R. v. Alcantara, 2019 MBPC 67

CITATION: R. v. Alcantara, 2019 MBPC 67 THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen ) ) Michelle Bright and Allison Kindle Pejovic ) ) for the Crown - and – ) ) ) ) Wendell Alcantara ) ) Amanda Heslop and Mitchell Enright for the Accused ) ) ) ) Reasons for Decision ) Delivered: November 7, 2019 ROLSTON, P.J. Introduction [1] Mr. Alcantara has plead guilty to the indictable offence of luring, but has also filed an application pursuant to the Charter ofRights and Freedoms challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory one year minimum for this offence.

Counsel agree that the Courtshould first determine the fit and appropriate range of sentence, given this offender’s personal circumstances and need not examine theconstitutional issue if the Court determines that the fit and appropriate sentence is within the range set out by the mandatory minimum.On the other hand, if the Court determines that a one year sentence is grossly disproportionate for Mr.

Alcantara, the constitutionality ofthe sentencing provision is engaged, and the Court must determine if one year in jail amounts to cruel and unusual punishment for Mr.Alcantara. [2] The Crown has argued that an appropriate sentence in the case is 18 months of jail. The Defence suggests that Mr. Alcantarabe sentenced to a three year suspended sentence with a specifically regulated probation order, or in the alternative, counsel seeks asentence in the range of 90 to 120 days.

Clearly, if the Court were to accede to the Defence position, the Court would have to find theluring sentencing provisions unconstitutional. [3] The Court has determined that the fit and proper sentence for this offence based upon this offender is within the range set outby the mandatory minimum. The Court adopts the approach set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13 andendorsed by the court in R. v. Pereux, 2018 MBPC 23 at paragraph 11.

Therefore, the following decision will set out why the appropriaterange of sentences for this offender does not engage Charter analysis, and will ultimately conclude by arriving at a fit and appropriatesentence for Mr. Alcantara. Legal Principles and Contextual Factors for Sentencing in Luring Cases [4] Over the past two decades, there has been a growing recognition by both the courts and Parliament that sexual offences againstchildren cause significant harm and sentences for these types of crimes need to reflect the damage caused.

For example, as far back as2002, courts recognized that significant sentences should result from child exploitation (see R. v. D.D. (ON CA), 58OR(3d)788): [34] The overall message however, is meant to be clear. Adult sexual predators who would put the lives of innocent children at risk tosatisfy their deviant sexual needs must know that they will pay a heavy price. In cases such as this, absent exceptional circumstances, theobjectives of sentencing proclaimed by Parliament in s. 718(a), (

b) and (

c) of the Criminal Code, commonly referred to as denunciation,general and specific deterrence, and the need to separate offenders from society, must take precedence over the other recognizedobjectives of sentencing. [35] We as a society owe it to our children to protect them from the harm caused by offenders like the appellant. Our children are at onceour most valued and our most vulnerable assets. Throughout their formative years, they are manifestly incapable of defending themselves

against predators like the appellant and, as such, they make easy prey. People like the appellant know this only too well and they exploitit to achieve their selfish ends, heedless of the dire consequences that can and often do follow. [36] In this respect, while there may have been a time, years ago, when offenders like the appellant could take refuge in the fact that littlewas known about the nature or extent of the damage caused by sexual abuse, that time has long since passed. Today, that excuse nolonger holds sway. The horrific consequences of child sexual abuse are only too well known.

The court’s words apply equally to luring, an offence that essentially allows an offender to get his foot in the door in order to exploit hisvictim. Moreover, similar sentiments regarding all forms of sexual offending against children have been expressed since in courts acrossthe country (see R. v. Pereux, 2018 MBPC 23, R. v. Norton, 2016 MBCA 79, R. v. B.S., [2018] B.C.J. No. 3680, R. v. Inksetter, 2018ONCA 474, R. v. D.G.F., 2010 ONCA 27, to name a few). [5] Parliament has also expressed a growing concern for the proliferation of both sexual offences involving children and offencesinvolving internet use.

This fact was outlined in detail by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in R. v. Norton, supra. at paragraph 23 to 25: Not only has the general age of consent changed over time, the penalties for sexual offences involving children have as well. Since itsinception, the maximum penalty for the offence of sexual interference when prosecuted by indictment has been ten years’ incarceration. The maximum penalty for an offence prosecuted by

summary conviction was six months. There were no minimum penalties. In 2005,minimum penalties were enacted for the offence of sexual interference, including a 45-day minimum period of incarceration for offencesprosecuted by indictment, and 14 days for those prosecuted by

summary conviction. At the same time, Parliament increased themaximum penalty for an offence prosecuted by

summary conviction to 18 months’ incarceration. See

An Act to Amend the CriminalCode (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, SC 2005, c 32,

section 3. Finally in 2012, Parliament increased the minimum sentences for both the offences of sexual interference and sexual assault where thecomplainant is less than 16 years of age. In each instance, the minimum penalty for an offence prosecuted by indictment was increasedto one year incarceration, and for offences prosecuted by

summary conviction the minimum penalty was increased to 90 days’incarceration. See the Safe Streets and Communities Act, SC 2012, c 1, sections 11, 25. In my view, all of the above amendments reflect the intent of Parliament to widen the scope of protection for children and deter anddenounce those who sexually offend against them.

The luring provisions, which are being challenged in the present case were also amended at the same time by the Safe Streets andCommunities Act to add the current mandatory minimums. [6] As a general observation, it is worth noting that the use of social media on the internet has virtually exploded since the timethat the Ontario court expressed the noted concerns in D.D. in 2002. In 2019, virtually everyone carries a phone that is capable ofaccessing the vast number of internet applications that cater to connecting people to one another in some form or another.

Often, thechildren as opposed to the adults, are the experts in the use of these devices. Despite often being experts in internet navigation, childrenremain naïve and vulnerable to influence and predatory behaviour. Therefore, the words of Justice Moldaver (as he then was) in D.D. addperspective to his words written more recently on behalf of the Supreme Court in R. v. Morrison, 2019 SCC 15 , [2019] S.C.J.No. 15 at paragraph 153: Child Luring is a serious offence that targets one of the most vulnerable groups within Canadian society—our children.

It requires a highlevel of mens rea and involves a high degree of moral blameworthiness. The reality is that today’s technology is moving at light speed. The potential for damage to our “valued and vulnerable assets” is real.The combination of these facts logically calls for a focus on the principles of deterrence and denunciation in sentencing those who usethe internet as a tool to lure and victimize our youth. These sentiments have been echoed time and time again in courts across the country(see, for example: R. v. Legare, 2009 SCC 56, R. v. Alicandro, 2009 ONCA 133, R. v. Paradee, 2013 ABCA 41, R. v.

Jepson, [2004]O.J. 5521, R. v. Harris, 2017 ONSC 940, and R. v. Galatas, Unreported MBQB, May 1, 2019). The concern of Parliament to ensure thatthe principles of deterrence, denunciation and protection of the public are at the forefront, is reflected in the increased sentences imposedby law. Review of Caselaw [7] Counsel have submitted a number of cases as to the appropriate quantum of sentence, which must be considered in light of thechanging landscape of sentencing illustrated above.

The Court must be mindful that Parliament has determined that the minimumsentences set by law endeavour to achieve the goal of addressing the pressing concerns outlined above through deterrence anddenunciation. The Court should only interfere with Parliament’s discretion where the minimum sentence would amount to cruel andunusual punishment.

That being the case, and bearing in mind that every case is unique to its own facts, it is possible to identify asentencing range that has emerged for the charge of luring. [8] The Ontario Court of Appeal seemed to have set out a range of between 12 months and two years for luring in R. v. Jarvis, (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 3241. This range was brought into question in R. v. Woodward, 2011 ONCA 610, whenJustice Moldaver (as he then was) suggested the range could be higher given the sentencing amendments depending on the extent ofevidence as to just how pervasive luring had become.

This Court has not heard such evidence in this case. However, as stated, the Courtcannot ignore the changing landscape of sentencing created by the amendments. The Court in Pereux, supra., provided a helpful reviewof several cases of internet luring from across the country (see paragraphs 48 to 81). Judge Schille acknowledged the Ontario court’sconcerns with the purported range from Jarvis but also still seemed to endorse a range of between 12 months and two years for luring,depending upon the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the individual case.

Interestingly, the Court has also been referred toWoodward, supra, wherein, notwithstanding the Court commentary as to the appropriateness of the Jarvis range, the court found that Mr.Woodward’s sentence of 18 months for luring was appropriate. Ultimately, Judge Schille sentenced Mr. Pereux to 15 months for each ofthe instances of luring involved in that case.

[9] Counsel also filed R. v. Carter, 2019 NLCA 39, and R. v. Horeczy, [2006] M.J. No. 444 in which the respective courtsreviewed many luring cases as well. Once again, each case possessed unique aggravating and mitigating factors. In some instances, theCrown had proceeded summarily in circumstances arguably less aggravating than the present case. Once again, sentences ranged fromeight and nine months for the

summary matters to two years less a day. In Carter, the offender was sentenced to one year on each of theluring charges (although this was after the sentence was adjusted for totality), and in Horeczy, the offender received 15 months forseveral serious instances of luring (however, this decision also predates the amendments to the Criminal Code). [10] The Supreme Court declined to specifically rule on the sentence portion of the appeal in Morrison, supra. However, JusticeKarakatsanis made very pointed comments directed at sentencing in these matters.

She stated at paragraph 176 and 177, Child luring is a very serious offence. It requires the accused to subjectively believe that he or she is communicating with an underageindividual for the purpose of facilitating one of the offences enumerated in ss. 172.1(1)(a), (

b) or (c). This

section was adopted byParliament “to identify and apprehend predatory adults who, generally for illicit sexual purposes, troll the Internet to attract and enticevulnerable children and adolescents” (R. v. Levigne, 2010 SCC 25 , [2010] 2 S.C.R. 3, at para. 24). It protects potential childvictims by allowing the criminal law to intervene before the harm caused by the commission of the secondary offences actually occurs(R. v.

Alicandro, 2009 ONCA 133 , 95 O.R. (3d) 173, at para. 20 Given the gravity of this offence, there is no doubt that, in many cases, the appropriate sentence will be a term of imprisonment that fallswithin the range contemplated by s. 172.1(2)(a). For example, the Ontario Court of Appeal has determined that in most child luringcases, the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence require a sentence of institutional incarceration (R. v. Jarvis (2006), (ON CA), 211 C.C.C. (3d) 20 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 27 and 31; R. v.

Folino, (ON CA), 2005 ONCA258, 77 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 25; Alicandro, at para. 49; but see R. v. Woodward, 2011 ONCA 610 , 107 O.R. (3d) 81, at para.58). In most cases proceeding by indictment, the appropriate range will be from 12 to 24 months (Jarvis, at para. 31).

This again supports the conclusion that the range of sentence for this offence is 12 to 24 months, and illustrates the goals of Parliamentare to address the high moral culpability of this offence with a sentence marked by deterrence and denunciation. [11] Some cases filed with the Court in the present case feature sentences outside of the range described above. [12] In R. v. Hood, [2018] N.S.J. No. 41, the appeal court was reviewing a determination that the luring provisions wereunconstitutional. The offender in that case had lured and then sexually offended against two former students.

She had significant mentalhealth issues that formed her personal circumstances. Interestingly, the court found that a jail sentence of one year was not grosslydisproportionate for her, but did find that it was unconstitutional on the basis of reasonable hypotheticals. For the purpose of this stage ofthe analysis, the fact that Ms. Hood was determined to be deserving of a 15 month sentence, fits within the range set out by the case law. [13] R. v. Randall, [2018] O.J. No. 3812 involves a

summary luring conviction where the offender challenged the mandatoryminimum sentence of six months. The court was considering the application after the one year minimum indictable penalty had beenpreviously found unconstitutional in Ontario. Mr. Randall had placed a similar advertisement online as did Mr. Alcantara, which wasalso answered by a police officer. In Randall, the officer posed as a 15-year-old female. Mr. Randall’s actions were arguably worse thanMr. Alcantara, in that he sent a video of a male masturbating and engaged in discussion of bondage with his victim.

He too was arrestedduring a meet up attempt, and was found with bondage paraphernalia. The court in Randall placed significant weight on personalcircumstances of the offender (described in paragraph 29 of the decision), and concluded at paragraph 53 that: The prevention of imposing a rehabilitative sentence, in my view, harms the community more with respect to some personalcircumstances of some offenders.

The prevention of sentencing options, such as an intermittent sentence preserving employment and theability to support a family and maintain residence, the loss of immigration appeal rights, or in the case of the least egregious offender, theloss of an equivalent sentence that would be available upon an indictable election, are all examples both individually and cumulativelyfar more than minimally impairing the infringed upon right to an appropriate sentence.

Accordingly, it seems that the personal circumstances of the offender in Randall compelled the court to determine that a sentence belowthe mandatory minimum was appropriate. [14] In R. v. B.S., [2018] B.C.J.

No 3680, the court spent a significant amount of time discussing the Gladue features of the offender.In addition, the court found that the nature of the text messages that amounted to luring were “at the lower end of the spectrum”, andwithout “explicit or implicit sexual content”, but that they were persistent and lopsided so as to qualify as grooming and thereforeamounted to luring (see paragraphs 92 and 93). The court determined that the one year minimum for luring offended

section 12 of theCharter for Mr. B.S., but also reviewed case law and affirmed the range already discussed above. [15] In R. v. Koening, [2019] B.C.J. No. 731, R. v. Fawcett, [2019] B.C.J. No. 1139, and R. v. King, [2019] O.J. No. 2833, therespective courts found that the mandatory sentence should not apply. In each case, the Crown proceeded summarily and the court notedthat the offender had mental health issues based upon evidence from a clinical psychologist. In Koening, the court found that the offendernever knew the victim was 12 years old but did not exercise due diligence to determine her age.

In Fawcett, the court againacknowledged the range of sentence for this offence. In both cases, the combination of facts and personal characteristics appear to havemotivated a departure from the range normally reserved for this offence. [16] There are two conclusions that can be gleaned from the case law as to the offence of luring. Firstly, the accepted range ofsentences for luring where the Crown proceeds by indictment extends from 12 to 24 months in jail. Where the Crown proceeds bysummary conviction, the range of sentence dips to approximately eight to 24 months.

Secondly, while there are instances whereoffenders are granted sentences outside the generally accepted range, the cases are marked by something compelling about thecircumstances of the offence or the background of the offender that cause the court to depart from the range.

The Circumstances of the Case [ 17 ] On June 27, 2018 the Winnipeg Police Service were conducting “Project Hook”, which aimed to investigate various social media platforms commonly used for the exploitation of youth. An undercover officer searched a site called, “Doublelist!” using the key word, “young”. The search uncovered an advertisement posted by Mr. Alcantara from June 26, 2018. [ 18 ] Mr.

Alcantara’s post read, Any younger dude white/pinoy, like to layback and have the nips and dick sucked (tyndall ,keewatin) Just looking if theres any horny clean cut freshly showered younger dude Keewatin, tyndall maples area who liked to layback and ill play with your nips and dick….liked playing a dude nips…just be clean , trimmed freshly showered and younger the better im a biggerchub 300lbs clean disease free [ 19 ] The officer posed as 14-year-old, “Brayden Thom” and responded to the advertisement on June 27, 2018 at 12:21 p.m.

An email conversation ensued that continued until June 28, 2018 at 6:01 p.m., just shortly before Mr. Alcantara was arrested. No pictures or videos were exchanged but the conversation was premised on a sexual rendezvous, with Mr. Alcantara encouraging that they watch pornography together, “explore things”, asking about “Brayden” masturbating, encouraging “Brayden” to send photographs of himself, reassuring “Brayden” that everything is “cool”, and making the arrangements to discreetly meet.

The officer makes it very clear that “Brayden” is 14 years old and inexperienced, but open to experimentation. [ 20 ] While the relationship was too short to suggest that “grooming” in the traditional sense occurred, the tenor of the conversation is such that Mr. Alcantara takes a soothing and reassuring tone in order to coax “Brayden” along. Mr. Alcantara told the writer of the presentence report that he “doubted he was communicating with a minor and felt the person was much older” (see exhibit s-1, page 2 of 17). While this does not afford a defence to the charge without reasonable steps (see Criminal Code

section 172.1(4) ), the Court finds that objectively speaking, both the nature of the language used and the text of the conversation suggest that he did believe that “Brayden” was 14 years old, and that Mr. Alcantara was all in to pursue their rendezvous. [ 21 ] Sadly, the circumstances of the offence are much like many other similar incidents that are disclosed in a review of the case law. Defence suggested that the fact that “Brayden” answered Mr. Alcantara’s post suggests that the conversation was instigated by “Brayden” and that this was a mitigating factor. With respect, the Court disagrees.

The post targeted youth like “Brayden”, by specifically stating, “the younger the better”. The suggestion that the apparently young person then “instigated” the relationship is tantamount to blaming the victim. The Defence also suggested that the fact that the “victim” was not real is a mitigating factor. Again, with respect, the Court disagrees. At best, the fact that there is no youthful victim amounts to the lack of an aggravating factor in that the Court need not (and does not) take into account

section 718.2 (a)(ii.1) of the Criminal Code . The fact that the victim was not real is a fact that has nothing to do with Mr. Alcantara, and is a matter of sheer good luck and good police work. That being the case, it cannot be counted somehow as a mitigating factor. There is nothing about the circumstances that cause this case to be considered apart from the generally accepted range of sentences for luring. The Circumstances of Mr. Alcantara [ 22 ] Mr. Alcantara, who was born and raised in the Philippines has no prior criminal record.

His parents, who have not been advised of the charges before the court, raised Mr. Alcantara in a stable and positive, albeit strict Catholic household. Like many of his age Mr. Alcantara, 42, was raised with minor corporal punishment as a form of discipline. At the same time, his family was not overly expressive with loving emotions. Nonetheless, there was nothing in Mr. Alcantara’s upbringing disclosed to the Court that suggests that his behaviour in this case resulted from an unresolved trauma or circumstances that suggest mental illness played a role in his offending. [ 23 ] Mr.

Alcantara has contributed to society by being gainfully employed. He holds a bachelor of science degree in medical technologies. He also has welding certification. It appears that when he transitioned to Canada in 2005, he was required to find employment in a variety of fields before ultimately qualifying for work in his chosen profession. By all accounts, he has been a hard working and valuable employee wherever he has found employment. It is noteworthy, however, that some of the luring in relation to this matter clearly occurred while Mr. Alcantara was at work. [ 24 ] Mr.

Alcantara has no reported issues with addictions. [ 25 ] Due to the nature of the offence before the court, Mr. Alcantara’s sexuality was discussed in the presentence report. Mr. Alcantara identifies as being bi-sexual. According to his counsel, the first person that he disclosed this fact to was the writer of the presentence report. Given Mr. Alcantara’s strict Catholic background, this is perhaps not surprising, but is nonetheless very unfortunate. At 42 years of age, Mr. Alcantara has not felt the freedom to truly express who he is.

There is no doubt that this fact has left him without the ability to wholly live his life the way he wishes to. The Court does appreciate the connection between this unresolved inner conflict and his seeking out companionship online. However, no connection between his unresolved sexuality conflict and engaging in luring of young males for his own sexual purpose has been established in the evidence. In other words, his sexuality conflict does not, in any way explain, excuse or diminish his offending behaviour. [ 26 ] At the end of the day, Mr.

Alcantara presents as being akin to the notional “first time offender” that typically begins discussion as to starting point sentences and sentencing ranges. Principles of Sentencing [ 27 ] As has been stated, the primary focus of sentencing for luring cases is deterrence and denunciation. The Court must, however strive to achieve a sentence that is proportionate to both the circumstances of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The principle of proportionality incorporates a balancing of all of the principles of sentencing set out in

section 718 of the Criminal Code .

[28] Mr. Alcantara is a first time offender. That being the case, the Court cannot ignore that rehabilitation is an important goal of thesentencing process. The presentence report discloses that Mr. Alcantara’s level of insight into his offending requires significant progressto be made. The writer of the presentence report noted that he minimized the offence in several ways. Firstly, he expressed that he did notthink his actions were illegal, and that this was just a “casual interaction on the internet”. This demonstrates a very reckless attitudetowards potential victims. It is evident that Mr.

Alcantara has formulated no concrete plans as to how he might remedy his approach toensure that he avoids a similar situation in the future. This, combined with the fact that he does not seem to know what he was thinkingwhen he became involved in the offence and is struggling with understanding his own behaviour demonstrates that work needs to bedone with him in order to rehabilitate. [29] Despite this fact, the Court must always be mindful that restraint must be exercised.

The Court must determine the leastrestrictive sentence that will achieve the ends of justice. [30] Counsel in the present case specifically declined to submit that Mr. Alcantara’s circumstances amount to exceptionalcircumstances as defined by the Manitoba Court of Appeal (see R. v. Peters, 2015 MBCA 119 ; R v. Tran (A), 2015 MBCA 120at para 2; and R v. Racca, 2015 MBCA 121 ). Mr. Alcantara is a first time offender who, but for this present offence,was gainfully employed and appeared to be a functioning member of the community. His circumstances may be fairly described assympathetic.

That being the case, it is important to be mindful that sympathetic circumstances do not equate to exceptionalcircumstances (see R. v. Burnett, 2017 MBCA 122 at paragraph 33). [31] Mr. Alcantara has committed an offence for which his moral culpability is high. Notwithstanding his sympathetic background,there is no alternative to custody that would achieve the requisite degree of deterrence and denunciation necessary to accomplish theaims of Parliament in setting the mandatory minimum.

While the Court has no doubt that any period of jail will be difficult for Mr.Alcantara, the Court cannot say that such a consequence is grossly disproportionate based upon his actions. Should the Court consider the Constitutional Issue? [32] Given that the Court has determined that the range of sentences for luring where the Crown proceeds by indictment is between12 to 24 months, and Mr. Alcantara’s circumstances do not warrant departure from the sentencing range, the Court declines to considerMr. Alcantara’s constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence.

Appropriate Sentence [33] The Crown submits that Mr. Alcantara should be sentenced to 18 months in jail. As stated, Parliament has chosen to address thenecessity for deterrence and denunciation by requiring a mandatory minimum sentence for luring. The Crown cites several apparentlyaggravating factors to justify a higher sentence: that the offender specifically posted an advertisement seeking young people, that thereported age of “Brayden” was 14 years old, the actual arrangement of a meeting, “grooming type” behaviour and the minimization ofthe behaviour during the presentence report.

The Court acknowledges that these are aggravating factors (subject to the Court’s commentsas to the characterization of the so-called “grooming”). On the other hand, many of the cases cited by counsel involve similarinvolvement, or in some cases more aggravating circumstances, but fall at the low end of the scale.

Given that the Crown proceeded byindictment against a first time offender who lacks significant aggravating personal circumstances, the Court finds that the mandatoryminimum accounts for the aggravating factors identified. [34] While the Court is mindful of the seriousness of sexual offences against children and apparent growing concern as to the use ofcomputers to further the goals of sexual predators, the Court is still dealing with a first time offender whose life will be dramaticallyaltered going forward. Restraint is required to balance off the ultimate goal of beginning the process of rehabilitation for Mr.

Alcantara. [35] The fit and appropriate sentence in the circumstances is therefore 12 months in jail followed by 12 months of supervisedprobation. The Court will order the following conditions on the probation order in addition to the statutory conditions: • report to a probation officer within two working days of your release from custody, and thereafter when and in the manner directedby your probation officer; and • attend, participate and complete counselling as directed by your probation officer, including but not limited to sex offendercounselling. [36] Counsel have agreed that a D.N.A. order is appropriate.

Luring is a “primary designated offence” pursuant to

section 486.04 ofthe Criminal Code, and therefore, pursuant to

section 487.051, Mr. Alcantara shall submit to the authorities for the taking of a sample ofhis D.N.A. [37] Pursuant to

section 490.012 there will be an entry in the Sexual Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) for a period of20 years. [38] Lastly, pursuant to

section 161 of the Criminal Code, Mr. Alcantara is prohibited for a period of five years from: • attending any public park, public swimming area, daycare centre, school ground, playground or community centre where personsunder the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be; • seeking, obtaining, or continuing any employment whether or not that employment is remunerated, or becoming a volunteer in acapacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years; • having contact with, or communicating with, by any means, a person under the age of 16 years unless,

o you in are in the company of an adult person who is aware of your conviction and consents to Mr.

Alcantara being in the presence of their child in that adult’s presence, or o you are attending Church and are in the presence of an adult who is aware of your conviction. • using the internet as follows: o accessing any social website, including but not limited to “Doublelist!”; o using or creating any real or false identities on any social media platform, including but not limited to Doublelist, Facebook, Instagram or Snapchat, Plenty of Fish, Tinder, MeetMe, Kik, or any other social site designated to facilitate interactions including romantic interactions or interactions for erotic or sexual purposes; o accessing any chat rooms or online group forums or online communities where erotica or sexuality are discussed or pictures can be shared; o using the internet to communicate with any one purportedly under the age of 18 years; o using any electronic device that employs wiping or encryption software or uses software to automatically delete browser history, cookies or images; and o possessing or accessing any pornography in which persons depicted are or appear to be under the age of 18 years. “Original signed by:” ROLSTON, P.J.