The DOJ tried to claim jurisdiction because he drove on a road.
In its zeal to ratchet up more sex trafficking prosecutions, the Department of Justice (DOJ) overreached—and it backfired. Now, a seeming sexual predator may escape conviction because the feds couldn’t just leave local crime to local authorities.
The DOJ tried to invoke jurisdiction because the potential predator—an adult man who tried to pay his friend’s teen daughter for sex on multiple occasions—used money, used a car that was made out of state, and drove on a road.
No dice, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit said in an October 2 decision. Allowing this would put us on the path to letting Congress usurp police power retained by the states and federalize virtually any crime.
A Slam Dunk State Case
The case involves an Arkansas convenience store owner named Muhammad Arif. He often drove a handyman who serviced his stores to and from job sites, according to the 8th Circuit, and sometimes the handyman’s 15-year-old daughter, P.W., came along. In May 2019, Arif offered to take P.W. home after dropping her father off at work. During this ride, “Arif offered P.W. $100 to perform sexual acts,” the court said in a summary of the government’s case. “She declined and began recording the conversation. Arif pressured P.W. to engage in sexual activity but she did not acquiesce. When they reached P.W.’s home, Arif gave her $20, telling her she could use the money to buy her boyfriend a gift and asking her to promise not to tell anyone about the conversation.”
This happened again about a month later. Again, P.W. declined and recorded the conversation. The girl then told her parents what had happened, and they reported Arif’s actions to local police.
Under Arkansas law, Arif’s actions constitute sex trafficking. The state includes in the crime’s definition anyone who “recruits, entices, solicits, isolates, harbors, transports, provides, maintains, or obtains a minor for commercial sexual activity.”
I have, in the past, criticized the idea that offering to pay a minor for sex—especially in cases where a person may not even know the person being solicited is underage—should be lumped into the same category as violently forcing someone into prostitution, and I maintain that criticism. We could criminalize knowingly trying to pay a minor for sex without equating it to sex trafficking. But for our purposes here, all that matters is that Arkansas does consider this sex trafficking, and Arif could have been punished as a sex trafficker under Arkansas law.
The reason Arif was not prosecuted as a sex trafficker under Arkansas law is that the feds decided to make it their case.
Federal sex trafficking laws can be important in cases where a victim is transported across state lines or victimized in multiple states or a trafficking enterprise is spread out across different states. None of that applies in Arif’s case. It should have been a clear-cut case for state, not federal, authorities.
Arkansas’ Kensett Police Department detective did originally bring state charges against Arif. With P.W.’s recordings, and Arif admitting to police that he knew she was under age 18, it seems like it could have been a pretty slam dunk case.
The Feds Take Over
But for some reason, “the federal government took over, and the state proceedings were dismissed,” notes the 8th Circuit.
Arif was charged with…
It seems the Trump DOJ has branched out in it’s inept attempt to look tough on crime. Especially if it involves anyone with a last name that isn’t Smith or Jones. Is there anything this administration can’t screw up? I guess by their definition this would make me an international trafficker, since I drive a car made in Germany , tipped my waiter $8 and asked for a favor ( two copies of the reciept ).
The Feds have been over reaching for decades and it continues to get worse.
The DOJ tried to claim jurisdiction because he drove on a road.
A road?! Was it a federal road? No distinction was made, but the USG really looks bad with egg on their face here in the state of AR.
I wish I could say it gives me hope for the 8th CCOA when it comes to the sign case @ACSOL is party to in MO, but it does not given one never knows how they will wake up and rule from day to day.