ARGANBRIGHT v. STATE, 2014 OK CR 5

Ronald Arganbright, a 44-year-old Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper, was tried non-jury and convicted of Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child under 16 and Soliciting Sexual Conduct or Communication with Minor by Use of Technology. Sentences on both counts were 5 years with all but 3 years suspended, to run concurrently.
Victim M.C. met Arganbright when she was 15; he communicated with her via Facebook, instant messages, and text, gave gifts, and coerced escalating sexual activity beginning before her 16th birthday and continuing thereafter.
The State charged Arganbright for specific text messages sent between June 27–30, 2010 (after M.C. turned 16). M.C. testified she was reluctant and pressured by Arganbright, who used his position and prior texts to influence her.
Arganbright appealed, arguing 21 O.S.Supp.2007 § 1040.13a (prohibiting sexual communications with minors via technology) is an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech as applied to his texts to a sixteen-year-old.
The Court analyzed whether § 1040.13a is content-based (applying strict scrutiny), whether the State has a compelling interest, and whether the statute is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether 21 O.S.Supp.2007 § 1040.13a is unconstitutional as applied to Arganbright for texting a 16‑year‑old	Arganbright: statute is a content‑based restriction on speech and not justified here because the victim was over the age of consent and the communications involved lawful, consensual sexual activity	State: statute targets use of technology to facilitate sexual exploitation/abuse of minors; protecting minors is a compelling interest and statute is narrowly tailored to communications likely to lead to exploitation	Court affirmed: statute is content‑based but serves a compelling interest (protecting minors from sexual exploitation via technology) and is narrowly tailored as applied to these facts; conviction affirmed

Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (content‑based restrictions subject to strict scrutiny)
Sable Communications of Cal. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (content‑based speech restrictions may survive only if narrowly tailored to compelling interest)
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (state's compelling interest in protecting children from sexual exploitation)
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (regulation of broadcasting to protect children can be narrowly tailored)
United States v. Playboy Entm’t Group, 529 U.S. 803 (less restrictive alternatives required if available)
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (limitations on adult speech unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives exist)
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods., 463 U.S. 60 (overbroad bans on speech not narrowly tailored)
Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380 (limits on expression must respect adult freedoms)
Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, 535 U.S. 425 (distinguishing content‑based vs content‑neutral regulations)
U.S. v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (offers to engage in illegal transactions are unprotected speech)