Monmouth County Luring Defense Attorneys

Accomplished Freehold, NJ Lawyers Defending Clients Charged with Luring or Enticing in Southern NJ

You may be familiar with the word “lure” in the context of a fishing lure. Just as you might use a fishing lure to entice a fish to bite your hook, the criminal offense of luring is about tempting someone to go somewhere or do something. You can be accused of luring an adult or a child in New Jersey, though luring a child is a more serious offense. There are many complex aspects of this charge you will need to defend against, including whether you were luring, whether you had criminal intent, and in the case of a child, whether you knew it was a child. While the law does not require you to hire an attorney to help in your defense, when facing a serious charge like luring or enticing, you should take advantage of the experience that a criminal defense attorney can provide. If you’ve been accused of luring or enticing in Freehold, Middletown, Red Bank, Long Branch, Asbury Park, Manasquan, Belmar, Brick, Toms River, or elsewhere in Monmouth County and Ocean County, New Jersey, don’t face these charges alone. The complexities of luring allegations and strategies for effective defense require experienced legal guidance. Contact Chamlin, Uliano & Walsh today at 732-440-3950 to discuss your case with a criminal defense attorney who can protect your rights.

Legal Analysis of N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6: Luring or Enticing a Minor in New Jersey

N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6 is the New Jersey statute for luring and enticing a child. Luring or enticing a child is a second degree offense, and is defined as attempting, via electronic or any other means, to lure or entice a child, or someone they reasonably believe to be a child, to get into a motor vehicle or go to a structure or isolated area, or to appear or meet at any other location with the intention of committing a criminal offense against that child. It is important to note that, for the purposes of this offense, a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18.

There are several elements to prove this offense. First, the individual that was allegedly lured must be legally considered a minor, or the accused would have reasonably believed they were a child. Second, the accused sought to lure or entice the child. Third, this attempt to lure was an attempt to get the child into a car, building, truck, or structure or get them into an isolated area to get them to agree to go somewhere else. Fourth, the accused intended to commit a criminal act, other than luring, with the child.

Note that being successful in the luring attempt is not one of the elements required to prove it. This is because the mere attempt to lure, if the other elements can be proven, is the crime. The simple act of asking the question, or otherwise attempting to entice the child to get into the vehicle, go into the structure or isolated location, or to meet at another location, is the crime, even if the child says no or fails to answer at all.

Online and Offline Methods Used to Commit Luring Offenses in NJ

There are two types of luring: online and offline. Each is unique in the way that the individual may attempt to lure the alleged victim. Understanding how these types of luring work is important to understanding how an individual’s words and actions can be used to prove they were attempting to lure either a child or an adult.

Online Luring

Online luring can be done via almost any online platform. Social media, forums, chat rooms, and gaming are common platforms used for luring. The individual engaging in the luring, or defendant, often finds a victim to target and befriends them. This may look like commenting on a social media post and then moving into private chats with the victim or playing the same game as the victim and engaging in private chats with them. In some cases, the defendant knows their victim offline, and in others, they find their victim online and have never met them in person.

The defendant may move quickly into trying to lure their victim, or they may spend weeks or even months talking to their victim, lowering their defenses and making the victim feel more comfortable before making the luring attempt. These online conversations may be entirely innocent until the moment the defendant asks the victim to get in their car, enter the structure or isolated place, or otherwise meet with them.

Offline Luring

Many people are much more familiar with the premise of offline luring. This can be as simple as offering gifts, such as a piece of candy or jewelry, or making promises, such as that if the victim comes with them, they will give them something. It may also be things like asking the victim to help find a lost puppy or another child or promising a lost child that they will take them to their mother.

Offline luring does not tend to have the same lengthy buildup that online luring may sometimes have. Offline luring tends to happen rather quickly, with the defendant trying to quickly lure the child without being caught.

Criminal Intent as the Key Element in NJ Child Luring Prosecution

When reading descriptions of luring, whether online or offline, it is easy to see that someone may say something to a child that could be construed as luring without being meant to lure. For example, someone may offer to help a lost child find their mother with the full intention of doing just that. Someone may connect with a child online, learn about their abusive home life, and make a genuine offer to help them get into a safer environment.

This is why the law specifies that the individual must have criminal intent. For example, someone may see a dangerous dog in the street and a small child playing. Not wanting to scare the child but wanting to ensure the dangerous dog does not attack the child, they may promise the child a cookie if the child will come inside their home. This means they have tempted the child into their home, which is the definition of luring, but they did not lure the child because they are not intending to hurt the child. They are, in fact, intending to protect the child.

Because of this focus on intent, defendants must work with their attorney to make clear what their intention was when they allegedly lured the child.

Legal Ramifications of Minor Luring Under New Jersey Statutes

Luring a minor is classified as an indictable crime of the second degree under NJ law. As such, it comes with the possibility of five to ten years of imprisonment, fines of up to $150,000, and supervised release or parole for the rest of the convicted individual’s life. Additionally, they will be routinely monitored by legal authorities for a minimum of 15 years after release from prison and be subject to mandatory registration as a sex offender under Megan’s Law.

Megan’s Law requires New Jersey sex offenders to provide the registering agency with their name, Social Security number, race, date of birth, age, and identifying information such as height, weight, hair, and eye color. They must also provide their address of legal residence, any temporary addresses, and the date and place of their employment. This registration must continue for a minimum of 15 years, at which time the offender can request termination of sex offender registration if they have not committed an offense since their conviction or release from incarceration (whichever is later) and is not likely to pose a threat to anyone’s safety.

Failure to register under Megan’s Law is a fourth degree crime, with penalties of up to 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. Additionally, while registering under Megan’s Law is a state requirement, 18 U.S.C. § 2250 provides that state convicted offenders may be prosecuted on a federal level for failure to register or update their registration if they then enter, leave, or take up residence on an Indian reservation or engage in interstate or foreign travel. This may result in additional fines and up to 10 years in prison.

Additionally, convictions for luring cannot be merged with any other criminal conviction. This means if an individual is convicted of luring and also convicted of kidnapping, the penalties for each will be separate. That means if they are sentenced to five years for luring and 15 years for kidnapping, they will be required to serve each sentence separately, spending up to a full 20 years in prison if they are not eligible for parole or other early release.

Lesser Degree Offense of Luring an Adult in New Jersey

N.J.S.A. 2C:13-7 provides that the definition of luring an adult is the same as that of luring a child, with the primary difference being that the victim must not be a child and the accused must not have known or believed that the victim was a minor. However, luring an adult is a third degree crime rather than second degree. Because of this, the penalties are distinct from those of luring a child. Luring an adult comes with potential penalties of three to five years in prison and fines of up to $15,000. A conviction may also result in sex offender registration. Like luring a child, the attempt itself is enough to be charged. Luring an adult does not have to be successful for the accused to be charged or convicted. A conviction for luring cannot be merged with any other charges, either.

Defense Opportunities to Contest Luring Accusations

If an individual is facing luring charges, it is not a lost cause. There are defenses that can be mounted against these charges, including lack of intent, entrapment, and false accusations. The right defense will depend on the circumstances unique to an individual’s case.

Highlighting Lack of Intent

One of the elements that must be proven for a luring conviction is criminal intent. To have lured someone, the accused must have an intention of committing a crime against the alleged victim. If there was no intention of committing a crime, there is no luring. In this case, the defense is the lack of criminal intent. Proving intent can be difficult but it can be done. Evidence of a justifiable reason can help disprove criminal intent, such as the example provided earlier of offering a small child a cookie to get them into a home away from a dangerous dog. Location may also help disprove intent, if the location was a public or busy location. A criminal defense attorney may be able to review the case and assist in finding defenses for lack of intent.

Showing Entrapment

Sting operations are often used to catch individuals for these types of crimes. In these operations, a law enforcement officer will pose as a child and when the individual makes the luring attempt, they have the evidence necessary for a conviction. However, if the tactics used are not appropriate, the accused individual may be able to make a defense of entrapment. This is an affirmative defense, which means the burden will be on the accused individual and their attorney to prove that it was entrapment.

Entrapment occurs when a government official, typically a law enforcement officer, induces or makes false statements to convince the defendant to engage in luring. This inducement or false statements may include threats, harassment, coercion, fraud, or inducement with promises of receiving something of value. While these two elements are critical to proving entrapment, the final element that must be proven is that the defendant would not have been inclined to commit the crime of luring a child except for the behavior of the government official.

Entrapment can only be done by a government official. If a private citizen was the one threatening, harassing, coercing, or other behavior, an entrapment defense cannot be used. However, depending on the specifics of the threats or other behavior, the defendant may be able to make a claim of acting under duress. Therefore, it would still be imperative to share the details of these threats from a private citizen with the defendant’s defense attorney.

Challenging False Accusations

False accusations are another defense against a charge of luring or enticing in NJ. In some instances, an individual may be accused of luring a child by someone who is holding a grudge, trying to deflect attention from themselves or someone else, or to damage the accused’s reputation to try to win a custody case or other purpose. In some case, false accusations may even be made in good faith, when the individual making the accusation sincerely believes that the person they are accusing is responsible but is mistaken.

With false accusations, it is to the defendant’s benefit that the law says everyone is innocent until proven guilty. This means the prosecution must prove the accusation is legitimate. Proving an accusation is false will require investigating the evidence to find what can be used to prove the defendant’s innocence, such as a claim that the defendant was seen at a particular location when there is evidence that they were at a different location at that time.

One defense against false accusations may also be calling the accuser’s integrity into question. If it can be shown that they are not credible, or even that they have a personal reason for making such an accusation, this can help refute the accusation.

Raising Location Questionability

Other defenses that a defendant may wish to explore with their attorney include location, enticement, and others. A defense against location will point out that the law specifically indicates the accused enticed the victim into motor vehicles and other secluded locations. If the location was not an isolated or private location, it may be easier to prove there was no criminal intent, and thus, no luring. However, any location could be used in luring, particularly if the alleged victim is reluctant and the accused planned to convince them to leave a more public location for a private one once they were in the more public location. Therefore, location alone may not be a full defense.

Disputing Enticement

Defending against enticement means proving the defendant did not entice the individual. Enticement could mean promising a child a new toy if they come with the individual so the individual can kidnap the child or asking an adult for a date with the intention of assaulting them. If the defendant can prove they did not entice the alleged victim, they may avoid a conviction. Proving they did not entice the victim may mean showing that the child followed them unprompted or that the other adult was the one who asked for a date.

There may be additional defenses that can be used, depending on the specifics of the individual’s case. Speaking with an attorney who can review those circumstances can provide a better idea of which defense, or defenses, can be used.

Call our Long Branch Luring Charge Lawyers for a Strong Defense

At Chamlin, Uliano & Walsh, our criminal defense attorneys have years of practice defending clients in luring cases that we can put to work for you. We will mount an aggressive defense as part of our commitment to protecting your rights. Even if a conviction is unavoidable, our criminal lawyers may be able to negotiate with the prosecution to reduce your sentence. If you have been charged with luring a minor or an adult in Hazlet, Holmdel, Howell, Keansburg, Rumson, Oceanport, Long Branch, Manalapan, Seaside Heights, Neptune, or elsewhere in Southern New Jersey, contact our West Long Branch, NJ office at 732-440-3950 for a consultation and review your legal options.