Creepy Becomes Criminal with the Use of Facebook

The oddly named criminal case Commonwealth v. Person, decided by the Superior Court on October 1 provides some insight into the infrequently prosecuted crime of “Interference with the Custody of Children.” 18 Pa.C.S. 2904. It also provides a warning to parents who don’t manage the Facebook access of their teenage children.

In June 2021 then fifty-year-old Greg Person reached out to an unrelated 13 year old girl with an invitation. If she would turn over her worn undergarments to him for his entertainment he would arrange for her to get some cash and vaping products. The deal was made and the defendant picked up the child and took her to a place where he purchased and gave her the cigs. This “transaction” involved picking her up and driving her to the store and back. Elapsed time: 22 minutes door to door.

When the 13 year old’s mother found the vape pen, the story unfolded and the police were contacted. They arrested our Person of interest and charged him with corruption of a minor and interference with custody of a child. He was convicted on both counts after a trial in Clinton County and appealed.

The corruption charge is a first degree misdemeanor. The operative part of the statute in this case is a segment forbidding an adult from any act which corrupts or tends to corrupt the morals of any minor less than 18 years of age.

 Although Appellant claims that the victim understood that his request for her pantyhose was a “joke,” both the trial and Superior Court held “an ordinary person would understand that a relationship with obvious sexual overtones between a middle-aged man and a thirteen-year-old girl constitutes conduct that an ordinary person would understand to be offensive to community standards of decency, propriety and morality.”

A bit more concerning is the interference with custody of a child charge. This is a crime which ranges from a misdemeanor to a second degree felony.

That statute provides that a “person commits an offense if he  knowingly or recklessly takes or entices any child under the age of 18 years from the custody of its parent, guardian or other lawful custodian, when he has no privilege to do so.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2904(a). There seems no question that the defendant took the child without the knowledge or permission of the parent/ legal custodian and thus had no privilege to do so.

While it seems no immediate harm of any kind was inflicted during the 22 minute transaction, one wonders how anyone charged with this would term it a “joke.” The basis for the arrangement, is by any definition “creepy.” But it seems that the corruption charge was the right one and the “interference” charge was melded in precisely because the conduct was creepy. On the other hand, if I see my neighbor’s child walking home from school and offer the child a ride home without first seeking the parent’s permission, am I criminally “interfering” with my neighbor’s custodial rights? As the discussion in the body of the appellate decision notes, a part of this crime is actual interference with custodial rights. It would seem that while Mr. Person’s proposed transaction was “corrupting” the actual car ride to the tobacco store does not really rise to criminal interference.

The convictions were upheld. A cross appeal by the Commonwealth claimed the trial court erred in dismissing a charge of “Unlawful Contact with a Minor” (18 Pa.C.S. 6318). This is a statute which governs adults contacting children for purposes of sharing sexually explicit material. Here the Superior Court affirmed the trial court because no such material was part of this otherwise creepy exchange.

Com. v. Person, 2024 Pa Super. 229 (10/1/2024)