September 26, 2022 at 1:36 p.m.
Local man sentenced to 25 years in federal prison
Local man sentenced to 25 years in federal prison
United States District Court Judge William C. Griesbach handed down the sentence Wednesday afternoon, five months after Paul S. Osterman entered a guilty plea to one count of "sex trafficking of a child under the age of 14 years old."
Osterman entered the plea on April 8 and was originally scheduled for sentencing in July, but the hearing was pushed back to Sept. 21 after the defense requested more time to review the pre-sentencing report.
According to federal court records, on Sept. 16 the defense filed another motion to adjourn the sentencing, this time to allow for reconsideration of an earlier ruling on a key motion. However, the court denied the request and proceeded to sentencing.
According to a U.S. Attorney's Office press release announcing the conclusion to the case, "Osterman used social media applications and public wi-fi 'hotspots' to communicate with children, often requesting to exchange money for sexual acts. In July 2019, Osterman traveled from his home in Rhinelander to the south side of Chicago, where he lured a minor with whom he had been communicating online into his vehicle. He then engaged in sexual acts with the child in exchange for money. Further investigation revealed that Osterman attempted or performed sexual acts with several minors throughout Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota."
"At the sentencing hearing, Judge Griesbach noted the horrendous nature of the crime and the strong need to deter Osterman from engaging in further abuse," the release states. "The judge noted that Osterman's crimes were not made in haste and that Osterman had 'committed despicable acts over a lengthy period of time.' Upon the completion of his federal prison sentence, the defendant will serve the remainder of his life on supervised release. He will also be required to register as a sexual offender under state and federal law.
The sentencing effectively brings to an end the state and federal prosecution of Osterman on child trafficking charges.
The first charge against Osterman, a single felony count of trafficking a child, was filed in Marathon County in September 2020.
According to the complaint in that case, an investigation began after law enforcement received tips from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) regarding messages that were being intercepted on the internet from a person willing to pay to have sexual contact with a very young female.
That complaint included summaries of conversations between users of a social media application where one of the users, later identified as Osterman, stated they would pay cash to have sexual contact with "as young a girl" as could be arranged.
In December 2020, an identical charge was filed in Lincoln County Circuit Court. That charge was based on allegations Osterman tried to make arrangements with a person he met online for a 9-year-old girl to be transported to a hotel in Tomahawk for the purpose of sexual activity.
No transport took place, according to the complaint.
Finally, in May 2021, a federal indictment was handed down alleging that from July 3-5, 2019, Osterman had solicited a child for sex in exchange for money.
According to the indictment, Osterman met the child using the MeetMe application and traveled from Rhinelander to Illinois for a commercial sex transaction.
In December 2021, Osterman's attorney filed a motion to suppress all evidence derived from a GPS device Oneida county investigators placed on Osterman's vehicle. The warrant authorizing placement of the device was illegally obtained, defense attorney Christopher Van Wagner argued.
In the motion, Van Wagner argued that the officer who requested the warrant asserted - incorrectly - that Osterman had been communicating with the alleged victim on July 4, 2019 using an IP address of the Holiday Inn Express & Suites in Illinois. That, combined with the records indicating Mr. Osterman had apparently stayed at that specific hotel on July 5, 2019, provide "the only real, if tenuous connection between the (social media) communications referenced in the NCMEC CyberTipLine Reports and Mr. Osterman," the motion read.
The U.S. Attorney's Office responded by noting that there is no evidence the officer made the false statement intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth.
"He simply did not verify the precise time that the Holiday Inn public wifi was used by (the suspect account)," Assistant U.S. Attorney Abbey Marzick wrote. "The (suspect) account did use the Holiday Inn public wifi on the same day as the commercial sex date with JV-1; it was simply not during the conversation. It is also relevant to note that the correct IP addresses used by (the suspect account) during his conversation with JV-1 only provide further support for probable cause, as they are consistent with (the suspect) traveling south from northern Wisconsin to Chicago to engage in a commercial sex date with JV-1, staying at the Holiday Inn in Hillside, IL, and then traveling back home, to Rhinelander."
Griesbach agreed with the U.S. Attorney's Office.
"While it is true that (the suspect account) was not using the Hillside Holiday Inn Wi-Fi while messaging with JV-1, he did use it during the general time period in which (he) had apparently traveled to Chicago in order to have a sexual encounter with a child he believed to be 12 or 13 years old," the judge wrote. "The fact that he connected to internet using the public Wi-Fi provided by different businesses while specifically messaging JV-1 was not material to the probable cause determination."
The officer "did not knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, include a false statement in his search warrant affidavit," the judge found.
It was this ruling that Van Wagner asked the court to reconsider in the Sept. 16 motion.
"In the arguments preceding this Court's order denying the defense motion to suppress evidence, defense counsel appears to have failed to articulate completely or clearly why the Court should have granted the defense motion," Van Wagner wrote. "As the possible fruit of defense counsel's inarticulate arguments, it seems the Court may very well have ruled erroneously on the entire motion."
The U.S. Attorney's Office responded to the motion by noting that the defense had ample time - nine months - to ask for reconsideration of the court's ruling and Osterman can seek review at the appellate level.
"The defendant's guilty plea was a conditional one," Marzick wrote. "Specifically, the defendant retained his right to appeal exactly what he wants to re-argue before this Court: the decision to deny the Franks motion. Further litigation at the trial court level would be futile, a waste of judicial resources, and only cause further delay to the proceedings."
Court records show Osterman's Lincoln County case has been dismissed. The Marathon County case is still on the calendar for October but a dismissal is expected, given the results of the federal prosecution.
Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.