Background
Walter Leon Conkright, then twenty-seven, exchanged messages on a dating app with a user named “Emma,” who said she was thirteen. After acknowledging that Iowa’s age of consent was sixteen, Conkright asked whether Emma was on birth control and invited her to his hotel for sex.
Emma was not a child or a police officer. The account was operated by adults affiliated with Bikers Against Predators, a civilian group that uses dating apps to identify suspected predators and report them to law enforcement. The State charged Conkright with class D felony enticing a minor under Iowa Code section 710.10(2). He conditionally pleaded guilty after the district court rejected his argument that the statute, as amended in 2023, covered only actual minors and undercover law-enforcement officers.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed. Section 710.10(2) reaches any person the defendant reasonably believes is under sixteen, including—but not limited to—a law-enforcement officer or agent posing as a minor.
The court held the 2023 addition of “including a law enforcement officer or agent posing as a minor” was illustrative, not an exclusive list. Reading the provision as Conkright proposed would exclude actual minors from a statute directed at persons reasonably believed to be under sixteen, an absurd result the legislature did not intend. The amendment clarified or expanded the statute’s reach; it did not exclude civilian decoys such as the Bikers Against Predators members posing as Emma.
Key Takeaways
- Iowa’s enticing-a-minor statute covers attempts to entice a person reasonably believed to be under sixteen, even when the purported minor is a civilian decoy.
- The statute’s reference to undercover law-enforcement officers is illustrative rather than restrictive.
- A 2023 amendment addressing law-enforcement decoys did not narrow the preexisting statutory category of protected persons.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that defendants cannot avoid liability under section 710.10 merely because an online minor persona was operated by civilians rather than police. The relevant inquiry is whether the defendant reasonably believed the person was under the statutory age and committed an overt act evidencing an intent to entice.
For statutory interpretation, the opinion also underscores that “including” ordinarily introduces examples, not an exhaustive limitation, particularly where a restrictive reading would defeat the statute’s evident purpose.