Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
In May 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarified the limits of the state’s sex trafficking statute. The court rejected the Commonwealth’s attempt to charge men who responded to online ads with trafficking, holding that their conduct did not meet the definition of that offense under G. L. c. 265, Section 50. This ruling matters for anyone facing solicitation or prostitution-related charges in Massachusetts, particularly in cases stemming from undercover operations.
If you have been charged with a sex crime in Massachusetts, especially after responding to an online ad, you may be unsure which charges the Commonwealth can lawfully pursue. This recent opinion makes clear that prosecutors cannot stretch trafficking statutes beyond their scope just to increase pressure on the accused. You need a defense lawyer who understands where police authority ends and where your legal protections begin.
Supreme Judicial Court Confirms Trafficking Law Does Not Cover Online Sting Buyers
The case involved five individuals who responded to adult advertisements offering sexual services for a fee. The ads, placed by undercover officers, included images of an adult woman and described services with prices. Each person contacted the supposed sex worker, agreed to terms, and traveled to a designated location. Police arrested them upon arrival and charged each person with two offenses: trafficking of persons for sexual servitude and engaging in sexual conduct for a fee.
Each accused person moved to dismiss the trafficking charge, arguing that the facts did not support the essential elements of that offense. A Superior Court judge agreed and dismissed the trafficking indictments. The Commonwealth appealed the dismissal and lost again in the Appeals Court. Seeking a third review, the Commonwealth brought the case to the Supreme Judicial Court.
The SJC affirmed the lower rulings and dismissed the trafficking charges. The justices explained that the trafficking statute targets those who recruit, harbor, or transport individuals into sexual servitude. In this case, the accused did not engage in such conduct. They simply responded to an offer presented by someone they believed was acting voluntarily. The officer was not a trafficking victim, and no third party was involved in facilitating the alleged services, so the conduct did not meet the statutory definition of trafficking.
Court Draws a Clear Line Between Solicitation and Trafficking
The Garafalo opinion does not stop prosecutors from filing charges under G. L. c. 272, 53A for agreeing to pay for sex. That statute applies to the conduct typically targeted in online sting operations. What the decision does prevent, however, is the wrongful use of the trafficking law against people who played no part in controlling or exploiting another person.
This ruling acts as a check on prosecutorial overreach. Without it, the state could pursue trafficking charges that carry decades in prison and mandatory sex offender registration, even when there is no victim and no evidence of force or coercion. The court’s decision preserves the original purpose of the statute and clarifies the legal difference between buyers and those running trafficking operations.
Interpreting Probable Cause in Police Sting Operations
The Garafalo ruling also sheds light on how Massachusetts courts interpret probable cause in undercover investigations. In this case, the prosecution relied on agreements made in response to online ads as the foundation for serious felony indictments. However, the court emphasized that probable cause to indict for trafficking requires more than an agreement to exchange money for sex. It requires evidence that the accused knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, or transported another person into sexual servitude.
This distinction is particularly important in sting cases where the person on the other end of the communication is not a genuine victim. The court rejected the idea that a police officer pretending to be a sex worker could substitute for a trafficked individual under the statute. Without a third party controlling or exploiting another person, the legal elements of trafficking are not met.
Defense attorneys should focus closely on whether the facts in an undercover case match the elements of the charged offenses. If the police rely solely on communications with a decoy, that may support a misdemeanor charge, but it is unlikely to establish probable cause for trafficking under Massachusetts law. This opinion gives defense counsel a strong foundation to challenge charges that exceed the scope of what occurred.
Call a Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer If You Face Charges After Responding to an Online Ad
Prostitution and solicitation charges carry serious consequences in Massachusetts. Do not let prosecutors apply laws that do not fit your conduct. The Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy can help you challenge inflated charges and defend your rights in court.
Call (617) 367-0450 to schedule your free consultation. You can also contact us online to learn how we can fight for your defense.