Court backs cops in internet sex case

An appeal of a Pullman man who was convicted of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes after internet exchanges with a fictional 13-year-old has been rejected by the state’s Division III court in Spokane. The appeal contended the state’s law pertaining to the case infringed on free speech first amendment rights.

The defendant in the case, Tarig Mohammed Aljutily, was sentenced to 90 days in jail in May of 2008 and ordered to pay $1,300 in fines and fees after being convicted in a bench trial May 19.

Aljutily has since been charged with failing to register as a sex offender and has been scheduled for a Dec. 14 trail after entering a not-guilty plea Sept. 25.

A memorandum of the appeals court decision was filed Oct. 5 in superior court. The decision, written by Judge Teresa Kulik, ruled the facts in Aljutily’s cases, under the state law, do not infringe on his free speech right. The decision analyzed the appeal in light of other decisions in free speech cases.

According to the facts listed in the appeal, the case evolved from a MySpace page identity created by a WSU police officer in May of 2006. The page was for an Amber McCabe, a fictional 13-year-old who was said to be living in Pullman. The WSU officer also created a Yahoo Instant Messenger account under the name of “emmastar 90.”

The account alleges Aljutily contacted Amber using the internet name of “nice very nice.”

The ongoing exchange between Amber and the defendant included reminders by Amber that she was 13 years old, and eventual propositions from Aljutily.

Judge Kulick noted the appeal questioned whether the state law for communications with a minor “is overboard and infringes on constitutionally protected area of free speech.”

Defense Attorney Steve Martonick in pre-trial arguments has argued internet conversations with a police officer for immoral purposes does not create any victim and is not in itself a crime. He contended the case against Aljutily infringes on free speech rights without meeting the goal of the legislature which is to protect children from internet predators.

Martonick in pre-trial motions has argued “communications between adults, although one believes the other is a minor, has at best only contingent and indirect connection to the interest of protecting actual children.”

Ruling on precedent cases cites on the appeal, Judge Kulick said the law is valid under standards of intent and execution. The evidence showed Aljutily intended that an immoral communication reach a minor and it actually did reach a minor or someone the defendant believed to be a minor. The conditions in the state law do not limit internet communications between adults, the judge pointed out.