Internet Sex Crime Lawyer Washington DC

An internet sex charge in the District of Columbia rarely arrives as a single accusation. The same set of messages, images, or file transfers can touch several different chapters of Title 22 at once, and the chapter that applies decides whether the exposure is a misdemeanor measured in days or a felony measured in years. The District treats conduct involving a person under 18 under one body of law, conduct involving sexual images of adults under a separate chapter written for that purpose, and conduct aimed at arranging contact with a child under yet another set of sections. A person reading a charging document for the first time often cannot tell which of those bodies of law is driving the case. Charging decisions here often turn on how the government reads a body of stored communications, so a precise reading of the charging document matters early. Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor, and the firm has defended people accused of criminal conduct since 1997. The firm approaches an internet allegation by first identifying which District chapters the alleged conduct actually implicates and which ones the government has charged. That distinction shapes what follows, from the elements the government must prove to whether a conviction carries a registration consequence under D.C. Code § 22-4001. Request a consultation. The firm maintains 24/7 phone intake at (888) 437-7747.

On this page

How the District’s Internet Sex Offense Chapters Interact

Chapter 30 of Title 22 covers sexual performance using minors. D.C. Code § 22-3102(a) makes it unlawful to knowingly employ, authorize, or induce a person under 18 to engage in a sexual performance, for a parent or guardian to consent to such participation, or to produce, direct, or promote a performance including sexual conduct by a person under 18. Subsection (b) reaches knowingly attending, transmitting, or possessing a sexual performance by a minor, which is the subsection most often at issue in an online case. Section 22-3102 itself states no penalty; the penalties for the chapter appear at D.C. Code § 22-3103, which makes the conduct a felony punishable by a fine or up to 10 years for a first offense and a fine or up to 20 years for a second and each subsequent offense. The 2010 amendment raised the covered age from 16 to 18.

Chapter 30A is a separate body of law addressing non-consensual pornography, running from D.C. Code § 22-3051 through § 22-3057: § 22-3051 definitions, § 22-3052 unlawful disclosure, § 22-3053 first-degree unlawful publication, § 22-3054 second degree unlawful publication, § 22-3055 exclusions, § 22-3056 affirmative defenses, and § 22-3057 jurisdiction. These sections turn on consent and intent, not on the age of the person depicted.

A third group addresses conduct aimed at meeting. D.C. Code § 22-3010 covers child enticement, and subsection (b) reaches attempts directed at a person who represents himself or herself to be a child, carrying up to 5 years or a fine, or both. D.C. Code § 22-3010.02 addresses arranging for a sexual contact with a real or fictitious child; where the individual is fictitious, the arrangement is unlawful only if it is made by or with a law enforcement officer, and the section carries up to 5 years, a fine, or both. Definitions matter across all of this: under D.C. Code § 22-3001, “child” means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16, while “minor” means a person under 18. D.C. Code § 22-4001 supplies the registration definitions, and registration offenses include any offense under Chapter 30 of Title 22 along with specified obscenity and sexual performance offenses where the victim is a minor.

How Mr. Sris and the Firm’s Of Counsel Attorneys Handle These Cases

Work begins with the charging document and the statutory text side by side. The firm identifies each section charged, breaks it into the elements the government must prove, and marks which elements the available information actually supports. In an internet case that exercise is rarely academic, because a single course of alleged conduct can be charged under Chapter 30, under Chapter 30A, or under the enticement sections, and each of those routes carries a different penalty structure and a different set of statutory defenses.

Age is treated as a threshold question rather than an assumption. D.C. Code § 22-3001 sets separate thresholds, with “child” set at under 16 and “minor” set at under 18, and the sections in play use those terms differently. Where a Chapter 30A allegation is involved, the analysis moves to consent and to the intent element the government must establish, and to whether the exclusions at D.C. Code § 22-3055 or the affirmative defenses at D.C. Code § 22-3056 apply. Where § 22-3102 is charged, the firm examines whether the conduct fits subsection (a) or subsection (b), and it reads that section together with the penalty provision at § 22-3103.

Consequences beyond the sentence are addressed from the outset. D.C. Code § 22-4001 makes registration definitions part of the calculation whenever an offense under Chapter 30 of Title 22 is charged, so the registration question is discussed before any resolution is considered rather than after. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys keep the client informed of what each filing does and what the range of outcomes looks like under the sections actually charged. The firm does not predict results. Request a consultation.

Mr. Sris and the Firm’s Of Counsel Attorneys

Mr. Sris is the Owner and Founder of the firm, which was founded in 1997. He is a former prosecutor, and that background shapes how a charging document is read at the firm, because the same document looks different once it has been examined from the government’s side of a case. He is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. He concentrates in criminal defense, and District internet allegations fall within that practice.

Matters are handled by Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys. The Of Counsel attorneys contract directly with the firm, and assignments are made internally according to what a given matter requires. A client is told who is working on the file and how to reach the people handling it.

Because the sections discussed on this page carry different penalty structures and different statutory defenses, early work on a District internet case is largely a matter of reading the charged sections precisely and testing each element against what has actually been alleged. Intake gathers the charging information before a consultation is scheduled, and consultations are held by appointment at the firm’s locations. The firm maintains 24/7 phone intake at (888) 437-7747. Request a consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which District sections can apply to conduct that happened entirely online?

That depends on who was involved and what was exchanged. If the allegation involves a person under 18 and a sexual performance, the charge usually comes from D.C. Code § 22-3102, with penalties supplied by D.C. Code § 22-3103. If the allegation involves sexual images of an identified or identifiable person disclosed or published without consent, the relevant sections sit in Chapter 30A, which runs from D.C. Code § 22-3051 through § 22-3057. If the allegation is that someone tried to arrange a meeting, D.C. Code § 22-3010 and D.C. Code § 22-3010.02 come into play. More than one of those can appear in a single charging document.

Why must D.C. Code § 22-3102 be read together with D.C. Code § 22-3103?

Because § 22-3102 defines the prohibited acts but states no penalty of its own. The penalties for the chapter appear separately at D.C. Code § 22-3103, which treats the conduct as a felony and sets a fine or up to 10 years for a first offense and a fine or up to 20 years for a second and each subsequent offense. Reading the prohibition without the penalty section gives an incomplete picture. When you read a charging document, look for both citations, and ask which subsection of § 22-3102 the government says applies, because subsection (a) and subsection (b) describe different conduct.

Does the age of the person involved change which section applies?

It does, and the District draws its age lines in more than one place. Under D.C. Code § 22-3001, “child” means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16, while “minor” means a person under 18. Sections that use the word “child,” such as D.C. Code § 22-3010 and D.C. Code § 22-3010.02, are reading the under-16 definition. Section 22-3102 reaches sexual performances by a person under 18, and its penalties come from D.C. Code § 22-3103. The 2010 amendment to § 22-3102 raised the covered age from 16 to 18.

What does D.C. Code § 22-3010.02 mean by a fictitious child?

The section addresses arranging for a sexual contact with a real or fictitious child. Where the individual is fictitious, the arrangement is unlawful only if it is made by or with a law enforcement officer. That limitation is written into the section, which makes the identity of the other participant an element worth examining. The section carries up to 5 years, a fine, or both. A related provision, D.C. Code § 22-3010(b), reaches attempts directed at a person who represents himself or herself to be a child, and carries up to 5 years or a fine, or both.

Can a District internet conviction lead to registration?

D.C. Code § 22-4001 supplies the registration definitions, and registration offenses include any offense under Chapter 30 of Title 22 as well as specified obscenity and sexual performance offenses where the victim is a minor. That means the chapter a charge comes from, not only the sentence attached to it, can carry a registration consequence. Chapter 30 includes § 22-3102 and its penalty section, § 22-3103. Because of that, the registration question belongs in the conversation from the first meeting rather than after a case has already been resolved.

This page provides general information and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.