| For Immediate Release Case# 14NF2336
August 20, 2014 |
MAN SENTENCED FOR TRAFFICKING MINOR TEENAGE GIRL FOR COMMERCIAL SEX
SANTA ANA – A man was convicted and sentenced today for trafficking a minor girl for commercial sex. John Phillip Hunt, 27, Hayward, pleaded guilty to a court offer to one felony count of human trafficking of a minor and a sentencing enhancement for a prior prison conviction for residential burglary in Alameda County in 2006 was found true. Hunt was sentenced to nine years in state prison. The execution of the prison sentence was suspended pending completion of one year in jail, five years formal probation, and mandatory lifetime sex offender registration.
Circumstances of the Case
Hunt is a pimp who exploits women and/or children for financial gain. Pimps often establish rigid rules that their victims are expected to follow including addressing the pimp as “Sir” or “Daddy.”
Between May 22, 2014, and May 24, 2014, Hunt trafficked 17-year-old Jane Doe by driving her from Oakland to an Anaheim motel, in an area known for prostitution, with the intent of having the victim perform commercial sex for the benefit of the defendant.
On May 24, 2014, a motel employee contacted the Anaheim Police Department (APD) after observing suspicious behavior by the defendant.
APD located the defendant sitting inside his car with the victim. The defendant possessed sexually explicit photographs of Jane Doe on his cell phone, which he used to advertise commercial sex with the victim on a website known for prostitution. The defendant was listed under the name “Daddy” on her cell phone. APD arrested the defendant.
The Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force (OCHTTF) and the Orange County District Attorney’s Office work proactively to protect victims, especially minors, from 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 these methods to locate potential victims
This case was investigated by OCHTTF. Deputy District Attorney Daniel Varon of the HEAT Unit prosecuted 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.