Yeah. I’m not an expert in these jurisdictions, but at a glance it looks like Arizona and Montana have some statutes that could apply. And who knows what other jurisdictions she was in? The article doesn’t say anything and it would be difficult, but showing up 40 miles from the border it’s at least theoretically possible she was in Canada for some of that time.

It’s going to vary by jurisdiction, but generally it’s not kidnapping or abduction. There are often State criminal statutes specifically for harboring a runaway though.

The takeaway here is that he’s actually received a Target Letter, which indicates a strong belief that there is substantial evidence against him and that criminal charges are being seriously considered. It’s a procedural step, and one that many people likely inferred, but it is important and shows a concrete stance on the investigation. It’s worth noting that “Target” is a specifically defined legal term in this context, on relevant part:

A “target” is a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant…

USAM 9-11.151

This is particularly galling as the standard applied originally came from Glucksburg. Glucksburg was a case on physician assisted suicide where the Court applied the “not deeply rooted in and offensive to US tradition” standard being cited here, but also held that the state had a rational and compelling interest in banning physician assisted suicide for the preservation of life and to protect the mentally disabled or ill from medical malpractice or coercion. But in the case of gender affirming care the science and medical practice supports the opposite–gender affirming care drastically reduces suicide rates and provides significantly better outcomes for those with gender dysphoria. They appear to be applying half of the reasoning of Glucksburg while directly going against the second half. That’s not even touching the sex discrimination argument, which is compelling in its own right. I’m ashamed to live in the 6th Circuit today.

I’d be interested as well, and it’s actually a bit of an open question in the US even whether an emoji can satisfy Statute of Frauds requirements. Not every contract needs to be in writing, but the Statute of Frauds requires that certain types of contracts do need to have a written contract and agreement–sale of goods valued more than $500.00 is one of those categories. Canada has its own various Statute of Frauds laws, but that’s way outside of my jurisdiction, and I can’t tell from the reporting whether any applied or were considered in this case.

Emojis are the focus of more and more litigation these days, and it’s really interesting watching how these cases play out. Here’s a good source (US focused) from Lexis Nexis discussing emojis in contract litigation:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/practical-guidance-journal/b/pa/posts/contracting-by-emoji

I’m a lawyer (though admittedly not in Canada!)–this doesn’t sound as absurd as the headlines read, and I would hesitate to to form opinions on any case on the basis of headlines or blurbs. That said, looking at other sources it seems there’s more here than the posted article conveys:

The judge noted that Mr. Achter and Mr. Mickleborough had had a longstanding business relationship and that, in the past, when Mr. Mr. Mickleborough had texted Mr. Achter contracts for durum wheat, Mr. Achter had responded by succinctly texting “looks good,” “ok” or “yup.”

Both parties clearly understood these terse responses were meant to be confirmation of the contract and “not a mere acknowledgment of the receipt of the contract” by Mr. Achter, wrote Justice T.J. Keene of the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan. And each time, Mr. Achter had delivered the grain as contracted and had been paid.

Looks like they had a long standing business relationship where this sort of communication had been the common understood form of acceptance in the past. It’s also important to note the guy only tried backing out of the deal after a price fluctuation meant he’d be taking a relative loss.

I’d want to see all of the facts and arguments, but this seems reasonable from what we can see reported.