Call Van Severen Law Office for child enticement defense: (414) 270-0202
Most people think of child enticement as a sex crime. While that is often the case, Wisconsin law reaches further than many realize. Prosecutors can bring child enticement charges based on an intent to cause bodily or mental harm to a child, or to give or sell the child a controlled substance or controlled substance analog. No matter which version of the offense prosecutors pursue, this is one of the most serious criminal charges in Wisconsin. The criminal defense attorneys at Van Severen Law Office regularly fight cases involving children, including child enticement.
Section 948.07 of the Wisconsin Statutes prohibits child enticement. As a Class D felony, the maximum penalty includes 25 years in prison, a fine of up to $100,000, or both. That 25 year sentence breaks down into a maximum of 15 years initial confinement and up to 10 years extended supervision. The severity of the penalty alone tells you everything about how Wisconsin treats this offense.
Our criminal defense attorneys have significant experience defending sex cases and cases involving children. We have achieved positive results for clients facing this charge. If you face child enticement or any other criminal charge, contact Van Severen Law Office at (414) 270-0202.
What is child enticement?
Under Wis. Stat. § 948.07, a person commits child enticement when he or she causes or attempts to cause a child who has not yet turned 18 to go into any vehicle, building, room, or secluded place with intent to commit any of the following:
Having sexual contact or sexual intercourse with the child in violation of § 948.02, § 948.085, or § 948.095;
Causing the child to engage in prostitution;
Exposing genitals, pubic area, or intimate parts to the child, or causing the child to expose genitals, pubic area, or intimate parts in violation of § 948.10;
Recording the child engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
Causing bodily or mental harm to the child;
Giving or selling the child a controlled substance or controlled substance analog in violation of ch. 961.
Child enticement does not require a sexual act. Something entirely non-sexual can qualify. Consider this example: an adult brings a child into a building with the purpose of beating that child. The beating causes bodily harm. That satisfies the elements of child enticement under subsection (5). Prosecutors do not need to prove that the defendant actually completed the intended act. The act of enticement itself is the crime, not the underlying intended misconduct. The Wisconsin Supreme Court confirmed this in State v. Hendricks, 2018 WI 15.
The statute covers both completed and attempted enticement
Unlike most crimes in Wisconsin, § 948.07 punishes completed and attempted enticement within the same statute. The statute itself uses the language “causes or attempts to cause.” That means prosecutors do not need to file a separate attempt charge under § 939.32. In fact, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held in State v. DeRango, 229 Wis. 2d 1 (Ct. App. 1999) that child enticement cannot be combined with the general attempt statute because the statute already incorporates attempt.
Each type of case calls for a different defense strategy and uses different jury instructions. One challenge the government often faces with an attempted child enticement case is that the charge can rest on inferences drawn from limited evidence. Attempted child enticement also frequently results from undercover sting operations.
Elements of completed child enticement (Wis JI-Criminal 2134)
The defendant caused the victim to go into a vehicle, building, room, or secluded place;
The defendant caused the victim to go into a vehicle, building, room, or secluded place with intent to commit one of the six prohibited acts listed above; and
The victim had not attained the age of 18 years.
Elements of attempted child enticement (Wis JI-Criminal 2134A)
The defendant attempted to cause the victim to go into a vehicle, building, room, or secluded place;
The defendant attempted to cause the victim to go into a vehicle, building, room, or secluded place with intent to commit a prohibited act; and
The victim had not attained the age of 18 years.
The word “attempt” means:
The defendant intended to cause the child to go into the location for the purpose of committing one of the prohibited acts;
The defendant did acts which demonstrate unequivocally, under all the circumstances, that he or she had formed that intent and would commit the crime except for the intervention of another person or some other extraneous factor.
But what if it’s a cop?
Law enforcement officers and agents frequently pose as children in online sting operations. The “victim” in those cases is not actually under 18. Does that mean the defendant cannot face child enticement charges? No. Wisconsin Jury Instruction Criminal 2134B addresses this exact scenario. The elements are:
The defendant attempted to cause a person to go into a vehicle, building, room, or secluded place;
The defendant attempted to cause a person to go into a vehicle, building, room, or secluded place with intent to commit a prohibited act; and
The defendant believed the person was a child.
An important nuance exists regarding the age the defendant must believe the person to be. According to Wis JI-Criminal 2134B, if the charge involves intent to have sexual contact or intercourse under § 948.02, the defendant must have believed the person was under 16 years old. That is because violations of § 948.02 require the victim to be under 16. For charges based on the other prohibited purposes in subsections (2) through (6) of § 948.07, the age threshold remains under 18 years old.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld this application of the statute in State v. Robins, 2002 WI 65. The Court held that attempted child enticement can be charged when the extraneous factor preventing a completed crime is the fact that, unknown to the defendant, the “child” is fictitious. The Court also rejected First Amendment challenges, holding that the child enticement statute regulates conduct, not speech.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals addressed the meaning of “secluded place” in State v. Pask, 2010 WI App 53. The court held that “secluded” is not a technical term. A secluded place includes any location that provides the enticer an opportunity to remove the child from public view and reduce the likelihood that the intended conduct will be detected. The place does not need to be screened, hidden, or remote. If some other aspect of the location lowers the chance of detection, that can be enough.
An alley could qualify as a secluded place under Wisconsin’s child enticement statute. “Under State v. Pask, a location does not need to be hidden or remote to qualify as secluded.”
Penalties and collateral consequences for child enticement
As we’ve already covered, a conviction for child enticement carries the full weight of a Class D felony: up to 25 years in prison, a $100,000 fine, or both. Wisconsin requires bifurcated sentencing for felonies, meaning any prison sentence splits into initial confinement (maximum 15 years) and extended supervision (maximum 10 years).
But beyond the prison sentence, a conviction triggers significant collateral consequences. Defendants convicted of child enticement involving a sexual purpose must register on the Wisconsin Sex Offender Registry under § 301.45(1g). The court may decide to impose lifetime supervision under § 939.615. A child enticement conviction also makes a defendant ineligible for the earned release program under § 302.05(3), as § 948.07 is specifically excluded from eligibility by § 973.01(3g).
Defenses to child enticement charges
Every child enticement case is different, and the best defense strategy depends entirely on the facts. Some common areas of focus in these cases include:
Challenging intent. The State must prove that the defendant intended to commit one of the six prohibited acts. If the evidence does not establish that intent beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should not convict.
Challenging the enticement itself. The State must prove that the defendant caused or attempted to cause a child to go to a vehicle, building, room, or secluded place. If the evidence does not support the claim that the defendant enticed the child to a qualifying location, the elements of the offense are not met.
Sting operation defenses. In undercover cases, defense attorneys often scrutinize whether the government agent initiated the contact, whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense, and whether law enforcement conduct crossed the line into entrapment.
Constitutional challenges. Free speech arguments have been raised in internet sting cases, though the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected that challenge in State v. Robins. Other constitutional arguments may apply depending on how evidence was obtained.
Prosecutors frequently pair child enticement with other charges
Prosecutors rarely charge child enticement alone. They often file additional charges like child sexual assault, child abuse, or use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime alongside the enticement count. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held in DeRango that charging both child enticement and child exploitation for the same act is not multiplicitous because the two statutes serve distinct purposes.
That means a defendant can face multiple serious felony counts stemming from a single incident. Building a defense in these situations requires an attorney who understands how each charge interacts with the others and who can challenge the State’s case on multiple fronts.
Contact Van Severen Law Office for child enticement defense
Prosecutors aggressively pursue cases involving children. They know the public demands it, and they allocate significant resources to these investigations. That is exactly why you need a criminal defense attorney who takes these cases just as seriously. At Van Severen Law Office, we focus 100% of our practice on criminal defense. Our attorneys have handled numerous cases involving children, sexual acts, controlled substances, and allegations of bodily or mental harm.
