pattern is possible with the chemicals in “bath salts” (despite the drug using community moving on from the term “bath salts” it has become the name of recognition for this class of syntethic drugs). The following drugs would likely replace MDPV, Mephedrone and Methylone now that these three are banned nationally. These “chemical cousins include: a-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (a-PPP) little is known about this compound, but it has been detected by laboratories in Germany as an ingredient in “ecstasy” tablets seized by law enforcement authorities; 4′-methyl-a-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (MPPP) is a stimulant drug. It is very structurally similar to a-PPP. MPPP was sold in Germany as a designer drug in the late 1990s and early 2000s, although it has never achieved the same international popularity as its better-known relations a-PPP and MDPV; and 3′,4′-methylenedioxy-a-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (MDPPP) which is a stimulant designer drug. It was sold in Germany in the late 1990s and early 2000s as an ingredient in imitation ecstasy (MDMA) pills. It shares a similar chemical structure with a-PPP and MDPV.

MDPV Timeline

MDPV was developed in the 1960s, and has been used for the treatment of chronic fatigue, but caused problems of abuse and dependence.
1969: Boehringer Ingelheim files a patent application for MDPV.
2005: MDPV appears as a recreational drug; first mention on Drugs-Forum.
2007: First seizure of MDPV as a recreational drug, by customs officials in the German state of Saxony. The drug had been shipped from China.
2008: First seizure of MDPV in the United States.
2009: MDPV made illegal in Denmark.
2010: MDPV made a controlled drug in the UK, Sweden, Germany, Australia and Finland. First reports of the widespread retail marketing of ‘bath salts’ containing MDPV in the US. The US considers both Mephedrone (July, 2010) and MDPV (December, 2010) “a drug and chemical of concern”.
2011: MDPV sale and possession are banned in the US states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington State (as of November 3, 2011), West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, with legislation being introduced in many other states. The DEA moved to temporarily ban MDPV, Mephedrone and Methylone on October 21, 2011. This ban will last 12 months with the possibility of an additional 6 month extension while the DEA deatermines whether these 3 synthetic stimulants should be permanently classified as scheduled substances.
2012: Permanent US ban is imminent on few, select chemicals. In 2012 the Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act – Synthetic Drugs, which will list MDPV and Mephedrone, but not Methylone.

The Effects of MDPV/Mephedrone (“Bath Salts”)

“Bath salts” are taken in many forms. Users may snort, shoot, eat or drink them. MDPV is a powerful stimulant that functions as a dopamine-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NDRI). It has stimulatory effects on the central nervous system and cardiovascular system. Physical symptoms include: rapid heartbeat, increase in blood pressure, vasoconstriction, sweating. Mental symptoms include: euphoria, increases in alertness & awareness, increased wakefulness and arousal, anxiety, agitation, perception of a diminished requirement for food and sleep, and intense desire to re-dose. MDPV reportedly has four times the potency of Ritalin and Concerta. MDPV is sometimes labeled online as legal cocaine or legal amphetamines.

The effects have a duration of roughly 3 to 4 hours, with after effects such as tachycardia, hypertension, and mild stimulation lasting from 6 to 8 hours. High doses have been observed to cause intense, prolonged panic attacks in stimulant-intolerant users, and there are anecdotal reports of psychosis from sleep withdrawal and addiction at higher doses or more frequent dosing intervals. It’s addiction potential is not fully known at this time. However, one of the effects of MDPV is an intense desire to redose and there have been online reports from both professionals and users that MDPV is “strongly addicting”.

New research by scientists at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) indicates that the active compounds in “bath salts” (mephedrone and methylone) bind to monoamine transporters on the surface of some neurons. This in turn leads to an increase in the brain chemical serotonin, and to a lesser extent, dopamine, suggesting a mechanism that could underlie the addictive potential of these compounds.

Are There Any Dangers Involved in Using “Bath Salts” (MDPV, Mephedrone)

Yes. Until a drug is tested, it cannot be considered safe. MDPV and its ‘chemical cousins’ have not been tested by the FDA and thus little is known as to the harm potential. Some anecdotal stories involving ‘bath salt’ usage and their potential for harm come in news stories from across the nation, local emergency room reports and data collected from the American Association of Poison Control Center.

In 2010 there were 303 calls about MDPV (bath salt) products according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS).

As of April 30, 2012 poison centers reported 1007 calls for all of 2012 (6,138 calls in 2011). This shows the trend of how popular this class of drug has become, but it also shows that since the national ban, decreased usage, in the form of poison control center calls, is evident (1,007 calls in the first 4 months of 2012 and 2,027 calls in the same time period of 2011).

Since the National ban MDPV, Mephedrone and Methylone on October 21, 2011, November 2011 saw 231 calls reported, December 2011 – 222 calls, January 2012 – 222 calls, February 2012 – 230 calls, March 2012 – 264 calls, and April 2012 saw 285 calls. This is clear evidence that the national and state bans are having an impact on the use of, and medical necessity reasons to contact emergency rooms, for the chemicals that comprise “bath salts”.

The effects of synthetic cathinones can be wide ranging and in many instances dangerous. Here is a listing of the effects:

  • Aggression
  • Agitation
  • Breathing difficulty
  • Bruxism (grinding teeth)
  • Confusion
  • Dizziness
  • Extreme anxiety sometimes progressing to violent behavior
  • Fits and delusions
  • Hallucinations
  • Headache
  • Hypertension (high blood pressure)
  • Increased alertness/awareness
  • Increased body temperature, chills, sweating
  • Insomnia
  • Kidney pain
  • Lack of appetite
  • Liver failure
  • Loss of bowel control
  • Muscle spasms
  • Muscle tenseness
  • Vasoconstriction (narrowing of the blood vessels)
  • Nausea, stomach cramps, and digestive problems
  • Nosebleeds
  • Psychotic delusions
  • Pupil dilation
  • Renal failure
  • Rhabdomyolysis (release of muscle fiber contents [myoglobin] that could lead to kidney problems)
  • Severe paranoia
  • Suicidal thoughts
  • Tachycardia (rapid heartbeat)
  • Tinnitus

How Legal/Illegal is MDPV, Mephedrone and Methylone (“Bath Salts”) Nationally?

On October 21, 2011 the DEA finalized a move to enact a temporary emergency control (ban) of three synthetic stimulants. The United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is using its emergency scheduling authority to temporarily control three synthetic stimulants (Mephedrone, 3,4 methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and Methylone). Except as authorized by law, this action will make possessing and selling these chemicals or the products that contain them illegal in the U.S. for at least one year while the DEA and the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) further study whether these chemicals should be permanently controlled. This emergency action was necessary to prevent an imminent threat to the public safety.

On March 1st, the DEA announced the ban of 5 synthetic cannabinoids (JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP 47,497 and CP 47,497 C8), however, before the ban was in place, generation 2 of synthetic cannabinoids were already being sold in convenience stores with the makers touting none of the banned substances being in their product.

In Pennsylvania (on June 23, 2011), SB 1006 was passed by the House, Senate and approved by the Governor. This bill SB 1006 bans 6 synthetic stimulants including MDPV and Mephedrone (this PA bill bans the same 6 synthetic stimulants that NJ banned on April, 28, 2011). This bill is also proposing to ban sativa and 8 synthetic cannabinoids and their analogues.

An amendment added to the PA SB 1006 also includes language barring all chemicals that are similar to the substances that are currently found in bath salts, synthetic cannabinoids and 2C (hallucinogens such as 2C-E, 2C-I, 2C-P, 2C-H and their analogues, congeners, homologues, isomers, salts and salts of analogues, congeners, homologues and isomers), and prohibits those chemical compounds from being used to create the same effect as the current bath salts, sytnthetic cannabinoids and 2C chemical structures. This addition to the law will make Pennsylvania’s the strongest such law in the nation.

As historical perspective, these drugs got on the US Government radar in December, 2010, when the DEA published a report listing MDPV as a drug of concern. On February 1, 2011 Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug Control Policy, released the following statement following recent reports indicating the emergent threat of these synthetic stimulants, stating that he was “deeply concerned,” and that “public health officials are working on this emerging issue.” These drugs have been around long before then, and very few of them are being banned 2 years after this first statement by the US Government.

When a federal ban is finally enacted on a drug, it does not mean local authorities will take action on this drug. States still need to enact legislation to ban the substances in order for state (then local) authorities to take action. Federal bans will go after larger distributors, but it will be locally determined as to whether users and smaller, local distributors (such as non-chain convenience stores and gas stations) will be sought after without a state ban.

The Facts: MDPV, Mephedrone, and other synthetic cathinones can cause serious psychiatric symptoms in people who have never exhibited such symptoms prior to usage. This can happen for some, while others will never experience these symptoms under the influence of these chemicals. However, the prevalence of people having abreactions is evident in Poison Control Center data, and in these types of anecdotal stories linked above. For those who have pre-existing psychiatric problems, ingesting these substances can further fracture and intensify these pre-existing psychiatric symptoms, which can be expressed in violent ways by some. There is no evidence of continued “zombiefication” of bath salt users after the drugs have left their system. Thus any zombie like tendencies (i.e., aggression leading to the severe mutilation of oneself or others) that could possibly exist, would only do so while under the influence, and wouldn’t persist after the effects of the drug have left a person’s system. Sorry, no Hollywood zombie apocalypse is evident with “bath salts” ingestion, only tragic consequences.

The Conclusion: “Bath Salts” are man made derivatives (i.e., synthetics) of naturally occurring stimulants, created and popularized by “armchair chemists” driven by profit potential and whose business acumen is much more developed than their chemistry abilities. The people ingesting these substances are what are known as in the gaming community as “beta testers” of products which cause such volatile reactions in some, that this “beta stress test” is obviously failing with oft-times gruesome, tragic (yet sadly “popular” and “trending”) results. But this unfortunately will not stop many from continuing down this path of using these potentially dangerous, untested, unregulated (in terms of the actual making of the drugs), synthetic drugs. Thus while the popularization, and light-heartedness of the “zombie apocalypse” is shedding a new light on the potential dangers of these class of drugs, it is quite possible that message gets lost due to the glib way it is being presented in the (social) media.

If I have been accused of selling or buying “bath salts” in Texas is there anything I can do?

First of all, you will want to immediately seek the legal advice of an experienced criminal law attorney. Only an attorney who works to keep up on current drug laws and trends can help you after an arrest. Do not let recent changes in the law make you vulnerable to being arrested for bath salts possession, use or distribution. Being arrested for any charge involving bath salts will change the course of your life immediately. Depending on the actual charge you may face misdemeanor or felony drug charges, you will face heavy fines, possible probation, house arrest and a possible jail sentence.

It is not advisable to confront these charges by yourself. Please do not hesitate to contact a Austin Bath Salts Defense Attorney to discuss your rights and how to protect them. For experience you can trust, contact the Charles Johnson Law Firm today at 512-832-1200 to discuss your case. With his many years experience handling drug crimes in Texas he will thoroughly protect your rights, your freedom as well as your reputation.



Download “Charged with Possession of Illegal Bath Salts? Protect Your Freedom by Hiring Austin Lawyer Charles Johnson” in PDF Format

News Stories Related to Illegal Bath Salts Arrests in Texas:

We can be reached 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Call us at 512-832-1200 or toll free at 877-308-0100.
Major Credit Cards Accepted.

 
 
Dallas Office - Charles Johnson Law Firm San Antonio Office - Charles Johnson Law Firm Houston Office - Charles Johnson Law Firm Austin Office - Charles Johnson Law Firm
Reach me personally now at 713-222-7577close