NEW ORLEANS -- The Louisiana Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned a Calcasieu Parish judge's ruling that part of Louisiana's online sexual predator law is unconstitutional, saying the judge failed to follow proper procedures.

It reinstated charges against Ray Hatton Jr., 52, of Lafayette, sending his case back to District Judge Wilford Carter of Lake Charles. Hatton is accused of setting up a date for oral sex with someone he believed was a 14-year-old girl, but was actually an adult police officer.

The high court's ruling did not specifically state that the law is constitutional. Rather, it said, Carter erred by basing his decision on grounds that Hatton never brought up.

Neither prosecutors nor defense attorney J. Rodney Baum were available for immediate comment on the unanimous decision written by Justice Catherine Kimball.

"Because the trial court's ruling was based on constitutional grounds not properly raised, and indeed not raised at all, by the defendant," Carter was wrong to grant Hatton's request to throw out the indictment against him, she wrote.

Baum had argued that Hattons' rights to equal protection and to present a defense in court were violated by a provision about investigators.

Although Louisiana's age of consent is 17, the law lets somebody charged with computer-aided solicitation of a minor argue that the chat was consensual if the person at the other computer is at least 16 years old.

However, defendants cannot use that defense if the supposed juvenile "is actually a law enforcement officer or peace officer acting in his official capacity."

Carter found that provision did not violate any of the constitutional rights which Baum had brought up, but did deprive Hatton of his right to due process.

The justices have consistently ruled that attorneys and judges must follow a three-step analysis when a law's constitutionality is challenged, to give both sides a chance to prepare and make their arguments and to prepare an adequate record for review, Kimball wrote.

"Clearly," she wrote, "these purposes are not satisfied if the trial court is permitted to rule on grounds not properly raised by the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute."

(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)