FBI agent's infiltration of NAMBLA not unconstitutional
FBI agent’s infiltration of NAMBLA not unconstitutional
In U.S. v. Mayer, the Ninth Circuit rejected the claim an FBI agent’s undercover membership in the North American Many Boy/Love Association (NAMBLA) violated Mayer’s constitutional rights. The agent maintained the membership for a number of years, gradually gaining the trust of other members, learning their names and predilections. This knowledge enabled the agent to suggest to defendant a trip to Mexico where Mayer would be able to have a “special friend” provided to him. The agent sent a link to a website with such offerings, without revealing, of course, that the website was a fake created by the FBI. Mayer booked a trip, and traveled to San Diego, where he and others were arrested and charged with travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. The Court rejected Mayer’s proposed agent provocateur doctrine, under which an agent could not infiltrate a first-amendment protected organization and provoke illegal conduct, noting that any constitutional violations that might arise already had adequate remedies.
The captivating aspect of this opinion is the description of the agent’s progress in the organization, such as participating in a Christmas card program that sent holiday greetings to imprisoned pedophiles, and, ironically, serving on the privacy committee, for which he even wrote a policy statement. The agent also volunteered to host the 2005 NAMBLA conference. Mayer’s arrest ended that volunteer position, and, sadly, the conference had to be canceled. Mayer offered this example in support of his claims that the infiltration violated constitutional rights since it interfered with the organization’s activities. The Court was slightly more impressed with this argument than with others made by Mayer, but only slightly.
As a fiction writer, I sometimes feel disheartened when I read cases like this. I have a damn good imagination, but I could never have thought this up. And if I had written a story like this, it would undoubtedly be rejected as implausible.
NAMBLA “U.S. v. Mayer” “agent provocateur” “1st amendment” “4th amendment” “5th amendment”
