3 hours ago · 7 min read1379 words · Politics · hide · 0 comments

“Stathas pleaded guilty in 2023 to enticing a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity” (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)). He was sentenced to 180 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. As part of the arrest and investigation, the police seized Stathas’ car, cellphone, wallet, and other electronics. Per 18 U.S.C. § 2428(a)(1), the judge should have ordered (but did not) a forfeiture of “any property, real or personal, that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of such violation.” The forfeiture should include the cellphone (Stathas used it to communicate extensively with the victim), but does that include the data on the cellphone, which arguably is neither real property nor personal property? Produced by ChatGPT October 2026 After Stathas’ sentencing, the police agreed to return his car, wallet, and other electronics. If the police had gotten a forfeiture order, they wouldn’t have to return his cellphone at all, but instead they agreed to…

No comments yet. Log in to reply on the Fediverse. Comments will appear here.