San Diego
Education Report
San Diego Education
Report Blog
SITE MAP
Why This Website

Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation

SDCOE

CVESD

Castle Park
Elementary School

Law Enforcement

CTA

CVE

Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz

Silence is Golden

Schools and Violence

Office Admin Hearings

Larkins OAH Hearing
HOME
Report of CPM Findings 2011

Response from SDCOE  to CPM
Notification of Findings
Guajome Park Academy
GPA connection with SIA tech
Beverly Kanawi v. Bechtel

Bully booklet

Conflict of Interest SIA
tech

Shirk case

Peters v. GPA

VUSD v. Dr. B.J. Freeman

GPA is finally investigated
Lawsuits
Vista Unified  (VUSD)
VUSD Brown Act violation
and injunction
Vista USD/Guajome Park
sues student for exposing
teachers who changed grades
At the same time, Vista USD
(Guajome Park Academy)

protected
teachers who
changed grades
2 students expelled for
changing grades at
Rancho
Bernardo HS in Poway while
Report of CPM Findings
2011

Response from SDCOE  
to CPM Notification of
Findings
Vista Unified School District reports
and legal cases
Who is David Irving
Hatch?  A Vista Unified
School District employee
who tried to seduce a child.

Court of Appeal, Fourth
District, Division 1,
California.
HATCH v. SUPERIOR
COURT
David Irving HATCH,
Petitioner, v. The
SUPERIOR COURT
of San Diego
County,
Respondent; The People, Real
Party in Interest.
No. D032423.
March 31, 2000


Robert E. Boyce and Laura G.
Schaefer, San Diego, for
Petitioner.No appearance for
Respondent.John T.
Philipsborn, San Francisco,
Amicus Curiae on behalf of
California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice for Petitioner.Cynthia M.
Sorman, Diane Nichols and
Neil F. Auwarter, San Diego,
Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Appellate Defenders, Inc., for
Petitioner.Office of the District
Attorney, Paul J. Pfingst, District
Attorney, Patricia Atwill, Thomas
F. Mcardle and James E.
Atkins, Deputy District
Attorneys, for Real Party in
Interest.Bill Lockyer, Attorney
General, David P. Druliner,
Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Gary W. Schons,
Assistant Attorney General, Carl
H. Horst and Arlene Aquintey
Sevidal, Deputy Attorneys
General, Amicus Curiae for
Real Party in Interest.

Petitioner David Irving
Hatch challenges his
being held to answer on
many charges of
transmitting harmful
matter over the Internet
to a child in an attempt
to seduce the child.

Hatch argues, among other
points, that a decision of
the United States Supreme
Court, Reno v. American
Civil Liberties Union (1997)
521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct.
2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874
(Reno ), requires we order
the bulk of the charges
dismissed on constitutional
grounds.   We do not
agree.

INTRODUCTION

A decade ago, in response
to concerns over the use
of obscene or indecent
matter in the seduction of
children, the California
Legislature enacted Penal
Code 1 section 288.2,
subdivision (a).   This
statute, which has been
construed by no reported
decision, made it a criminal
offense to send, by any
means, specified harmful
matter to a minor “with the
intent or for the purpose of
seducing a minor.”  (Ibid.)

In the years after 1990,
use of the Internet 2 as a
means of communication
expanded rapidly, as it
continues to do.3  In 1996,
the United States
Congress, in legislation
known as the
Communications Decency
Act of 1996 (CDA), made it
an offense to send or
display indecent matter to
minors over the Internet,
but those enactments were
declared unconstitutional
by the Reno decision of
the United States Supreme
Court in 1997.

Later on in 1997, with
California concern now
focused specifically on use
of the Internet to seduce
minors, and with the then-
recent United States
Supreme Court CDA
decision in mind, the
California Legislature
enacted a more specific
version of the 1990
statute, section 288.2,
subdivision (b), now
proscribing sending
defined harmful matter
over the Internet to a minor
for purposes of
seduction.   This statute
did not become effective
until January 1, 1998.

Because of the timing of
the offenses committed in
this case, Hatch was
charged with numerous
violations of the 1990
statute, alleged to have
been committed prior to
the effective date of the
1997 statute, and also with
two violations of the latter
statute, as well as other
offenses.   Hatch argues
several evidentiary issues
and also challenges the
statutes both under
principles of statutory
construction and, relying
heavily on the Supreme
Court decision overturning
the CDA, on various
constitutional grounds.

We thus must resolve
Hatch's various evidentiary
arguments, construe the
language of both the 1990
and 1997 statutes and
determine also whether the
statutes withstand Hatch's
Commerce Clause and
First Amendment
challenges to their
provisions.   We first set
out the procedural and
factual background, review
the pertinent state and
federal statutes we will
discuss and then proceed
to determine the various
evidentiary, statutory
construction and
constitutional questions
presented by Hatch.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The present charges arise
from a type of “sting”
operation conducted by a
private entity.   They
involve not only Hatch's
Internet communications
with two imaginary victims,
but also his meeting with
an intended victim and the
results of a search of
Hatch's home and his
computer.

A. Beginning of the Affair

In the summer of 1997, INN
News (Fox Television)
advertised for intelligent,
fast-thinking women who
appeared young, but who
were over 18 years of
age.   Jennifer Hersey, a
20-year-old woman who
appeared quite youthful,
was hired.   Her duties
were to pose as a 13-year-
old girl and to talk on the
Internet with persons
seeking sexual encounters
with underage women.  
Hersey referred to such
persons as “people that
were basically stalking
children on the Internet.”  
Hersey posed as two
different girls, “Stacie” and
“Lisa,” and posted on the
Internet biographical
information, stating that
each of them was 13 years
old.   Hersey then waited
to be contacted by men.

Her first contact with Hatch
occurred on September 6,
1997.   Hersey, posing as
Stacie, was in an Internet
chat room in which persons
talk with one another in a
“virtual room.”   Hatch,
using the screen name “
Jordan9787,” sent Stacie a
private message asking if
she liked older guys.   On
September 8, 1997, Hatch
and Stacie exchanged
Internet communications in
which Stacie stated she
was 13 years old.
Case Title:          
AMPARANO MINOR
vs HATCH
Case Number:          
GIN024528  
         Case
Location:        North County            
Case Type:        Civil          Date
Filed:        10/04/2002
Category:        A72120        
Personal Injury (Other)
Plaintiff/Petitioner   
AMPARANO [MINOR]           
RUBEN           P  
NUNEZ           MONIQUE M             
HATCH           DAVID IRVING             
VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT                        
Case Title:          AMPARANO vs
HATCH
Case Number:          
GIN018242     
      Case
Location:        North County            
Case Type:        Civil          Date
Filed:        01/18/2002
Category:        A61708        Other
Civil Petition
Plaintiff/Petitioner  
AMPARANO           RUBEN           P  
NUNEZ           MONIQUE M             
Defendant/Respondent   
HATCH           DAVID IRVING             
VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT                        
Vista Unified School District is a party in 8 federal
cases.

3:02-cv-01185-R-JFS        Warren v. Vista Unified School        filed 06/18/02   closed 04/30/03

3:04-cv-01259-BEN-POR        Peters, et al v. Guajome Park, et al        filed 06/22/04   closed 10/30/06

3:04-cv-01545-L-AJB        Carlson, et al v. Vista Unified School        filed 08/02/04   closed 08/30/05

3:07-cv-01825-IEG-NLS        U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Vista Unified School
District        filed 09/18/07   closed 09/29/09

3:97-cv-00709-BTM-LAB        Leventhal, et al v. Vista Unified School, et al        filed 04/17/97   closed
07/01/97

3:97-cv-01917-BTM-JFS        Bell v. CA Interscholastic, et al        filed 10/24/97   closed 10/28/97

3:98-cv-01227-BTM-POR        Wright v. Vista Unified School, et al        filed 07/02/98   closed 01/25/01

3:99-cv-01659-L-POR        Vista Unified School v. CA Dept of Education, et al        filed 08/06/99   
closed 01/26/00