I am gathing some information on the use of this statute. We have has some prosecutors have some situations that come CLOSE, but are not covered. I would like to hear from you if you had had any such situations.

for instance, I have heard that there have been some instances of teachers grooming a child at theri school, then transfering to a different school and beginning a relationship that would hve been prohibited uner PC 21.12.

In addition, I have heard of some instances in whcih there have been relationships at school camps and other activities, but it is not covered unde the statute because the teacher and student were from different schools.

Finally, I have heard of instances in which two schools are co-located, and the teachers have engaged in realationships with students at the other school...

Any experiences out there? And if so, any suggestions for a fix?

thanks,
rob kepple
kepple@tdcaa.com

Can we add it to Chapter 62 while your at it? Please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
Can we add it to Chapter 62 while your at it? Please.

---

Interesting.

I've had other prosecutors tell me they want to keep the status quo, since these cases involve consensual sex among adults. From their viewpoint, registration makes it harder to convince the D to plead.

The Legislature needs to clarify who they want prosecuted under this statute. We've had two recent cases that caused us some discomfort. The first was a 44-year-old hall monitor engaging in consensual sex with an 18-year-old girl. Prosecuted. Too big a difference in age and he was clearly an "employee." The second case involved a 22-year-old student teacher involved in a consensual sex act about a week before his student teacher position expired. He was not paid, but received credit from the local university. We did not prosecute him as we believe that case law did not support his status as an "employee," even though he was exploiting the classic teacher-student power differential that the statute seems to be aimed at. Clarification on this issue would be helpful.

I suppose that this entire statute is being moderated by a huge helping of prosecutor discretion and grand jury no-bills. The folks I have talked to are looking to EXPAND the reach of it to include teachers who are not in the same school as the student, but in some supervisory/chaperone/educator-student situation. Is it possible to draw sharper age lines yet expand the situations included and not screw this thing up?

Incorporating a duty to report would help prevent the perps from being bounced from school to school. Even if some of the cases are not prosecuted, we would have a record of past misconduct to help identify the risk.

I would like to see the statute expanded to include sexually explicit communication other than via e-mail or text messages. I had a case in which the girls volleyball coach sent some semi-lewd texts to girls, but for the really dirty stuff, he talked to them over the phone. I don't think that's covered under 33.021 and it should be.

+1 to Jane's response.