Sexting Charges Lawyer Washington DC

Ages decide most District sexting cases before any other question is reached. The same photograph can be an ordinary private exchange, a misdemeanor, or a felony depending on how old the person depicted was, how old the recipient was, and whether the depicted person consented to the transmission. The code sets more than one age threshold. 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, and the sections that reach images of young people do not all use the same word. Section 22-3102 reaches sexual performances by a person under 18, and the 2010 amendment raised the covered age from 16 to 18, so the date of the conduct can decide which version of the text governs. That section carries no penalty of its own; the penalties for the chapter come from D.C. Code § 22-3103. There is no District offense called sexting; conduct described that way is charged, if at all, under sections written for other purposes. Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor, and the firm has defended criminal allegations since 1997. This page explains how the age lines and the narrow carve-outs in D.C. Code § 22-3102(c) work. Request a consultation. The firm maintains 24/7 phone intake at (888) 437-7747.

On this page

How the Age Lines and the § 22-3102(c) Carve-Outs Work

D.C. Code § 22-3102 is the section most often behind a District sexting allegation. Subsection (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) prohibits knowingly attending, transmitting, or possessing a sexual performance by a minor. Subsection (b) is the one that ordinarily reaches an exchange of images, because sending and keeping are transmission and possession. The section states no penalty of its own, so it is always read with D.C. Code § 22-3103, which makes the conduct a felony carrying 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.

Subsection (c) of § 22-3102 carves out limited exceptions for depicted minors and near-age recipients where the depicted minor consented to transmission. Both parts of that language deserve attention. The exceptions are limited, which means they are drawn narrowly by the statutory text and do not create a general permission for young people to exchange images. They also turn on the depicted minor’s consent to transmission, which is a specific factual question rather than an assumption that can be made from the parties’ ages alone. Whether a given exchange fits within subsection (c) is decided by reading the subsection against the facts, not by describing the case as consensual.

Age also determines which body of law is in play at all. Under D.C. Code § 22-3001, “child” means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 and “minor” means a person under 18, and the 2010 amendment to § 22-3102 raised the covered age from 16 to 18. Where every person involved was 18 or older, Chapter 30 is not the relevant chapter; an allegation that images were passed on without consent is addressed by the non-consensual pornography sections, principally D.C. Code § 22-3052 for unlawful disclosure and D.C. Code § 22-3053 for first-degree unlawful publication.

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

The work starts with dates and ages, because nearly every downstream question depends on them. The firm fixes the age of each person involved at the time of the alleged conduct, not at the time of the charge, and reads the date of the conduct against the statutory history, since the 2010 amendment moved the covered age in § 22-3102 from 16 to 18. Where a case straddles a birthday or a change in the statutory text, that detail is not a technicality; it can decide which version applies.

Next comes the subsection. The firm identifies whether the government is proceeding under § 22-3102(a), which is written around employing, authorizing, inducing, producing, directing, or promoting, or under § 22-3102(b), which is written around attending, transmitting, and possessing. Those describe different conduct and call for different responses. The penalty section, D.C. Code § 22-3103, is read alongside whichever subsection is charged, because § 22-3102 states no penalty of its own.

The subsection (c) carve-outs are then tested against the facts rather than assumed. Whether the client is a depicted minor, whether the recipient falls within the near-age language, and whether the depicted minor consented to transmission are each questions with answers, and the firm develops those answers instead of asserting them. Where every party was an adult, the analysis shifts to Chapter 30A and to its consent and intent elements, including the exclusions at D.C. Code § 22-3055 and the affirmative defenses at D.C. Code § 22-3056. Registration exposure under D.C. Code § 22-4001 is raised at the outset, because it follows from the chapter charged rather than from the sentence alone. Request a consultation.

The Attorneys Handling District Sexting Allegations

Mr. Sris is the Owner and Founder of the firm, which was founded in 1997. He is a former prosecutor. He is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York, and he concentrates in criminal defense. Cases in this area often involve young people and their families, and the firm’s practice is to explain the statutory age lines and the penalty structure in plain terms before anything else is discussed.

Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys handle these matters. The Of Counsel attorneys contract directly with the firm, and a matter is assigned internally according to what it requires. A client, and where appropriate a parent or guardian, is told who is working on the file and how to reach the people handling it. Individual attorney names are not listed on this page.

The firm does not describe an outcome before the sections and the facts have been examined, and it does not treat a young client’s age as a substitute for a defense. What it does is read the charged subsection, apply D.C. Code § 22-3103, and determine whether the carve-outs in § 22-3102(c) are available on the record. Consultations are held by appointment at the firm’s locations, and the firm maintains 24/7 phone intake at (888) 437-7747. Request a consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the District have an offense called sexting?

No section of the D.C. Code carries that name. Sexting is a description of conduct, and the conduct is charged, where it is charged at all, under sections written for other purposes. Where a person under 18 is depicted, that ordinarily means D.C. Code § 22-3102, read with the penalty section at D.C. Code § 22-3103. Where everyone depicted was an adult and an image was passed on without consent, it may mean D.C. Code § 22-3052 or D.C. Code § 22-3053. Because the label carries no legal content, the useful question is always which section a charging document actually cites.

What do the carve-outs in D.C. Code § 22-3102(c) actually cover?

Subsection (c) sets out limited exceptions for depicted minors and near-age recipients where the depicted minor consented to transmission. The word limited is doing real work. The subsection is not a general rule that exchanges between young people fall outside the statute; it is a narrow carve-out whose terms have to be satisfied. Consent to the transmission by the depicted minor is part of that language, which makes it a factual question that has to be established rather than assumed from the ages of the people involved. Whether your situation fits is answered by reading subsection (c) against what actually happened. Where it does not apply, the penalties for a chapter offense are set by D.C. Code § 22-3103.

Both people were under 18 when the images were exchanged. What changes?

The age of every participant matters, and not only the age of the sender. D.C. Code § 22-3102(b) prohibits knowingly attending, transmitting, or possessing a sexual performance by a minor, and a minor is a person under 18 under D.C. Code § 22-3001. That is why the subsection (c) carve-outs, which address depicted minors and near-age recipients where the depicted minor consented to transmission, are examined closely in these matters. The penalty section, D.C. Code § 22-3103, applies to chapter offenses as a felony, so the availability of the carve-out is not a small point.

The image was of the person who sent it. Does that end the matter?

Not by itself, but it is directly relevant. Subsection (c) of D.C. Code § 22-3102 carves out limited exceptions for depicted minors, which is the category a self-produced image can fall into, and for near-age recipients where the depicted minor consented to transmission. Whether the exception applies depends on the terms of the subsection as applied to the facts, including who received the image and what the depicted minor consented to. The firm treats that as an element to be developed on the record, not as a conclusion that follows automatically from who appears in the image. Where subsection (c) does not reach the facts, the penalties at D.C. Code § 22-3103 govern.

Everyone involved was over 18. Which sections apply then?

Chapter 30 addresses sexual performance using minors, so where no one depicted was under 18, that chapter is not the source of the charge. An allegation that a sexual image of an adult was passed on without consent belongs to Chapter 30A, the District’s non-consensual pornography chapter, which runs from D.C. Code § 22-3051 through § 22-3057. Unlawful disclosure sits at D.C. Code § 22-3052 as a misdemeanor carrying a fine, up to 180 days, or both. First-degree unlawful publication sits at D.C. Code § 22-3053 as a felony carrying a fine, up to 3 years, or both.

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.