CF Member Jailed in California for Wanting Sex w/Teen

[The Bread Guy]

Remember, presumed innocent until proven guilty.  This, from the Gilroy Dispatch:

Police arrested a 24-year-old member of the Canadian Armed Forces after he drove his motorcycle nearly 2,000 miles from Saskatchewan to Gilroy in hopes of having sex with a 17-year-old girl, police said. The man first made contact with the girl when she was 13 years old, police said.

About 7:15 a.m. Sunday, the parents of the girl called police when Michael DeBruyn arrived at their house.

"The parents basically told him to leave," said Sgt. Wes Stanford. "When he didn't leave, they called us."

On leave from military duty, DeBruyn showed up the day before at an event at Gilroy High School and tried to contact the girl. No one was ever in any danger, however, Principal Marco Sanchez said. DeBruyn then arrived at the girl's house Sunday morning, but she was not home, Stanford said.

The two met when the girl was 13 on a social networking Web site but their contact wasn't continuous, Stanford said. The initial contact wasn't sexual in nature, he said. Only in the last few months did two begin exchanging sexually graphic text messages, police said. DeBruyn also started talking about coming to visit, Stanford said.

"She really didn't believe him," Stanford said. "Then he showed up and that changed everything. It was more than she had bargained for."

Police concluded through unspecified evidence that DeBruyn had come to Gilroy to have sex with the girl, and arrested him for contacting a minor with intent to commit a sexual offense, annoying or molesting a child younger than 18 years old, and sending or possessing obscene matter depicting minors, police said. DeBruyn was in possession of child pornography, police said.

DeBruyn was booked into the Santa Clara County Main Jail and is being held on $45,000 bail ....

More from the National Post and the Monterey Herald.

 

[Tyson Fox]

Rough, he shouldn't have tried that in the states, they are way more strict on that kind of thing. I wonder if the norm is to return him to Canada. EDIT: you'd think 2000 miles would have given him time to think about what he was getting into

 

[George Wallace]

Four years online.  Just shows that parents should really try harder at times to know what their teens are doing on line.  How often has this type of scenario been enacted across the continent in the last decade or more?

 

[George Wallace]

....... I wonder if the norm is to return him to Canada.

The norm is to try him and incarcerate him in the local he was arrested.  That would be California.

 

[mariomike]

The norm is to try him and incarcerate him in the local he was arrested.  That would be California.

Folsom Prison blues. Or, maybe San Quentin. If convicted. They have a lot of state prisons in California:
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/index.html
If convicted, perhaps he can apply for a prisoner exchange to serve his time in Canada.

I read that Conrad "Black's legal team is also actively pursuing a possible transfer to a British penitentiary where the threshold for early parole is lower than in the United States." C.B. gave up his Canadian citizenship, but under the circumstances, seems to want it back now.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c85e5aa3-9a24-4ebb-a4b6-f04d7cdc8b42

 

[Michael OLeary]

http://www.vancouversun.com/Soldier+arrested+after+sexting+California+teen/2875502/story.html

Soldier arrested after 'sexting' California teen
Ontario man based in Saskatchewan
Canwest News ServiceApril 12, 2010 4:54 PM

GILROY, Calif. — Police arrested a Canadian man on Sunday for sending "sexually graphic text messages and photos" to a 17-year-old girl he was attempting to visit outside of San Francisco.

Michael DeBruyn, 24, originally from Wallaceburg, Ont., was arrested and charged in Gilroy, Calif., after driving his motorcycle to meet the teenager, said Sgt. Wes Stanford of the Gilroy Police.

Police said DeBruyn and the unnamed teen had been conversing online for four years and exchanging graphic text messages for the last two months.

The girl's parents called police when their daughter said DeBruyn had arrived.

Police laid three charges against DeBruyn, including child pornography possession, contacting a minor with intent to commit a sexual offence and annoying a child under 18.

DeBruyn is a member of the Canadian Forces stationed in Saskatchewan. He was on leave when he was arrested.

He is being held in custody in Santa Clara County in California and will not be released on bail, said Stanford. He is to appear in court April 14.

A comment to the article does state that the article and photo may not go together.

 

[The Bread Guy]

....attached as PDF - not loads new, though:

On April 11, 2010 at about 7:15 a.m. the parents of a 17 year old juvenile called to report a suspicious subject near their home. Upon arrival, Gilroy Police Officers contacted Michael DeBruyn near the juvenile's residence. 24 year old DeBruyn is a Canadian citizen and member of the Canadian Armed Forces. A preliminary investigation determined DeBruyn has exchanged sexually graphic text messages and photos with the juvenile female for approximately the past two months, but has had online contact with the juvenile since she was approximately 13 years old.

DeBruyn is on military leave and rode his motorcycle to California for the purposes of engaging in a sexual relationship with the juvenile. DeBruyn was also found to be in possession of child pornography. After additional investigation and evidence gathering by Gilroy Police Officers and Detectives, DeBruyn was arrested for 311.1(a) PC - Sending or possession of obscene matter depicting minors, 288.3(a) PC - Contact of minor with intent to commit sexual offense, & 647.6(a) (1) PC - Annoying and / or molesting a child under 18. Gilroy Police booked DeBruyn into the Santa Clara County Jail ....

From the California Penal Code:

311.1(a) PC - Sending or possession of obscene matter depicting minors:  Every person who knowingly sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, or in this state possesses, prepares, publishes, produces, develops, duplicates, or prints any representation of information, data, or image, including, but not limited to, any film, filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video laser disc, computer hardware, computer software, computer floppy disc, data storage media, CD-ROM, or computer-generated equipment or any other computer-generated image that contains or incorporates in any manner, any film or filmstrip, with intent to distribute or to exhibit to, or to exchange with, others, or who offers to distribute, distributes, or exhibits to, or exchanges with, others, any obscene matter, knowing that the matter depicts a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or personally simulating sexual conduct, as defined in Section 311.4, shall be punished either by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by the fine and imprisonment ....

288.3(a) PC - Contact of minor with intent to commit sexual offense:  (a) Every person who contacts or communicates with a minor, or attempts to contact or communicate with a minor, who knows or reasonably should know that the person is a minor, with intent to commit an offense specified in Section 207, 209, 261, 264.1, 273a, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 289, 311.1, 311.2, 311.4 or 311.11 involving the minor shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for the term prescribed for an attempt to commit the intended offense.
  (b) As used in this section, "contacts or communicates with" shall include direct and indirect contact or communication that may be achieved personally or by use of an agent or agency, any print medium, any postal service, a common carrier or communication common carrier, any electronic communications system, or any telecommunications, wire, computer, or radio communications device or system.
  (c) A person convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) who has previously been convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for five years ....

647.6(a) (1) PC - Annoying and / or molesting a child under 18:  Every person who annoys or molests any child under 18 years of age shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment ....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Dumb sh*t, had he waited one more year he could have done it legally with her.

 

[1feral1]

Four years of contact, puts her at 13 and him at 20, and thats SICK! Why would a 20 year old man want to have any time of contact with a 13year old girl? One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Now she's 17 and he is 24, man-o-man! Throw the book at this guy! Good on the parents for contacting the Police, but perhaps this 'relationship' should have been stopped at the beginning. On that subject, why would the parents let it happen in the first place? Unless somehow she kept it a secret until recently, but 4 yrs, a child dupes her parents? Time will tell when there is more info allowed to surface. If I was a parent, I would be taking interest to see what he/she is doing on the internet unsupervised, and the computer would be in the family room, not allowed in the bedroom!

Looks like he could be in his a California paradise, but in the crowbar hotel as a 'rock spider' for a very long time.

EDITs to add his pic looks like he either has allergies or has had tears big as horse turds rolling down his cheeks. Me thinks I see a dog-tag chain? I am wondering if thats his 'mug' shot?

OWDU

N.B. - As much as I read the article in its entirety, at 0430 this am, for reasons unknown I typed out the wrong age (4 yrs ago), and I apologise for my own pre-dawn stupidity.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

And is he wearing his dogtags in his mugshot?

Loser.

 

[Strike]

Four years of contact, puts her at 9 and him at 20, and thats SICK! Why would a 20 year old man want to have any time of contact with a 9 year old girl? One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

They first made contact when she was 13 so she's 17 now.

As an aside, I noticed he's not on the DWAN.  Either someone was really quick or he's new.

 

[PMedMoe]

As an aside, I noticed he's not on the DWAN.  Either someone was really quick or he's new.

I checked that too. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

EDITs to add his pic looks like he either has allergies or has had tears big as horse turds rolling down his cheeks. Me thinks I see a dog-tag chain? I am wondering if thats his 'mug' shot?

It looks like the photo the cops shared with the news release - pg 2 of PDF attached here:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/93108/post-923548.html#msg923548
so I'd guess it is, indeed, his "guest" shot.

 

[chrisf]

Before everyone decides to dog pile on the fellow, just to play devil's advocate here for a minute, from the description of the events, he didn't actually break any Canadian laws... OWDU, if you re-read, it says initial contact occured when she was 13, she's 17 now, and it didn't become sexual in nature until recently... if the same events had occured, as described, IN CANADA, there likely would have been no charges (Or at least not the same charges)

Note: The above was based on the news article from the first post... he may well have been charged with possesion of child pornography in Canada.

 

[armyvern]

Before everyone decides to dog pile on the fellow, just to play devil's advocate here for a minute, from the description of the events, he didn't actually break any Canadian laws... OWDU, if you re-read, it says initial contact occured when she was 13, she's 17 now, and it didn't become sexual in nature until recently... if the same events had occured, as described, IN CANADA, there likely would have been no charges (Or at least not the same charges)

Note: The above was based on the news article from the first post... he may well have been charged with possesion of child pornography in Canada.

She's the minor, he's the adult.

I think he is also old enough to realize that the United States is NOT Canada --- n'est pas? In any case --- it doesn't matter because the fact is that the Criminal Code of Canada also states:

163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or

(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offense under this Act.

(2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offense punishable on summary conviction.

(3) Every person who imports, distributes, sells or possesses for the purpose of distribution or sale any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offense punishable on summary conviction.

 

[GAP]

Hmmm....she's 17 and he gets charged....does that mean there's a wack of 17 year old virgins in California?  ;D

 

[mariomike]

I was reading about the Age of Consent in Canada. Recently raised from 14 to 16.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/01/crime-bill.html

 

[PanaEng]

Regardless of whether we think he is a looser or not for driving 2k miles for some personal contact...
we could take into account that:
- regardless of state laws, some municipalities apply them differently - what's ok in most places in the US may be considered abhorrent in some towns;
- the girl may have lied to him about her age; that right there changes everything... except the charges.
- the definition of pornographic is very fluid - another cop could have seen the text or pictures and decided they were not pornographic and laid no charges.
She probably sent him a picture of herself scantly clad, saying that she was now 19 or whatever and horny for him - not expecting that he would drive 2k miles to collect.

I've had a lot of experience with cp cases and helped put away many a scumbag and the scenario that I described is not uncommon.

cheers,
Frank

 

[armyvern]

He's not being accused of rape or statuatory rape. He's been charged with posession of child pornography amongst other things. Here in Canada, that's anything under the age of 18 as per the Criminal Code. If he is found guilty of the alleged offenses, he'll be considered a sex offender; Exactly as he would also be considered in Canada had the charges been levied within our own borders followed up by a "guilty" finding.

 

[mariomike]

If he is found guilty of the alleged offenses, he'll be considered a sex offender;

California dropped the ball with Phil Garrido. He was a registered sex offender in that state. Even had an ankle bracelet.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/05/local/me-jaycee-dugard5