Can defendants challenge internet enticement statutes on constitutional grounds? State v. Ansari Explained

In State v. Ansari, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed multiple constitutional challenges to Utah’s Internet enticement statute, providing important guidance for practitioners handling similar cases.

Background and Facts

Both defendants were charged under Utah Code section 76-4-401 after using Internet chat rooms to contact undercover police officers posing as thirteen-year-old girls. Ansari was arrested when he arrived at an agreed meeting location, while Lagana faced similar charges for substantially identical conduct. Both defendants moved to dismiss, challenging the statute on three constitutional grounds: fatal inconsistency in terms, Commerce Clause violations, and void for vagueness.

Key Legal Issues

The defendants raised facial constitutional challenges arguing that the statute’s “not amounting to” clause created internal contradictions by requiring the state to both prove and disprove solicitation. They also claimed the statute impermissibly regulated out-of-state conduct in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause and failed to provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court rejected all challenges, applying correctness review for constitutional questions. On the inconsistency claim, the court held that the “not amounting to” clause serves to distinguish Internet enticement from other inchoate crimes rather than requiring affirmative disproof of attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation. The court found Internet enticement has distinct elements and penalties from other inchoate crimes, creating a reasonable statutory scheme for prosecuting predatory conduct at different stages.

Regarding the Commerce Clause and vagueness challenges, the court determined defendants lacked standing because they were Utah residents whose conduct occurred entirely within Utah. The court emphasized that facial challenges should be “infrequent” and that defendants cannot assert the rights of hypothetical third parties who might be differently affected by the statute.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates the difficulty of mounting successful facial constitutional challenges. Practitioners should carefully consider standing requirements before asserting the rights of hypothetical third parties. The court’s analysis of the “not amounting to” clause provides guidance for interpreting similar provisions in other Utah criminal statutes, particularly those involving inchoate crimes with overlapping elements.