In a time of rapidly changing technology, it can often be difficult for state legislatures and courts to keep up with the various means that sexual predators use to communicate with and lure their victims. Without broad and flexible definitions, state criminal statutes and court decisions can quickly become dated and inapplicable to the current and preferred communication methods. A recent case before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin looks at how concepts such as “computerized communication systems” can be applied flexibly to allow for the continued prosecution of sexual predators.
In State of Wisconsin v. McKellips, Mr. McKellip was a high school basketball coach hired to coach the girls varsity basketball team at Athens High School. C.H. was one of the players selected for the varsity team. Mr. McKellips began his relationship with C.H. by praising her basketball skills to her mother and calling her on the phone to discuss practices, team strategy, and other basketball issues. While most of these calls were relatively normal, Mr. McKellip ended one call by stating “I love you.” Soon, Mr. McKellip began to call C.H. on her cell phone on a more regular basis. When her parents learned of this, they admonished C.H., telling her to tell Mr. McKellip to call on the home phone. When C.H. told Mr. McKellip this, he bought her a flip cell phone to use so that he could call and text her. C.H. and Mr. McKellip continued a texting and calling relationship, which eventually progressed into a sexual relationship. This continued until C.H.’s parents discovered the secret cell phone, and she admitted what had been happening.