Desperately need legal advice for my situation.

[mightymoose]

The fact that you specified not having "direct contact with genetalia" and that clothes remained on implies there was other touching taking place, more than just kissing. It seems you were trying to justify the touching by noting that clothes stayed on.
Maybe that didn't happen, but if you told the detectives what you've said here I assure you they drew the same conclusion. Who knows what the girl has told them.

Even if none of that happened, at a minimum you could still be pinched with the catch all offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. You are an adult, you knew she was under 18, and you engaged in a course of action with her that has no positive outcome for you.

 

[sharpie12345]

The fact that you specified not having "direct contact with genetalia" and that clothes remained on implies there was other touching taking place, more than just kissing. It sends you were trying to justify the touching by noting that clothes stayed on.
Maybe that didn't happen, but if you told the detectives what you've said here I assure you they drew the same conclusion. Who knows what the girl has told them.

Even if none of that happened, at a minimum you could still be pinched with the catch all offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. You are an adult, you knew she was under 18, and you engaged in a course of action with her that has no positive outcome for you.

I understand. Okay thank you for clarifying. Thank you for the advice.

 

[mightymoose]

I know that the detectives said that they would probably have an update within 5-6 months. Is that something you can agree with?

The longer it takes, the better for you. The fact that they haven't arrested you already means they didn't quite get everything they need, or didn't develop enough to support a felony. There are a number of reasons why it could take a few months.

I understand now that they have no obligation to help me with anything, but would they have lied about something like that?

Absolutely, yes. It is common practice. They want you to cooperate and explain everything in detail. You are less likely to do that if you think they are about to haul you off to jail.

 

[sharpie12345]

The longer it takes, the better for you. The fact that they haven't arrested you already means they didn't quite get everything they need, or didn't develop enough to support a felony. There are a number of reasons why it could take a few months.



Absolutely, yes. It is common practice. They want you to cooperate and explain everything in detail. You are less likely to do that if you think they are about to haul you off to jail.

Thank you for your responses. I appreciate it. They did mention that they had no reason to believe I had malicious intent, else they would have arrested me right then and there. But I will be more wary of who I talk to from this point onwards, and keep all of your advice in mind.

 

[zddoodah]

Would it hurt to have a consultation with an attorney at this point in time?

The only thing it will hurt is your wallet (unless you can find an attorney to give you a free consultation).

By the way, if, in fact, "all [you] did is kiss," that's not at all illegal, and I have no idea why others are saying otherwise. Of course, if she doesn't back you up with the "all we did is kiss" part, then you may have problems.

 

[army judge]

Thank you for your responses. I appreciate it. They did mention that they had no reason to believe I had malicious intent, else they would have arrested me right then and there. But I will be more wary of who I talk to from this point onwards, and keep all of your advice in mind.

View the 1st video and from this point forward talk to no one!

 

[mightymoose]

Umm... Were there supposed to be videos attached?

 

[sharpie12345]

Umm... We there supposed to be videos attached?

He's referring to the videos that were in his initial reply to the original post. He linked 3 YouTube videos.

 

[army judge]

The only thing it will hurt is your wallet (unless you can find an attorney to give you a free consultation).

By the way, if, in fact, "all [you] did is kiss," that's not at all illegal, and I have no idea why others are saying otherwise. Of course, if she doesn't back you up with the "all we did is kiss" part, then you may have problems.

It's been my experience that when its a "he said" vs. "she said", "he said" is often far less truthful in regards to truth vs. fiction.

Statistically, men tend to "sanitize" these incidents, which is why some men continue to joke about the crime of rape.

Males were well ahead of female child sexual abusers, but it appears females are trying to decrease the gap.

If I were the OP, a personal visit by two detectives would cause me much concern.

The male and the female version of sexual offense allegations is often as far apart as the story the fisherman tells about the whopper that got away.

 

[leslie82]

As you've described the situation, nothing illegal happened, but other people may be telling very different stories.



I disagree. Nothing the OP described was illegal, regardless of the girl's age.

You can disagree all you want but the age of consent is 18 in Arizona. Also he made out with an 11 year old. 11 or 17 that's probably sexually abusive contact. There is some crime in making out with an 11 year old when you're 19. Also if she's 17. That's sexual contact. So try again.

 

[leslie82]

In my original post I said that she told me she was 17, and that's what I had believed up until yesterday when the detectives came to my house. Sorry - I'm not sure what I am contradicting...

I used detail because I wanted to get legitimate advice from people. And so far it's been very helpful and I'm getting my head around the situation I'm in.

Also - I don't use drugs at all.

Would it hurt to have a consultation with an attorney at this point in time?

Thank you for replies, zddoodah.

You can consult with an attorney for any reason at any time. Most give free consultations. I would. But then again I don't have sexual contact with children.

 

[leslie82]

I appreciate the help, moose.
How is it illegal if all we did is kiss and that was the entire extent of it? Sorry - I'm not really following. I included that part to emphasize that we did not do any "funny business". And believe it or not, but we didn't send each other any pictures that would get us in trouble. Just selfies.

I know that the detectives said that they would probably have an update within 5-6 months. Is that something you can agree with? I understand now that they have no obligation to help me with anything, but would they have lied about something like that?

Okay - I will keep quiet. Thank you so much for your help. I really appreciate it.

Kissing and making out is still sexual CONTACT. You don't have to have sex with a minor to get in trouble. It doesn't matter what she told you - she's 11. That's the facts. You can't use the "I thought she was older" excuse it doesn't usually fly. One of my friend's her baby daddy ended up in prison for six years. One count was sexual assault of a minor. Apparently he thought she was older than she was too. That didn't matter.

 

[leslie82]

Oh and to add on to my post - my friend's ex has been in sex offender rehab for like three years. So if you want that to look forward to...

 

[zddoodah]

You can disagree all you want but the age of consent is 18 in Arizona. Also he made out with an 11 year old. 11 or 17 that's probably sexually abusive contact. There is some crime in making out with an 11 year old when you're 19. Also if she's 17. That's sexual contact. So try again.

Whether I disagree or not is irrelevant. What the law says is what matters, and no law in Arizona says that "making out" is "sexual contact," much less "sexually abusive contact."

For starters, "age of consent" is a colloquialism that has no legal meaning, which makes your constant harping on the "age of consent" being 18 a bit tiresome.

As for what the law says, ARS 13-1405(A) provides as follows: "A person commits sexual conduct with a minor by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person who is under eighteen years of age."

So...we've got "sexual intercourse," which didn't happen, and "oral sexual contact." Unless you can cite a case that says "making out" is "oral sexual contact," then the OP didn't violate this law.

ARS 13-1410(A) provides as follows: "A person commits molestation of a child by intentionally or knowingly engaging in or causing a person to engage in sexual contact, except sexual contact with the female breast, with a child who is under fifteen years of age." Under this law even "sexual contact with the female breast" is ok, so why would "making out" not be ok? Again, got a case citation that says otherwise?

While I can't say I thoroughly scoured the ARS, I saw nothing else that might be applicable. So, as you said, "try again."

 

[mightymoose]

No need to be so defensive. We are all here to help, not to fight with each other.

This matter requires some assumptions to be made. The first assumption is the reason why it was noted that when "making out" all clothes remained on. It seems to imply some type of petting, or touching over the clothes occurred. Why else would it not have been simply referred to as kissing? The other assumption is the version of events given by the girl who is likely much less cautious about the information she reveals to detectives.

To say no crime occurred is oversimplifying and seems to only consider sex crimes. There are other laws that may apply concerning conduct with minors.

As noted above 13-1410 is molestation except contact with the breast. This is a class 2 felony. This would include any sexual touching, other than the breast, even if over the clothes.

However 13-1404 defines abuse and includes contact with the breast. This is a slightly lesser class 3 felony as the touching is limited to the breast only.

At a minimum there is 13-3613, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which is a misdemeanor and a very easy case to make based on the info given.

 

[mightymoose]

You can't use the "I thought she was older" excuse it doesn't usually fly.

In order for that defense to work it would require some sort of reasonable effort to confirm the age. Simply taking her at her word will not be enough.
I too have a hard time accepting that an 11 year old is so easily mistaken as 17. Both appearance and demeanor should have alerted that something was amiss. The circumstances likely gave cause to try and verify age.

 

[army judge]

Both appearance and demeanor should have alerted that something was amiss. The circumstances likely have cause to try and verify age.

Unless one has OTHER thoughts occupying the psyche, which tend to cloud the decisions reasonable people make.

The human brain occupies the northern regions of the body, not the nether!

 

[leslie82]

Whether I disagree or not is irrelevant. What the law says is what matters, and no law in Arizona says that "making out" is "sexual contact," much less "sexually abusive contact."

For starters, "age of consent" is a colloquialism that has no legal meaning, which makes your constant harping on the "age of consent" being 18 a bit tiresome.

As for what the law says, ARS 13-1405(A) provides as follows: "A person commits sexual conduct with a minor by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person who is under eighteen years of age."

So...we've got "sexual intercourse," which didn't happen, and "oral sexual contact." Unless you can cite a case that says "making out" is "oral sexual contact," then the OP didn't violate this law.

ARS 13-1410(A) provides as follows: "A person commits molestation of a child by intentionally or knowingly engaging in or causing a person to engage in sexual contact, except sexual contact with the female breast, with a child who is under fifteen years of age." Under this law even "sexual contact with the female breast" is ok, so why would "making out" not be ok? Again, got a case citation that says otherwise?

While I can't say I thoroughly scoured the ARS, I saw nothing else that might be applicable. So, as you said, "try again."

Are you high? Age of consent has legal meaning as someone cannot legally consent to sex or sexual activities unless they are over the age of 18.

""Sexual contact" means any direct or indirect touching, fondling, or manipulating of any part of the genitals, anus, or female breast by any part of the body or by any object or causing a person to engage in such contact. Sometimes these cases are referred to as "fondling cases"." That comes from a Phoenix, AZ, lawyer's page. So tell me again how making out isn't sexual contact?

I think you can't read the statute you posted for Sexual Abuse:

13-1404. Sexual abuse; classification

A. A person commits sexual abuse by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with any person who is fifteen or more years of age without consent of that person or with any person who is under fifteen years of age if the sexual contact involves only the female breast.

B. It is not a defense to a prosecution for a violation of this section that the other person consented if the other person was fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age and the defendant was in a position of trust.

C. Sexual abuse is a class 5 felony unless the victim is under fifteen years of age in which case sexual abuse is a class 3 felony punishable pursuant to section 13-705.

I don't know where you got that there's an exception for touching the female breast. There's not an exception right here. Apparently in Arizona you might be able to get away with "I didn't know how old she is." I find this might not even work for him because you can tell the difference between an 11 year old and 17 year old. The only way he gets this defense to work is if he had made reasonable attempts to determine the victim's age, such as checking a driver's license. Doesn't sound like he did.

Now this lawyer I found did say the following:
Basically, under Arizona law, under the age of eighteen (18) you an incapable of consenting to sexual activity, so any sexual activity done with you is deemed to be unconsensual. However, this statute makes an exception and says that if the only reason the sexual contact was deemed "unconsensual" was because the victim is under age eighteen (18), but they consented in all other ways, and the defendant did not know of the age of the "victim", we will not allow a prosecution for Sexual Abuse.


Solid burn...

 

[zddoodah]

Are you high?

No. You?

Age of consent has legal meaning as someone cannot legally consent to sex or sexual activities unless they are over the age of 18.

I understand the colloquial concept. My statement that the term has no legal meaning simply indicates that you'll not find the term in any statute.

I don't know where you got that there's an exception for touching the female breast.

Read section 13-1410. Section 13-1404 is inapposite given that the "victim" in this case isn't 15 or older.

The bottom line is that the OP has not indicated that any sort of sexual contact occurred. My prior comments expressly noted that the girl might tell a very different story. However, based on the facts given, nothing illegal occurred.

 

[army judge]

I sure hope the OP returns and clears up a few things.

I also wonder if he was recently served an arrest warrant and is languishing in one of those infamous "cross bar Hiltons"?