Judge won’t dismiss charge against Jeremy Hylka in sex sting case

A judge declined to dismiss one of the five charges filed against a former Catholic school teacher in an underage sex sting case.

On Friday, Judge Ken Zelazo denied a motion from JohnPaul Ivec, attorney for Jeremy Hylka, 45, to dismiss the solicitation to meet a child charge.

As a result, Hylka will continue to face that charge along with four other charges of traveling to meet a child, indecent solicitation of a child, grooming and indecent solicitation of a child.

Hylka’s next pretrial date is slated for May 19.

The charges were filed in connection with an April 27 incident where Hylka apparently was captured on video by the vigilante group Save Our Siblings while attempting to rendezvous with someone he thought was a 15-year-old boy at a Joliet McDonald’s.

Prosecutors said Shane Divis, a Save Our Siblings member who was 19 at the time, was the man behind the 15-year-old male persona.

In a motion, Ivec said prosecutors must prove the arranged meeting with Hylka and the 15-year-old was done without the knowledge of the minor’s parent or guardian, which is one of the elements of the solicitation to meet a child offense.

However, Divis was an adult pretending to be a child at the time of the incident, acted as his own guardian and would have knowledge of any arranged meeting, Ivec’s motion said.

Because Divis is his own guardian, Ivec asked for the solicitation to meet a child charge to be dismissed since prosecutors cannot prove the arranged meeting was done without the knowledge of an actual minor’s parent or guardian.

In response, Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Deborah Mills said the state does not have to prove the guardian of the minor does not know about the arranged meeting when that minor is actually an adult.

Mills said the state only has to prove Hylka intended to meet a minor he believed was under 17.

“The cases regarding adults acting as minors conclusively establish that it is the defendant’s subjective intent that must be shown, in this case, that defendant made the arrangement with the ‘child’ without the knowledge of the ‘child’s’ parent,” Mills said.