Internet Luring Cases

[Anonymous]

Hello all,

I am wondering if any states have come up with guidelines on how to handle internet luring cases as they relate to AMBER Alert requests. I know this was discussed at one of the AMBER conferences a few years ago; however, I’m sure things have changed since then. Have any states amended their criteria to make the abduction piece more broad? Or is it left more to the initial LE response and the AMBER request is processed as usual?

Any feedback or suggestions regarding these cases would be appreciated!

[Lesia Baldwin]

Hi Jillian,

Alabama adopted the DOJ Recommended Criteria when our AMBER Alert Plan became operational in 2003.The criteria has not been amended since that time. The cases we have encountered involving internet luring have been reviewed and confirmed by LE.

Bottom line:
The criteria has not been amended.
The request is based on LE response and the AMBER Alert request is processed as usual.

[John Graham]

https://www.dps.texas.gov/IntelligenceCounterterrorism/Alerts/AmberOverview.htm#:~:text=Is%20this%20child%2017%20years,an%20attempted%20murder%20or%20murder%3F

Texas uses the term “unwilling” in the statute for ages 14 through 17 years of age. This addresses part of the lure away issue and the boyfriend/girlfriend situation.

It is effective as a whole. There are always the in between circumstances. I prefer the vagueness in the statute wording to allow some flexibility.

We use a regional network that allows us to alert specific regions too. The 2 networks compliment each other very well for us.

[Nona Best]

NC has not changed any criteria. We do have a clause b that allows me some flexibility. A lure is still treated as a runaway unless their is some endangerments of harm or death. For example we have acted when we had evidence of Sex Trafficking.

[Author]

Posts