My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Ordinance 1632-89
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 1632-89
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2017 11:21:34 AM
Creation date
10/26/2017 11:21:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Ordinances
Ordinance Number
1632-89
Date
10/4/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 of the offense the defendant was not in possession of any <br /> facts on the basis of which he or she should reasonably <br /> 2 have known that the person depicted was a minor. <br /> 3 C. In a prosecution under EMC 10.32.040, it is not a defense <br /> that the defendant did not know the alleged victim's age: <br /> 4 Provided, that it is a defense, which the defendant must <br /> prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that at the time <br /> 5 of the offense, the defendant reasonably believed the <br /> alleged victim to be at least eighteen years of age based <br /> 6 on declarations by the alleged victim. <br /> 7 D. In a prosecution under Sections 10.32.020, the City is not <br /> required to establish the identity of the alleged victim. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 is hereby amended to read as follows: <br /> 10 <br /> Certain Defenses Barred, Permitted <br /> 11 <br /> A. Law enforcement and prosecution agencies shall not employ <br /> 12 minors to aid in the investigation of a violation of EMC <br /> 10.32.040. This chapter does not apply to individual case <br /> 13 treatment in a recognized medical facility or individual <br /> case treatment by a psychiatrist or psychologist licensed <br /> 14 under Title 18 RCW, or to lawful conduct between spouses. <br /> 15 B. In a prosecution under EMC 10.32.020 or 10.32.030, it is <br /> not a defense that the defendant did not know the age of <br /> 16 the child depicted in the visual or printed matter; <br /> Provided, that it is a defense, which the defendant must <br /> 17 prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that at the time <br /> of the offense the defendant was not in possession of any <br /> 18 facts on the basis of which he or she should reasonably <br /> have known that the person depicted was a minor. <br /> 19 <br /> C. In a prosecution under EMC 10.32.040, it is not a defense <br /> 20 that the defendant did not know the alleged victim's age; <br /> Provided, that it is a defense, which the defendant must <br /> 21 prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that at the time <br /> of the offense, the defendant reasonably believed the <br /> 22 alleged victim to be at least eighteen years of age based <br /> on declarations of the alleged victim. <br /> 23 <br /> D. In a prosecution under EMC 10.32.020, it shall be an <br /> 24 affirmative defense that the defendant was a law <br /> enforcement officer in the process of conducting an <br /> 25 official investigation of a sex-related crime against a <br /> minor. <br /> 26 <br /> E. In a prosecution under EMC 10.32.020 or 10.32.030, the City <br /> 27 is not required to establish the identity of the alleged <br /> victim. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Section 3: Severability. <br /> 30 Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase <br /> 31 of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation be declared <br /> 32 <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.