Opinion ID: 877065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Plan to Put the Boy Back in the Swimming Pool with the Defendant

Text: Although it does not bear on the disposition of any issue resolved in this appeal, the plan to put the boy back in the swimming pool with the defendant shows a gross insensitivity to the feelings of the boy. Law enforcement officers, with the cooperation of the boy's parents and the boy himself, decided to put the boy back in the swimming pool with the defendant so that the defendant could be observed making overtures to the boy. The boy went to the swimming pool for the express purpose of luring the defendant into an incriminating situation. Law enforcement officers, incognito, accompanied the boy to the pool, hoping to observe the defendant's activities and therefore make a tighter case against him. The officers testified that they did not want another sexual contact to take place, but only that they wanted to observe the defendant making friendly overtures to the boy. The events, however, went another step  the disguised law officers waited until defendant actually approached the boy and engaged in sexual contact before they took any action. Although the boy was in no physical danger (one of the police officers was in the swimming pool), permitting another sexual contact to take place demonstrated a gross insensitivity to the young boy. The record does not show how this may have affected the boy, but even the potential for traumatic effects should have dissuaded the police from permitting another sexual contact. The desire of the police officers to obtain more concrete evidence of the defendant's conduct is laudable. But again subjecting the boy to possible emotional trauma by permitting another sexual contact, cannot be condoned, however laudable the objective. The plan may well have helped to chalk up another conviction, but it should not have been undertaken at the boy's expense. In concluding this dissent, I again reiterate that we have trampled on some pretty fundamental law in affirming the assault convictions. That law does not change because of the nature of the case that is before us for review.