The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction

APPENDIX BTHREAT ASSESSMENT: FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) Analysis of “Overnight” Case SummariesNDIC intelligence analysts reviewed 1,663 case summaries provided by individual U.S. Attorneyoffices to the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) between 2005 and 2009.A child pornography offense was at least one of the charges in 495 case summaries. Ofthose 495 case summaries:• 186 (38%) indicated the defendant had previously been convicted of or admittedto a prior sexual offense against a child.• 301 (61%) indicated the defendant was discovered to have child pornographyafter being caught for contact offenses; this group includes online enticementcases. Often, the defendant started chatting with the child, turning theconversation to sex, and then started using child pornography to entice the childinto to meeting him or sending him nude photos. The defendant’s ultimate goal inmost of the online enticement cases was contact offenses, not necessarily childpornography.• 145 (29%) indicated that, as a result of the particular investigation, the defendantwas initially discovered with child pornography but was found to have priorconvictions for contact offenses, admitted to contact offenses, or contact offenseswere discovered when law enforcement officers found child pornography imagesinvolving the defendant and one or more victims. Thus, 78 percent (145 of 186)of the child pornography offenders that were also known contact offenders werediscovered as such as a result of these investigations.• 49 were inconclusive regarding whether the defendant was first caught for childpornography offenses or contact offenses.• 73 explicitly stated that the defendant used child pornography to entice children(online or in real life) to pose for photos or engage in sexual activity.U.S. v. Crow164 F.3d 229 (5 th Cir. 1999)http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/164/229/488707/In 1996, a Florida law enforcement officer logged into a “preteen” chat room using the screenname “StephieFL” with a profile that revealed his assumed identity as “Stephanie, a singlefemale from Clearwater, Florida, born on January 26, 1983.” (The birth date he listed indicated a13-year-old girl.) The officer encountered the defendant, William Crow, whose profile read“seeking young slender amateur women interested in making very explicit adult videos!” In thecourse of chatting with StephieFL, Crow discussed how he paid girls $300 to “pose, masturbateand talk really nasty to him” and subsequently invited StephieFL to pose for photographs andvideos for him.“In response to StephieFL’s question on how he wanted her to pose, Crow sent StephieFL aphotograph of a prepubescent girl lying on her back spreading her labia, exposing her genitalia.”B-1