|For Immediate Release
Case # 14NF2087
May 8, 2014
|Susan Kang Schroeder
Chief of Staff
Cell: 714-292-2718Farrah Emami
MAN CHARGED WITH PIMPING AND PANDERING WOMAN HE MET THROUGH FACEBOOK
SANTA ANA – A man is scheduled to be arraigned today for pimping and pandering a woman he reconnected through Facebook. Javious Demetrius Fogle, 22, Oceanside, was charged today with one felony count each of pimping and pandering. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of six years in state prison. The People will request he be held on $100,000 bail at his arraignment and must prove the money is from a legal and legitimate source before posting bond. He is scheduled to be arraigned today in Department CJ-1, Central Jail, Santa Ana. The time is to be determined.
Circumstances of the Case
Fogle is accused of being a pimp/modern-day slave owner who exploits women and/or children for financial gain. The victims are often required to turn over payment they receive for sex acts from sex purchasers to their pimp.
Fogle is accused of having a past relationship with Jane Doe and communicating with her on Facebook after locating her profile. The defendant is accused of recruiting the victim to work for him by telling her he would be able to pay off debts and make a great deal of money together. He is accused of arranging to meet with Jane Doe in person and driving together to Orange County for the purpose of engaging the victim in commercial sex.
The Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force (OCHTTF) investigated this case with assistance from the Anaheim Police Department and California Highway Patrol and arrested the defendant May 6, 2014, at an Anaheim motel.
Members of the OCHTTF and the Orange County District Attorney’s Office work proactively to protect minors from falling victim to commercial sexual exploitation. With the rise in popularity of social media and ease of meeting people on the Internet, many pimps and human traffickers utilize a variety of social media to locate potential victims.
Deputy District Attorney Bradley Schoenleben of the HEAT Unit is prosecuting this case.
Proposition 35 and HEAT
In November 2012, California’s anti-human trafficking Proposition 35 (Prop 35) was enacted in California with 81 percent of the vote, and over 82 percent of the vote in Orange County, to increase the penalty for human trafficking, particularly in cases involving the trafficking of a minor by force.
The Orange County District Attorney’s Human Exploitation And Trafficking (HEAT) Unit targets perpetrators who sexually exploit and traffic women and underage girls for financial gain, including pimps, panderers, and human traffickers. The HEAT Unit uses a tactical plan called PERP: Prosecution, to bring justice for victims of human trafficking and hold perpetrators responsible using Prop 35; Education, to provide law enforcement training to properly handle human trafficking and pandering cases; Resources from public-private partnerships to raise public awareness about human trafficking and provide assistance to the victims; and Publicity, to inform the public and send a message to human traffickers that this crime cannot be perpetrated without suffering severe consequences.
Under the law, human trafficking is described as depriving or violating the personal liberty of another person with the intent to effect a violation of pimping or pandering. Pimping is described as knowingly deriving financial support in whole or in part from the proceeds of prostitution. Pandering is the act of persuading or procuring an individual to become a prostitute, or procuring and/or arranging for a person work in a house of prostitution.
Penal Code Section 236.1 defines:
(1) “Coercion” includes any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process; debt bondage; or providing and facilitating the possession of any controlled substance to a person with the intent to impair the person’s judgment.
(2) “Commercial sex act” means sexual conduct on account of which anything of value is given or received by any person.
(3) “Deprivation or violation of the personal liberty of another” includes substantial and sustained restriction of another’s liberty accomplished through force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury to the victim or to another person, under circumstances where the person receiving or apprehending the threat reasonably believes that it is likely that the person making the threat would carry it out.
(4) “Duress” includes a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship, or retribution sufficient to cause a reasonable person to acquiesce in or perform an act which he or she would otherwise not have submitted to or performed; a direct or implied threat to destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess any actual or purported passport or immigration document of the victim; or knowingly destroying, concealing, removing, confiscating, or possessing any actual or purported passport or immigration document of the victim.
(5) “Forced labor or services” means labor or services that are performed or provided by a person and are obtained or maintained through force, fraud, duress, or coercion, or equivalent conduct that would reasonably overbear the will of the person.
(6) “Great bodily injury” means a significant or substantial physical injury.
(7) “Minor” means a person less than 18 years of age.
(8) “Serious harm” includes any harm, whether physical or nonphysical, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm, that is sufficiently serious, under all the surrounding circumstances, to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances to perform or to continue performing labor, services, or commercial sexual acts in order to avoid incurring that harm.
(i) The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, the relationship between the victim and the trafficker or agents of the trafficker, and any handicap or disability of the victim, shall be factors to consider in determining the presence of “deprivation or violation of the personal liberty of another,” “duress,” and “coercion” as described in this section.