Desperately need legal advice for my situation.

[ElleMD]

Good rule of thumb; if you wouldn't do it with your grandmother, don't do it with anyone under 18.

There are 11 year olds who could pass for 18. Not many, but they are out there (my niece, for one). The problem is, if those investigating don't agree there was a reasonable basis for believing this girl was really 17, even though she told you 17 online, you have problems. That doesn't get you out of trouble entirely since you did know she was under 18. While what you did may fall under the grandmother rule above and not have violated any laws, staying out of legal trouble assumes the police come to the same conclusion. You have a ticked off father who would presumably not be so if he was under the belief you kept your hands to yourself, and an 11 year old who lies. You also admitted to drug use/possession and sharing those things with a minor.

 

[mightymoose]

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

The statute differentiates by age. Under 15 is a more serious class 3 felony, while 15 or older is, if I remember correctly, a class 5 felony.
And still there remain the lesser included offenses of contributing to delinquency, perhaps enticing, who knows what else.

 

[leslie82]

No. You?



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.



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.

MAKING OUT IS SEXUAL CONTACT!!!! He made out with an 11 year old child!!! That's illegal!! I hope you have no children because I feel really bad for them if you do.

So if you found out that a 19 year old man had made out with your 11 year old daughter you'd be cool with that?

 

[mightymoose]

Let's not overlook that the OP practically acknowledged that it was more than just kissing. He was attempting to minimize, but it was obvious.
It's unlikely he will come out of this unscathed. Time will tell.

 

[zddoodah]

MAKING OUT IS SEXUAL CONTACT!!!! He made out with an 11 year old child!!! That's illegal!

You can say it all you want and use all the capital letters and exclamation points you want, but that won't make it so. Nor are these things governed by your or my personal beliefs.

ARS 13-1401 defines the terms "oral sexual contact" and "sexual contact." "'Oral sexual contact' means oral contact with the penis, vulva or anus." "'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."

So, no, "MAKING OUT IS [MOST ASSUREDLY NOT] SEXUAL CONTACT" -- especially since the OP has expressly disclaimed any direct or indirect contact with any of the body parts mentioned. Nor is it illegal for a 19yo to make out with an 11yo (with the possible exception of the catch-all "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" statute).

I hope you have no children because I feel really bad for them if you do.

I can understand that, when you're just making stuff up, as you are, it's tempting to resort to personal attacks, but you just sound ridiculous.

So if you found out that a 19 year old man had made out with your 11 year old daughter you'd be cool with that?

What an utterly asinine question. That said, the answer is no, I wouldn't. However, my personal feelings have nothing to do with the legality of what happened.

 

[army judge]

OP has not yet returned to clarify things.

Oh my.....

 

[leslie82]

You can say it all you want and use all the capital letters and exclamation points you want, but that won't make it so. Nor are these things governed by your or my personal beliefs.

ARS 13-1401 defines the terms "oral sexual contact" and "sexual contact." "'Oral sexual contact' means oral contact with the penis, vulva or anus." "'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."

So, no, "MAKING OUT IS [MOST ASSUREDLY NOT] SEXUAL CONTACT" -- especially since the OP has expressly disclaimed any direct or indirect contact with any of the body parts mentioned. Nor is it illegal for a 19yo to make out with an 11yo (with the possible exception of the catch-all "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" statute).



I can understand that, when you're just making stuff up, as you are, it's tempting to resort to personal attacks, but you just sound ridiculous.



What an utterly asinine question. That said, the answer is no, I wouldn't. However, my personal feelings have nothing to do with the legality of what happened.

As stated the OP hasn't returned to clarify so I would bet that he's been arrested and charged.

Making out IS sexual contact. Yes it is. It most assuredly is. I'm going to call bs that there was no touching of any genitalia. He might not have directly had contact but I would bet that he touched some part of her butt, chest or any part of her while making out. Making out quite often leads into other territories. Plus 11 year old vs 19 year old - and we don't know his background...yeah. He also said he made NO attempts to find out if she was really 17 or not. Either way I would bet his ass in jail right now and he's about to be someone's bitch once they find out why he's there.

I'm not making anything up either. I have yet to make anything up. I didn't personally attack anyone either. I asked you a question.

 

[zddoodah]

I would bet that he's been arrested and charged.

LOL. I'll take that bet -- especially since multiple folks here advised him to keep quiet.

Making out IS sexual contact. Yes it is. It most assuredly is. . . . I'm not making anything up either. I have yet to make anything up.

I guess I have to admire this tenacity in face of actual laws that clearly say otherwise.

I'm going to call bs that there was no touching of any genitalia. He might not have directly had contact but I would bet that he touched some part of her butt, chest or any part of her while making out.

It'd be hard to make out without touching "any part of her," but the law requires specific body parts. As for you calling bs, that's nothing but speculation.

I didn't personally attack anyone either. I asked you a question.

Asking if I'm high and saying you feel bad for my kids isn't a personal attack? I'll be sure to remember that.

 

[army judge]

It'd be hard to make out without touching "any part of her," but the law requires specific body parts. As for you calling bs, that's nothing but speculation.

I've learned that adults say one thing and the children say another.

A male defendant in a child sexual assault case claimed under cross that his five year old nephew came on to him.

I could continue, I won't.

Many of these adults insist upon testifying against the advice of counsel, because they have a narrative they must tell.

My sister is a psychiatrist and told me these types tend to be very conflicted with their own behaviors, which leads her to believe they talk to convince others.

Just another thing I'll never understand.

 

[leslie82]

I've learned that adults say one thing and the children say another.

A male defendant in a child sexual assault case claimed under cross that his five year old nephew came on to him.

I could continue, I won't.

Many of these adults insist upon testifying against the advice of counsel, because they have a narrative they must tell.

My sister is a psychiatrist and told me these types tend to be very conflicted with their own behaviors, which leads her to believe they talk to convince others.

Just another thing I'll never understand.

There was this SSG in my previous unit who was arrested for child pornography and sexual assault of a child. The state task force had investigated him for a month and when they went into his house they found MORE porn. The case went on for probably a year or so. I PCSed shortly after he was arrested. (I barely knew him - he was our schools NCO so I only talked to him once). By the time he was convicted he had many charges of sexual assault of a minor, sodomy, etc and the child pornography charges. The victim - his EIGHT year old daughter. In the news articles I read one of them stated that in a letter he wrote from jail (I don't know to who) he said that she came onto him. She manipulated him. Something to that affect. I nearly threw up in my mouth. His lawyer tried to use his "exemplary" military record as a defense to not get such high sentencing I guess. If he did that to his daughter I bet he did it to other kids...and there appears to be a lot of child molesters and soldiers producing and disseminating child porn in the Army from what I read in the court martial listings.

Anyone who has any type of sexual contact - whether "making out" or touching in any way that results in their sexual gratification - with a child is a disgusting, vile piece of crap. Anyone. Including this guy.

 

[leslie82]

LOL. I'll take that bet -- especially since multiple folks here advised him to keep quiet.



I guess I have to admire this tenacity in face of actual laws that clearly say otherwise.



It'd be hard to make out without touching "any part of her," but the law requires specific body parts. As for you calling bs, that's nothing but speculation.



Asking if I'm high and saying you feel bad for my kids isn't a personal attack? I'll be sure to remember that.

Anyone who engages in any type of contact with a child that sexually gratifies them is a vile, disgusting piece of shit.

Just because a bunch of strangers on the internet told him to keep his mouth shut doesn't mean he did it. I saw a post where everyone told a teenager to not talk to the police or to plead guilty to something even though his dad was telling him to talk to the cops. He went with his dad over the people on that forum. So yeah...people don't always listen to advice given them. So he probably talked to the cops. He's probably in jail right now.

And time for the ignore.

 

[mightymoose]

I met up with her and we made out. That's it. I did not have any direct contact of her genitalia nor did she with me. We had our clothes on the entire time as well. This all took place in my car.

Apparently "made out" requires a definition so that we can all agree. To me this implies more than kissing (otherwise why not use the word "kissing") which seems to be supported by the statement that there was no direct touching. That statement coupled with the qualifier that clothing remained on strongly suggests indirect touching over the clothing likely took place. I suspect the detectives asked follow up questions to get more detail than was given here, but as stated I see a serious felony. The OP later tried to walk this back to "just kissing", but in my experience this is strongly indicative of deception. The reason he was not arrested on the spot was possibly because they came to his home and obtained a voluntary statement, possibly without Miranda, and did not want to complicate it. "Making out" as described by our OP strongly implies some level of illegal touching took place as there is no other reason to make the statement that he did with the words he chose.
I suspect he has either been arrested, obtained counsel who wisely told him to stop posting on here, or was turned off by the constant bickering and personal attacks.

"'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."

So, no, "MAKING OUT IS [MOST ASSUREDLY NOT] SEXUAL CONTACT" -- especially since the OP has expressly disclaimed any direct or indirect contact with any of the body parts mentioned.

Indirect touching is what seems to be important here. The OP first strongly implied it occurred before reducing it to "just kissing". There is no logical reason to make the statement he did if it was limited to kissing. It seems an attempt to minimize. However, we simply don't know exactly what "made out" means and can't conclusively determine what may apply. My experience with these interviews coupled with the initial statement have me leaning toward indirect contact occurring.

Nor is it illegal for a 19yo to make out with an 11yo (with the possible exception of the catch-all "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" statute).

It is most definitely illegal, just not necessarily a sex crime. Arizona may have other statutes regarding morals that apply.

Making out IS sexual contact. Yes it is. It most assuredly is.

Again we are using a term with no clear definition. "Making out" to one is not "making out" to the other. However I agree that the context of the initial statement implies indirect touching, and I am suspect of the later attempt to walk it back. Nobody knows what was said to the detectives and what details were given.

LOL. I'll take that bet -- especially since multiple folks here advised him to keep quiet.

Unfortunately for the OP he had already spilled his guts to two detectives in a voluntary statement before obtaining the advice to shut his big yapper.

It'd be hard to make out without touching "any part of her," but the law requires specific body parts.

Again, this begs the question why in the initial post the OP specifically stated that no direct touching of genetalia occurred and specified that clothes remained on. I read that statement as acknowledgment that indirect touching of genetalia over the clothing occurred.


Yes, it appears very clear a crime occurred, but we don't have the details to determine which one. At a minimum there is a misdemeanor for contributing to delinquency, possibly other statutes regarding morals, and at a maximum there is a class 2 felony. The people with the actual facts get to sort it out, and eventually there should be a warrant.

 

[army judge]

The tentacles are many:::
...
PD: Gilbert man had online sexual relationship with Utah girl
...
Mesa PD: Man has sex with teen, also involved with other minors
...
Statutory Rape Laws by State
...

...

...
And then there's this:
...
Arizona man accused of having sex with horse

 

[txls]

I personally knew a 10 year old child who was very tall for her age. She dressed older and with makeup, looked much older, and mostly hung out with much older teens. She was often mistaken for 16 or 17.

 

[army judge]

I personally knew a 10 year old child who was very tall for her age. She dressed older and with makeup, looked much older, and mostly hung out with much older teens. She was often mistaken for 16 or 17.

Even at age 17, she is still a minor.

Adults should never have any sexual involvement with children.

 

[leslie82]

I personally knew a 10 year old child who was very tall for her age. She dressed older and with makeup, looked much older, and mostly hung out with much older teens. She was often mistaken for 16 or 17.

Arizona's age of consent is 18. Either way this guy screwed up getting involved with her.