Dawniel Lea Santangelo was booked on Friday May, 10th by MFP and was booked into Jackson County Jail in Medford, Oregon.
The female, with a recorded date of birth of Oct 07, 1977 was arrested for suspicion of the below crimes:
- 0163.266 TRAFFICKING PERS / TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
0999.019 DCS/MJ ITEM F / 475B.346 UNLAWFUL DELIVERY OF MJ ITE
- 0167.017 PROST COM / PROSTITUTION - COMPELLING
Bail has been set to $120000 for Santangelo which is listed as a 5 foot 5 inch white female weighing approximately 182 pounds.
Dawniel Lea Santangelo was arrested in Jackson County Oregon and Dawniel Lea Santangelo has a presumption of innocence which means that although the person was arrested, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Presumption of innocence” serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (or some other level of proof depending on the criminal justice system) and that the accused bears no burden of proof. For more information in presumption of innocence, wikipedia is a great place to start.
This information is made available by the local sheriff’s office in Jackson County Oregon. For more regarding the Jackson County Sheriffs department you can visit their website. They can also be contact them at their contact us page.
Dawniel Lea Santangelo is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Oregon Sentencing Guidelines
Disclaimer: Booking information comes directly from the County Sheriff’s Office and we provide no warranty or guarantee as to the quality of the information presented on this site.
For the most accurate and up to date information please contact your local sheriff's office.
We are unaffiliated with the Sheriff's office and make no guarantees as to the accuracy of this information.
Information presented on this site should not be used to determine guilt, determine innocence, generate criminal history, or perform background checks.
Below are the Oregon laws which may relate to this arrest:
Trafficking in persons.
(1) A person commits the crime of trafficking in persons if the person knowingly recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides or obtains by any means, or attempts to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide or obtain by any means, another person and:(a) The person knows that the other person will be subjected to involuntary servitude as described in ORS 163.263 or 163.264;
(b) The person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that force, fraud or coercion will be used to cause the other person to engage in a commercial sex act; or
(c) The person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the other person is under 15 years of age and will be used in a commercial sex act.
(2) A person commits the crime of trafficking in persons if the person knowingly benefits financially or receives something of value from participation in a venture that involves an act prohibited by subsection (1) of this section or ORS 163.263 or 163.264.
(3) As used in this section, commercial sex act means sexual conduct or sexual contact, as those terms are defined in ORS 167.002, performed in return for a fee or anything of value.
(4) Violation of subsection (1)(a) or (2) of this section is a Class B felony.
(5) Violation of subsection (1)(b) or (c) of this section is a Class A felony. [2007 c.811 §4; 2013 c.720 §1]
Compelling prostitution.
(1) A person commits the crime of compelling prostitution if the person knowingly:(a) Uses force or intimidation to compel another to engage in prostitution or attempted prostitution;
(b) Induces or causes a person under 18 years of age to engage in prostitution;
(c) Aids or facilitates the commission of prostitution or attempted prostitution by a person under 18 years of age; or
(d) Induces or causes the spouse, child or stepchild of the person to engage in prostitution.
(2) Compelling prostitution is a Class B felony.
(3) In a prosecution under subsection (1)(b) or (c) of this section, the state is not required to prove that the defendant knew the other person was under 18 years of age and it is no defense that the defendant did not know the person’s age or that the defendant reasonably believed the person to be older than 18 years of age. [1971 c.743 §252; 2011 c.334 §1; 2013 c.271 §1]
