Arranging for Sexual Contact with a Minor Lawyer DC

A prosecution under D.C. Code § 22-3010.02 begins with an arrangement, not with a completed physical encounter. The section makes it unlawful to arrange to engage in, or to arrange for another person to engage in, a sexual act or sexual contact with an individual who is or is represented to be a child at least 4 years younger than the actor. The individual described in that arrangement may be real or fictitious. That drafting choice sets the section apart from most of Chapter 30 of Title 22, where the described conduct involves an identified child. In practice, the evidence in these matters is the arrangement itself: message threads, chat logs, recorded calls, travel plans, and payment records.

The section also carries a limitation written into its own text. Where the individual is fictitious, the conduct is unlawful only if the arrangement is made by or with a law enforcement officer. That condition states when a fictitious-child arrangement is reachable at all. Because these matters so often grow out of online operations, the identity and the role of the person on the other side of the conversation is a question that touches an element of the offense rather than only the atmosphere of the case.

Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. was founded in 1997 and concentrates in criminal defense. Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor, and he and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys read the complete record of an alleged arrangement before advising on strategy. Request a consultation through the firm’s 24/7 phone intake at (888) 437-7747.

On this page

What D.C. Code § 22-3010.02 Requires the Government to Prove

The section describes arranging conduct in more than one form. A person may not arrange to engage personally in a sexual act or sexual contact with an individual who is or is represented to be a child, and a person may not arrange for another person to engage in that conduct. The age relationship is an element in either direction. The individual must be, or be represented to be, a child at least 4 years younger than the actor. D.C. Code § 22-3001 supplies the definitions that carry through Chapter 30 of Title 22: a child is a person who has not yet attained the age of 16, and a minor is a person under 18. Those definitions were amended by D.C. Law 25-175, effective June 8, 2024.

The section then splits along a single line. Where the individual is real, the arrangement stands on its own terms. Where the individual is fictitious, the conduct is unlawful only if the arrangement is made by or with a law enforcement officer. That condition explains why the section functions in undercover work, and why the handling of an online account matters. Who created the persona, who typed the messages, and in what capacity that person acted are questions tied to the statutory text.

A violation of D.C. Code § 22-3010.02 is punishable by up to 5 years, a fine, or both. The section was added by D.C. Law 18-377, effective June 3, 2011. Confinement is not the full measure of exposure. Registration definitions in D.C. Code § 22-4001 treat any offense under Chapter 30 of Title 22 as a registration offense, so a conviction under this section carries consequences that outlast any term of incarceration. D.C. Code § 22-3020 separately lists six aggravating circumstances that can raise exposure in sexual abuse prosecutions, including a victim under 13 and a victim under 18 where the actor is in a significant relationship, and permits enhanced penalties up to 1.5 times the statutory maximum.

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

Work begins with the record of the conversation as a whole rather than with the excerpts quoted in a charging document. Message threads are read in sequence and in full, with attention to who opened the exchange, how an age was introduced, and when any arrangement language first appeared. Metadata, account provenance, and device extractions are compared against the transcript the government intends to use, because a gap in a thread can change how a single sentence reads.

The elements then drive the analysis. Was there an arrangement, or a conversation that never resolved into one? Was the individual real or fictitious? If fictitious, was the arrangement made by or with a law enforcement officer, as the section requires? Was the individual represented to be a child at least 4 years younger than the accused person? Each question calls for evidence, and each is a place where a record can fall short of the statutory description.

Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys also map collateral exposure early. A charge under Chapter 30 of Title 22 carries registration consequences under D.C. Code § 22-4001, and any proposed resolution has to be measured against that reality rather than against a term of confinement alone. Where an investigation remains open, the firm addresses contact with investigators, preservation of the client’s own devices, and the risk of explaining events without counsel present.

Communication with the client is deliberate and documented. The firm explains what the section requires, what the record currently shows, and what remains unresolved, so that decisions about motions, negotiation, or trial rest on the full picture. Request a consultation.

Mr. Sris and the Firm’s Of Counsel Attorneys

Mr. Sris is the Owner and Founder of the firm and a former prosecutor. He is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. Time spent evaluating cases from the charging side shapes how he reads an arranging allegation: which parts of the record were preserved, which were summarized after the fact, and where a conclusion rests on inference rather than on a document.

The firm has practiced since 1997 and concentrates in criminal defense, including charges brought under Chapter 30 of Title 22. Matters under D.C. Code § 22-3010.02 are handled by Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys as a unit, because these files combine statutory analysis, electronic evidence, and registration consequences that need to be weighed together rather than in sequence.

Clients receive a direct account of what the section requires and what the record presently shows. Where the government’s theory rests on a fictitious individual, the firm identifies the statutory condition that governs that situation and examines whether the record satisfies it. Where the theory rests on a real individual, the analysis turns to the arrangement itself and to the represented age. Consultations at the firm’s locations are scheduled in advance. Request a consultation through the firm’s 24/7 phone intake at (888) 437-7747.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does D.C. Code § 22-3010.02 apply when no real child was involved?

It can, but only under a condition stated in the section itself. D.C. Code § 22-3010.02 covers an individual who is or is represented to be a child, and it expressly includes an individual who is fictitious. Where the individual is fictitious, the conduct is unlawful only if the arrangement is made by or with a law enforcement officer. That condition is part of the statute rather than a policy of an investigating agency, so who created and operated the account, and in what capacity, is a question tied to the offense itself.

What does it mean to arrange for another person to engage in sexual contact?

The section reaches more than one kind of arrangement. One is an arrangement for the accused person to engage in a sexual act or sexual contact. The other is an arrangement for a different person to do so. The second branch means a defendant can face the charge without ever being the person described as participating in the contemplated conduct. What the government must still establish is an arrangement involving an individual who is or is represented to be a child at least 4 years younger than the actor, and, where that individual is fictitious, an arrangement made by or with a law enforcement officer.

What penalty does a conviction under D.C. Code § 22-3010.02 carry?

The section provides for up to 5 years, a fine, or both. It was added by D.C. Law 18-377, effective June 3, 2011. A term of confinement is not the only consequence to consider. Registration definitions in D.C. Code § 22-4001 treat any offense under Chapter 30 of Title 22 as a registration offense, so registration exposure belongs in any evaluation of a plea or a trial. D.C. Code § 22-3020 also lists six aggravating circumstances that permit enhanced penalties up to 1.5 times the statutory maximum in sexual abuse prosecutions.

How does the definition of a child affect an arranging charge?

D.C. Code § 22-3001 supplies the definitions used across Chapter 30 of Title 22. A child is a person who has not yet attained the age of 16, and a minor is a person under 18. Those definitions were amended by D.C. Law 25-175, effective June 8, 2024. D.C. Code § 22-3010.02 is written around the child definition and an age difference: the individual must be, or be represented to be, a child at least 4 years younger than the actor. Where the case involves a represented age, both the representation and the difference in age are matters the record has to establish.

Can an arranging conviction lead to sex offender registration?

Registration definitions appear in D.C. Code § 22-4001, and registration offenses include any offense under Chapter 30 of Title 22. D.C. Code § 22-3010.02 sits within that chapter. Registration consequences therefore need to be assessed at the beginning of a case rather than after a disposition is reached, because they can shape which resolutions are acceptable to a client. The registration definitions also identify lifetime categories. Under D.C. Code § 22-4001(6)(B), first degree child sexual abuse under D.C. Code § 22-3008 is a lifetime registration offense when the victim is under 13.

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.