Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

4 

PACKINGHAM v. NORTH CAROLINA 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

of  communicating  with,  stalking,  and  ultimately  abusing 
children.  An abuser can create a false profile that misrep-
resents the abuser’s age and gender.  The abuser can lure 
the  minor  into  engaging  in  sexual  conversations,  sending 
explicit photos, or even meeting in person.  And an abuser 
can  use  a  child’s  location  posts  on  the  internet  to  deter-
mine  the  pattern  of  the  child’s  day-to-day  activities—and
even the child’s location at a given moment.  Such uses of 
the  internet  are  already  well  documented,  both  in  re-
search2 and in reported decisions.3 

Because  protecting  children  from  abuse  is  a  compelling 
state interest and sex offenders can (and do) use the inter-
net  to  engage  in  such  abuse,  it  is  legitimate  and  entirely 
—————— 

2 See id., at 2–3; Wolak, Finkhor, Mitchell, & Ybarra, Online “Preda-
tors”  and  Their  Victims,  63  Am.  Psychologist  111,  112  (Feb.–Mar.
2008). 

3 For  example,  in  State  v.  Gallo,  275  Ore.  App.  868,  869,  365  P.  3d
1154,  1154–1155  (2015),  a  32-year-old  defendant  posing  as  a  15-year-
old boy used a social networking site to contact and befriend a 16-year-
old  autistic  girl.  “He  then  arranged  to  meet  the  victim,  took  her  to  a 
park,  and  sexually  abused  her.”    Ibid.,  365  P.  3d,  at  1155.    In  United 
States  v.  Steele,  664  Fed.  Appx.  260,  261  (CA3  2016),  the  defendant
“began  interacting  with  a  minor  [victim]  on  the  gay  social  networking
cell  phone  application  ‘Jack’d.’ ”    He  eventually  met  the  14-year-old 
victim  and  sexually  abused  him.    Ibid.    Sadly,  these  cases  are  not 
unique.  See,  e.g.,  Himko  v.  English,  2016  WL  7645584,  *1  (ND  Fla., 
Dec. 5, 2016) (a convicted rapist and registered sex offender “contacted 
a sixteen-year-old girl using . . . Facebook” and then exchanged explicit 
text  messages  and  photographs  with  her),  report  and recommendation
adopted, 2017 WL 54246 (Jan. 4, 2017); Roberts v. United States, 2015 
WL  7424858,  *2–*3  (SD  Ohio,  Nov.  23,  2015)  (the  defendant  “met  a
then  14-year-old  child  online  via  a  social  networking  website  called
vampirefreaks.com” and then enticed the child to his home and “coerced 
the  child  to  perform  oral  sex  on  him”),  report  and  recommendation 
adopted,  2016  WL  112647  (Jan.  8,  2016),  certificate  of  appealability
denied, No. 16–3050 (CA6 June 15, 2016); State v. Murphy, 2016–0901, 
p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/28/16), 206 So. 3d 219, 224 (a defendant “initi-
ated conversations” with his 12-year-old victim “on a social network chat
site called ‘Kik’ ” and later sent sexually graphic photographs of himself
to the victim and received sexually graphic photos from her).