Garafalo Case Limits Human Trafficking Charges in Massachusetts

In Commonwealth v. Garafalo, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) delivered a major blow to the government’s attempt to stretch the human trafficking statute to deliver heavy handed charges to individuals that previously had been facing misdemeanor solicitation of sex charges (prostitution cases). The ruling is a major victory for those concerned with prosecutorial overreach in the Commonwealth.

The state cannot simply take conduct that is punished in one manner and squeeze it to fit inside of harsh, draconian sentencing schemes. This case confirms that responding to a commercial sex advertisement, which is still a crime, is not “human trafficking” under Massachusetts law. Read how the Garafalo case limits human trafficking charges in Massachusetts and contact our firm to discuss how this ruling could affect your case.

The Background: Up-Charging the “Johns”

The case originated from undercover stings where police posted advertisements for sexual services. When individuals responded to these ads and arrived at the designated locations, they were met with handcuffs.

Typically, such conduct is charged as a misdemeanor: engaging in sexual conduct for a fee under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 § 53A. However, several District Attorneys’ offices took an aggressive new tack, charging these individuals with Human Trafficking under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 § 50.

The difference is life-altering. While the misdemeanor carries no mandatory prison time, a human trafficking conviction carries a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence.

The SJC Ruling: Responding is Not “Enticing”

The Commonwealth’s theory was that by responding to an ad and negotiating terms, the defendants were “enticing” or “obtaining” a person for sexual servitude. A novel idea that stretched the definition of human trafficking beyond what was intended.

The SJC rejected this interpretation. Justice Wendlandt, in her decision, clarified that the statute was designed to target traffickers. In other words, those who recruit, harbor, or profit from the exploitation of others. What the Court clarified was that: 

1. Enticement requires active persuasion. Simply responding to an ad and agreeing to pre-set terms does not constitute “enticing” a person into servitude.
2. The “John” is the end-user, not the trafficker. The Court made clear that “obtaining” must be read in the context of the surrounding words in the statute, such as “recruiting” and “transporting.” The law targets the business of exploitation, not the person responding to an advertisement.

A Stand Against Prosecutorial Overreach

This case is a prime example of the government attempting to bypass the Legislature to impose harsher penalties than the law allows. If the Legislature wanted every person seeking sex for a fee to face five years in state prison, they would have written the law that way. They did not.

Attorney Ryan Sullivan was recently featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly discussing the implications of this case. As he noted in the article, it remains a crime to engage in the business of employing others to commit prostitution, and the police can still set up stings to target these human trafficking rings. However, the lesser actors are no longer subject to extreme sentences for minor conduct. The SJC set a clear boundary between solicitation and the far more serious crime of human trafficking.

Call Us To Learn How We Can Help Protect Your Rights

The Garafalo decision ensures that prosecutors cannot use the threat of a five-year mandatory minimum sentence as leverage to force pleas in cases where the law simply does not apply. For anyone facing related legal issues, understanding how the Garafalo case limits human trafficking charges in Massachusetts is essential, and our firm is here to provide guidance.

You can read the full article in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly here: Johns can’t be charged under human trafficking statute. Contact Erkan & Sullivan, PC today.