## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co u rt o f A p p ea ls

F o r th e S e v e n th C ir cu it

No. 08

- 2329 U NITE D S TAT ES OF A MER ICA, Plai ntif f -A pp el l ee,

v. J AME S T. M ORRIS, Def e nda nt

- Appe l l a nt
.

A pp eal fro m the United S t ates Di stric tC our t fo r the E astern Di stric to f Wisc onsin

. No . 07–C R–313–001

—

J. P. S tadtmuel ler

, Judge

.
S UB MI TT ED N OVE MBE R 13, 2008

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 5, 2008

Bef or e P OSN ER

, R OV NER, an d E VANS, Circuit Judges . P OSN ER, Ci r cu i t J udg e . The de fen da nt p l ea de d g uilty to attem pting to t ra nspo rt a m inor (a gir l o f1 5 ) acro ss state l i ne s t o en gag e i n i l l ega l se xual c on du c t, i n vi ol at i ono f18 U .S.C. §§ 24 23 (a), (e), an d w as sente nc ed to 10 ye ar s in p r i so n . But he re serv ed the righ t t o a pp ea l the district cour t’ s refusa l to dism iss the in d ictm en t. The gro und of his app eal i s tha tthe p er s onh e tho ug htwa s a min or was2 No. 08

- 2329 neither a minor nor a law enforc em entoffi cer posi ng as one butwas in s t ead a pr i vat e c i t i zen . Hi s l awyer h as f i l ed an A nd ers br ief a sking u s to let him withd ra w from rep re sentin g the defendant because neither thatnor any other groun d o fap pe al is nonfr ivo lous. A n d ers v . Ca li forn ia, 38 6 U. S. 73 8 (1 9 6 7 ). We agree, but as th e preci se is su e pres ent ed by th e app eal h as notar i s enbef or e, we s ha l l ex pl ai n ou r dec i s i on inthi s brief opini on. In O ctob er o f2 0 0 7 the de fen da nt attem pte d to conta ct a mi n o r at th e mi n o r ’ s MyS p ac e p ag e. T h e mi n o r ’ s mo th er, M rs . R unni ng wol f, r es po nd ed t o thi s u nwe l c ome d eve l op m entby c reating h e r own M ySpace page, inwhic h s he pr et en ded t o be a 15 ye ar o l d n amed “ Kan di c e” ( no th er dau gh t er ’ s n ame)

. On Oct obe r 22, the def en dan tbeg an emai l ing “Kandi c e” an d the y b ega n c ha t t i ngo nl i ne o n almo sta dail y basi s. He asked her to have sex w ith h im, and s he ag re ed. On November 2, Mrs

. R unni ng wol fr epo rt ed hi m to the FBI

. T wo d ays l at er h e bo ug hta bus t i c ketf or “Ka ndic e” to tr avel t o m eet hi m , and mailed i t t o h e r . The FB I picke d up the ticket an d a ssum ed “K an dice ” ’ s identity an d c on t i nu ed the o nl i ne c ha t s . O n N ov ember 19 or the re ab ou ts, the Bur ea u ar re sted the de fen da nt. The c ase l aw uni formly hol ds th at th e fac t th at a defenda nt is m istake n in think i n g t h at the pe rson he is t ry ing to en t i c e is und er age is nota def en s e t o a ch ar ge ofat t empt ed illeg al sex ua l contact w ith a m inor . E.g., Un i te d Sta te s v. Cot é, 504 F. 3d 682, 68 7 a nd n . 6 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 7), an d c as es c i t ed th e r e . The r eported cas es all i nvolve l aw enf orcement off ic ers posi ng as m in ors , whereas the i ni ti al gi rl impersonat or i n thi s c as e was a pr i vat e c i t i zen . Bu twe c an no ts eeNo. 08

- 2329 3 whatdi f f er en c e thatc ou l d make

. I ti s t ru e tha tApp l i c at i on Not e 1 t o the f ede ra l s en t en c i ng gu i del i ne f or crim in al s e x u a l a b u s e o fa min o r u n d e r th e a g e o f1 6 ( U. S

. S

. G. § 2A3. 2) mys t er i ou s l y defi ne s “min or ” t o i nc lude “a n un der c ove r l aw en f or c emento f f i c er wh o re pr es en t ed t o a pa rt i c i pan ttha tthe o f f i c er h ad no tat t ai ne d the ag e o f16 yea rs , ” a nd the re i s no s i mil ar r ef er en c e t o ani mpers on at or who is not a law enforc em ent off ic er. But the Se nt enci ng Commis s i onex plaine d tha tthe p ur po s e o fthe de f i ni t i on was mere l y t o “c l ar i fy[ ] tha t‘ vi c t i m’ i nc l ud es anu nd er c ove r poli c e o f f i c er wh o r ep r es en t s t o th e p er p et r at o r o ft he offe ns e tha tthe o f f i c er was u nd er the ag e o f16 ye ar s . This c ha ng e was made t o en s ur e tha to f f ende rs w ho a re ap pr ehe nd ed in an und er c ov er ope ra tion ar e a pp ro pr iate ly pu ni s he d. ” U. S. S. G. App. C , v ol

. I I , Amend ment59 2, p . 49 (2003). I n other words, the i nt ent ionw a s to sc otc h any de fen se of im po ssibility, U nited States v. Robertson , 35 0 F

. 3d 1109 , 11 16- 19 (10 th Ci r. 20 03)

— and ri ght ly so because th e of f en der ’ s da ng er ou s ne s s i s u nr el at ed t o whe the r the de c oy was a c hi l d o r anad ul t
. S ee U n ited S ta te s v . D eC arlo , 43 4 F

. 3d 447, 457-59 (6th Ci r. 2 0 0 6 ). The logi c of the gui deli ne d e f i n i t i o n e mb r a c e s a n i mp e r s o n a t o r w h o i s n o tan o f f i c er

— and anyway the defendanti s notc om plai ni ng abou th i s s en t en c e. The pur pose of the l aw of att em pt is to nail a pers on who by hi s c on du c th as s ho wn tha th ad the at t emptn otbee n i n t e r r u p t e d h e w o u l d v e r y l i k e l y h a v e c o mp l e t e d th e c r i me th at he att em pted. As we expl ained r ecent ly in U nited States v. G l adish , 53 6 F.3d 64 6, 64 8 (7th Cir

. 20 08 ) (citatio n s o m itt ed) , “a p er s onwh o demon s t ra t es by h i s c on du c tth ath e h as the inten tion an d ca pa b ility of com m itti ng a crim e is4 No. 08

- 2329 pu ni s ha bl e e veni fh i s p l anwas thwar t ed. T he ‘ s ubs tantia l s t ep’ [ re qu i re d f or c on vi c t i on of at t empt ] t owar d c ompl et i on i s the de mons t ra t i ono fda ng er ou s ne s s , an d h as bee n usefu lly de scribe d a s ‘ som e o ve rt a c t ad ap ted to, ap pr oxim ating , an d wh i c h i n the o rd i na ry an d l i kel y c ou rs e o f things w ill result in, the c om m issi on o f the pa rticular crim e.’ Yo u ar e n otp unis he d j us tf or s ayi ngtha tyo u wanto r eve n i nt en d t o ki l l s omeon e, bec au s e mos ts uc h t al k do es n’ tl ead to act ion

. You have to do somethi ng th at m akes it r e asonabl y c l e a r th a t h a d y o u n o t b e e n i n t e r r u p t e d o r ma de a mis t ake

. . . yo u w ou ld ha ve c ompl et ed the c ri me. T ha t somethi ng ma rks you as genuin ely dangerous

— a doer and notj us t” a t alker. The re is, we gra nt, a legitim ate concer n w ith vig ilantism

— wi th p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s c o n d u c t i n g s t i ng s w ithout t he kno w led ge or a uthor iza tion of the a uthor ities. Th e v i gi l an t es ’ ai m m i gh tbe t o b lack mail an y o f f en der who m t he y d et ec tr athe r tha n t o tur n him o ve r t o the l aw en for cem en t a uthor ities fo r pr ose cution. Cf. Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Nard ello , 393 U .S. 28 6, 28 7 (1 96 9); Uni t e d St a t e s v. Frost, 13 9 F.3 d 8 56 , 857 and n. 1 (1 1th C ir. 19 98 ). O r they m ight b otch their inv estiga tion, ale rting the offe nd er in ti m e fo r him to el ud e j us t i c e. Bu ts t i ng s , i nc l ud i ngp ri vat e o ne s , mus tbe di s t i ng ui s he d f ro m e nt ra pmen t
. S t i ng s ar e s c he mes f or ge tting a pe rson wh o is p r e d ispose d to crim ina l activity to c omm i ta c ri me ata tim e or p lace i n whi c h he c anbe i mm edi at el y a pp re he nd ed; the y a re anes s en t i al t oo l ofl aw enforc em ent agains t cri m es th at have no co m plai ni ng vi c t i m. En t ra pmen tr ef er s t o the u s e o fi nd uc ement s tha t c au s e a n or mall y l aw- abi di ngp er s on to c omm i ta c ri me,No. 08

- 2329 5

an d i s a def en s e wh enthe en t ra pme nt is cond uc t ed by l aw en for cem en t officers or their ag en ts. A s we exp lain ed in Un i te d Sta te s v. Hol l i ngswort h , 27 F .3 d 1196, 1200 (7th Ci r. 1994 ) ( enban c ) , “T he de f en dan tm ust be s o s i tua t ed by re as ono fp re vi ou s t ra i ni ngo r ex per i en c e o r occup ati ono r ac qu ai nt an c es tha ti t i s l i kel y tha t i f the go ver nmen th ad no t i nd uc ed hi m t o c omm i tthe c ri me s ome c ri min al wou l d h ave do ne s o; o nl y the n do es a s t i ngo r othe r ar ra ng ed c ri me t ake a d an ge ro us pe rson out o f circu lation . A p ub lic off icial is i n a pos it iont o take bribes; a drug addictto dea l drugs ; a gun dea l er to en gag e i n i l l ega l gu n s al es . Fo r the s e a nd o the r trad itiona l targ e ts of sti ng s all tha t m ust be show n to es t abl i s h pr edi s po s i t i onan d thu s defeatthe de f en s e o f ent rapm enti s will in gness t o viol ate th e law without ex trao rd ina ry induce m en ts ; ab ility can b e pr esum ed . I t is dif ferentwhen the defendanti s noti n a pos it ionwithoutthe gov er nmen t ’ s h el p t o bec ome i nv ol ved i n i l l ega l ac t i vity

. The g o vernm ent‘ m ay notprovoke or c reate a cri m e, and th e n p un ish the cr im in a l, its cr e a tu r e .’ Casey v. U nited States , 27 6 U .S. 41 3, 42 3 (1 92 8) (B ra nd eis, J. , diss en ting).” The re is no d efe nse of p riv ate e n tr ap m en t, U nited States v . M an zella , 791 F.2d 12 63 , 126 9 (7 th Cir. 19 86 ) , b u t th at is ofn o gr eatc on s eque nc e i n re gar d t o s ex ua l p re da ti on b eca use the concer n there is w ith the sting, not en trap m en t, th o u g h th e s e a r e o f t e n a n d c o n fu s i n g l y c o n f l a t e d

. T h u s we re ad tha t“the i ne xp en sive , r el at i vel y i nv i s i bl e n atur e o f [Inte r ne t st in g operati ons ]

. . . perm it s privat e ent rapm ent t o bec ome r ampan t, wh i c h i s n otthe c as e i n of f

- l i ne s et t i ng s or with othe r crim es. O n - l i n e v i g i lan tism ag ain st pe do phile s, in f a c t, ha s t ak en on une xpe cted p ro po rtions.6 No. 08

- 2329 Tr adi t i on al en t ra pmen tr ul es do n otal l ow c on s i der atio n of

‘ pri vat e e nt ra pmen t
. ’ I nd i vi du al s t empt ed, i nd uc ed or s et up by an yon e be s i des a stat e a gen tc an no tr ai s e a n en t ra pmentde f en s e t o c ri min al c ha rg es . Hi s torica ll y thi s was n ot a problem becaus e m osti ndivi duals , even i f th ey had the m o tiva tion to entra p othe rs, did not ha ve the re sour ces to or c he s t ra t e a s ting whi l e p ro t ec t i ngthe mse l ves f ro m re t al i at i oni fc au gh t
. P ri vat e e nt ra pmen twas the re f or e a ra re o c c ur re nc e. T he I nt er ne th as c ha ng ed thi s , f or bet t er o r w or se, at lea st for the c rim es pe rp etra ted pa r tl y on-line .” Dru St eve ns on, “En t ra pmen t by Numbers , ” 1 6 U . F l a. J.L. & P u bli c Po l i cy 1 , 7 0 ( 2 0 0 5 )

. P r i v a t e s t i n g o p e r a t i o n s may bec ome ev en more c omm onn ow tha tthe re ar e o rg an i zati ons l ike “Pervert ed Jus ti ce, ” which tr ains adultvolun teers t o po s e as c hi l dr en i n c ha t ro oms an d un mas k s exua l pr eda t or s ( s ee www.p er ver t ed-j us t i c e. c om , vi s i t ed Nov. 18 , 2008 ) , an d T V s h o ws l i k e Dat el i n e NB C ’ s “T o C at ch a Pr eda t or ” ( s ee www.ms nb c . msn . c om/ i d/ 1091 260 3/, vi s i t ed Nov. 18 , 20 08) , w hich po pula riz es sexu al-p re da tion stin g s. A private s ti ng er c an f in d hi m sel f acc us ed of comm it ti ng a crim e in his attem pt to ca tch other s. The re hav e b ee n child po rno gr ap hy cases in w hich the de fen d an t arg ue d (unsu ccessfully, how ev er ) tha t he po ssessed p or nog ra phy only in or d e r t o h e l p th e p o l i c e c a t c h th e r e a l p o r n o g r a p h e r . S ee, e.g ., U n ited St at es v . O ’Ke efe, 461 F. 3d 1338 ( 11th Ci r. 20 06) ( the de f en dan tc l ai med t o po s s es s c hi l d p or no gr aph y f or use in a p er sona l crusad e a ga inst sexu al pr ed ato rs); U nited S t a t e s v . Pol izzi, 5 45 F

. S u p p . 2 d 2 70 ( E

. D. N. Y

. 2 00 8) ( th e de f en da nt claim ed that he ha d inten de d to turn his collection of child p o r n o gr ap hy ov er to the police to help childr en ). I n an unpu b lished de cision in a c a se r athe r like thisNo. 08

- 2329 7
one, the defendantargued “that hi s in ten t in s endin g the s ex ua l l y e xp l i c i tt ape t o ‘ Cathy ’ was t o el i c i ta s i mil ar t ape fro m her so he could g ive the po lice ev ide nce tha t wo uld confir m his suspicions. The ‘ pr iva te sting ope ra tion’ de fen se So lom on ten de re d r e q uire s the de fen da nt’ s rea sona b le bel ie f th at he c om m it ted th e ch arged conduc t while act in g as an agentf or l aw enf orcement authori ty. Sol om on c onc ede d h e we ntt o the p ol i c e af terh e r epr od uc ed an d mai l ed the t ape t o [ ’ Cathy ’ ]

. Th us , he c ou l d no t re as onab ly have bel i eve d wh enh e cop ied and s en tthe t ape tha th e was ac t i ngas anag en tf or the p ol i c e. ” U nited S t a tes v. Sol om on , 1992 W L 25455 , at* 2-3 (9th Ci r. 1992) (c it ati on omitt ed). Bu ti fth e la w w an t s to de t er p ri vat e s t i ngo per at i on s , r eal or p ho ny , the way t o do tha ti s “by i mpos i ngc ri min al liab ility on priv ate pa rties w ho e ncou ra ge cr i m e s (via s o l i c i t at i o n, c o n s p i r ac y , a n d c o mpl i c i ty ) , ” R i c h ar d H. M c Adams , “T he P ol i t i c al Ec on omy o fEn t ra pmen t, ” 9 6 J. Cr i m. L. & C r i mi no l o gy 107, 166 ( 2005 ), rath er th an by let ti ng an oth er gu i l t y p er s on

— th e obj ectof th e s ucc ess ful st in g

— ge t aw ay with his crim e. Just as the re is no d efe nse of pr iva te en trap m e n t, s o ther e is no ex clusiona ry rule ap plica b le to ev ide nce o b taine d im pr op er ly b y pr iva te pe r so n s. U n ited St at es v . Hall , 142 F.3d 988, 993 (7th Ci r. 19 98 ); U ni te d Sta te s v. Ja rr et t, 33 8 F

. 3d 339, 34 1- 42, 34 5 ( 4th Cir . 200 3); U nited States v. Steiger, 31 8 F .3d 1 03 9, 1045

- 46 (11thCi r. 2003). This case is pa rt i c u l ar ly re m ote from the conce rns w ith I nt er ne tvi gi l an t i s m, s i nc e the “vi gi l an t e” was a mothe r see king to pr ote ct he r da ug hter fro m a s ex ua l pr ed at o r . It migh thave beenpru den tfor her to have n ot i f i ed the FB I as8 No. 08

- 2329

soon as she le ar ne d that a 48 -ye ar -old stra ng er wa s t ry ing to c o n t ac th er d au g h t er, r ath er th ant o c o n d u c th er o wn inv estiga tion, wh ich be cau se she w as an am ate ur a t inve stigat i onm i gh thave sc ar ed of fth e d ef en dan tbef or e the re was en ou ghev i den c e t o pr os ec ut e h i m. Bu tev eni fs he was imprude nt o r precipi tat e, th at cann ot provide hi m with a def en s e. Th e mot i oni s gr an t ed an d the ap pea l di s mis s ed.

12- 5- 08