Predator Vigilantes, Viral Justice, and the Legal Minefield
As we have previously covered, there is a growing trend across the United States in which private individuals or groups seek to entrap, record, and expose suspected sexual predators through “sting” operations, often posing online as underage to try and lure the suspects into meeting them in person where they then confront the suspected individuals, sometimes referred to as “pedophile hunting.” Once they meet them in person however, many record their interactions with the suspect and many have turned violent as the sting operators harass or physically attack the suspect. Recently, a 22-year-old Youtuber who goes by the name “Schlep” was kicked off the online gaming platform Roblox for engaging in such activities after he built a million-subscriber channel on YouTube by posing as underage decoys in the game’s adult “Condo” sub-communities, luring suspected predators into incriminating conversations, and arranging real-world meetups where law enforcement is waiting. Prior to being kicked off the platform, Schlep claimed that his actions led to 6 arrests, although in one case the arrest did not lead to a subsequent prosecution. There was some pushback from the larger online community after Schlep was kicked off the platform, with some applauding his actions, but the company defended its decision with one spokesperson saying, “Taking the law into your hands isn’t safe in the real world and it’s not safe online” as well as quoting police, attorneys, and academics who detailed how these vigilante groups may actually interfere with investigations or employ methods that ultimately lead to cases being thrown out. Such was the case last year in which a 67-year-old Phoenix-area man was lured by a vigilante group from New Mexico into believing he was meeting a 14-year-old boy. Ultimately the case was dismissed by prosecutors. Law enforcement officials made clear that when third parties set up meetups in similar endeavors, “there is a lot more gray area,” making it harder for law enforcement to ultimately pursue the case. Online child safety expert Jessica Chalmers succinctly summarized that “vigilante predator hunting for YouTube content is dangerous” and can create more risk, adding that “turning something as serious as child safety into entertainment also doesn’t sit right with me.”
Beyond moral implications of these vigilante groups, their actions pose serious risks for criminal prosecutions. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by government actors, of which private citizens are not ordinarily bound by its constraints. However, the “private search doctrine” erodes when that “private” party is acting in coordination with or at the direction of law enforcement, which is why vigilante groups have operated in this quasi-legal gray zone. If a prosecutor’s office or police department is aware of a sting operation in advance, provides guidance, shares intelligence, or even simply fails to discourage it, courts can find sufficient government entanglement to invoke Fourth Amendment scrutiny and possible challenges by defense attorneys. The Fifth Amendment can also be implicated if the private party is working with law enforcement and elicits a confession given a suspect’s constitutional right against self-incrimination and the failure to provide “Miranda warnings.” These confrontations with vigilante group are typically filmed and the groups often publish the content online before any charges are filed. If during the confrontation the suspect makes any statements, those statements are made without Miranda warnings and without counsel and can be potentially thrown out should a court find a sufficient nexus between the vigilante group and law enforcement and that the suspect was in custody, like an instance when a vigilante group teases out a confession with law enforcement waiting in another room or on standby. While these groups are often well-meaning and proponents argue that they are filing in a void where private platforms and law enforcement have failed to act, a person’s constitutional rights that protect them from government overreach must be adhered to, even some of those instances when private actors are involved.
Other now-common prosecutions occur when vigilante groups lure supposed sexual predators and physically attacked them, often on film. The vigilante group members routinely get prosecuted when their actions cause serious injury.
If you are being investigated or charged for your involvement in a catch-a predator type of vigilante justice matter, either as the alleged predator or the vigilante that went too far, contact a criminal defense lawyer with experienced in defending individuals in these scenarios and those accused of sexual and violent crimes.
