United States v. Tovar, 2025 WL 2264119 (11th Cir. 2025)
Federal agents in Hollywood, Florida, posted fake advertisements on MegaPersonals, a website known for sex trafficking. Ralph Tovar responded to one of the ads shortly after midnight, texting that he was looking for a “unique experience.” When agents did not immediately respond, Tovar tired of waiting and called the number — no answer. He sent another text message at 2:01 a.m.: “Is those girls available sometime tonight or tomorrow?” Still no reply. After waiting nine hours, he sent the same message again.
Federal agents finally responded about three hours later, explaining that they had “two young, beautiful girls available,” a 15-year-old and a 13-year-old. Tovar asked how late the girls would be available and said he wanted to “make an appointment.” He wrote that he wanted photos and wanted sex with “two girls at the same time.” After some additional conversation, including an assurance that the young girls were “super pretty and are up for almost anything.” Tovar asked one more question: “You are not working for the law or something. Right?” The agents replied, “no, I take my business very serious so you better not be a cop.”
Tovar said that he would “bring a lot of cash” to the meet-up spot. He agreed to a price of $400 per hour and requested extras — unprotected sex, anal sex (with the 15-year-old), and pictures of the encounter. The agents set the meeting place for a hotel. Tovar stopped at his bank and withdrew $550. He met an undercover agent in the parking lot and exchanged money for a hotel room key. Much to his surprise (but not to anyone reading this), he was arrested by agents as he walked into the room.
For years, I have said we tend to catch the dumb ones — and Tovar is another perfect example. During his trial, Tovar told the jury his true intent was to be like an action movie hero and “save” the girls. This was not “a well thought-out plan,” he admitted to the jurors. (I am not making this up.) In the words of the court of appeals: “Nor was it a well-thought-out defense. The jury didn’t buy it and found him guilty — likely because of the overwhelming evidence that he did, in fact, intend to purchase sex with two underage girls.”
On appeal, Tovar abandoned his superhero defense claim. Instead, he challenged elements of the charge, claiming he had not technically engaged in interstate commerce because neither he nor the girls crossed state lines, so federal agents had no jurisdiction. The court pointed to his use of the internet and a cell phone. Folks, that will always be found to be “in or affecting interstate commerce.” Tovar also challenged some jury instructions and claimed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.
The court rejected each of Tovar’s arguments, leaving him to serve out his 15-year prison sentence. The court concluded its opinion: “Thankfully the girls targeted by Tovar were not real — though plenty of victims are. The evidence plainly showed what Tovar intended to do, and that his actions occurred in interstate commerce. A jury believed that evidence.”
Two takeaways: First, you didn’t read about a claim of entrapment or any rights violations in this case. After Tovar gave up the stupid superhero defense, he challenged legal issues related to charging and prosecutorial conduct. That’s because the agents put together a rock-solid case, step by step. Second, there are really bad guys out there. Our job, our promise, our purpose is to catch them.
