CSAM Charges Lawyer Maryland

Maryland governs child sexual abuse material through separate statutes that sit at different levels of severity because they describe different conduct. Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-208 reaches a person who knowingly possesses and intentionally retains such material, or who knowingly accesses and intentionally views it, and it applies to representations of a child under 16. Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-207 reaches production and circulation, including knowingly promoting, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute. A file that sits on a drive and a file that moved to another person occupy opposite ends of that structure, and the counts a client faces reveal which end the State believes it can prove.

Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. defends CSAM allegations across Maryland, from the earliest contact by investigators through charging, motions, and resolution. Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor, and the firm has practiced criminal defense since 1997. The firm treats the possession count and the distribution count as separate arguments, because they carry separate elements, separate penalty ranges, and separate registration tiers under Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 11-701. Request a consultation. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. maintains a 24/7 phone intake at (888) 437-7747.

On this page

Possession Under Section 11-208 and Distribution Under Section 11-207

Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-208 prohibits knowingly possessing and intentionally retaining, or knowingly accessing and intentionally viewing, a representation showing an actual child, or a computer-generated image indistinguishable from an actual and identifiable child, under 16 engaged in sadomasochistic abuse, sexual conduct, or a state of sexual excitement. The statute states a misdemeanor carrying up to 5 years or a $2,500 fine. A person previously convicted under this section is guilty of a felony, up to 10 years or a $10,000 fine. Section 11-208 is a Tier I registration offense if the victim is a minor.

The statute also writes protections into its own text. A parental exception covers nude images of the parent’s own child, and it stops applying when the child appears in sadomasochistic abuse or in sexual conduct and a state of sexual excitement. An affirmative defense covers a person who promptly and in good faith destroyed the material or reported it to law enforcement. Both provisions describe conduct that happens before any charge, which is why what a client did in the hours after material appeared often decides how the case proceeds.

Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-207 describes heavier conduct and imposes a heavier result. The statute prohibits causing or knowingly allowing a minor to engage as a subject in the production of obscene matter or of a visual representation depicting a minor in sadomasochistic abuse or sexual conduct. It prohibits photographing or filming a minor engaging in such conduct, using a computer to depict such conduct, and knowingly promoting, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute such matter. A violation is a felony. A first violation carries up to 10 years or a $25,000 fine, and each subsequent violation carries up to 20 years or $50,000. Section 11-207 is a Tier II registration offense.

The age lines differ as well. Section 11-208 speaks about a child under 16. Section 11-207 speaks about a minor. A case involving an older teenager can therefore support one statute and not the other, and that gap forms a real defense argument rather than a technicality.

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

Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys read every count against the statutory verb it rests on. Possession under § 11-208 requires knowing possession joined to intentional retention, or knowing access joined to intentional viewing. Neither phrase describes a file that landed somewhere a client never chose. Distribution under § 11-207 requires the State to show movement outward, or an intent to move material outward, and the firm asks what evidence supports that step rather than accepting the label on the charging document.

The under-16 threshold receives its own attention. Section 11-208 applies to a representation showing a child under 16 or a computer-generated image indistinguishable from an actual and identifiable child under that age. When the State cannot connect the depicted person to that description, the count loses its foundation, and the attorneys press that point before the case settles into a plea posture.

The affirmative defense in § 11-208 shapes early strategy. A person who promptly and in good faith destroyed the material or reported it to law enforcement has a statutory answer, and preserving that answer requires an accurate account of what the client did and when. The firm gathers that account at the start, while memories and records remain intact, and it also evaluates whether the parental exception applies within the limits the statute states.

Consequences drive the negotiation. Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 11-701 assigns the tier I, tier II, and tier III classifications, and a plea that moves a client from § 11-207 to § 11-208 changes the tier as well as the penalty range. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys weigh each option against that long-term effect. Request a consultation.

The Attorneys Who Defend Maryland CSAM Matters

Mr. Sris is the Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. and a former prosecutor. He is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. The firm has practiced since 1997 and concentrates in criminal defense, including charges built on stored files, shared folders, and messaging applications. Maryland matters of this kind reach the firm at every stage, from an early contact by investigators through a charging document already on file, and the posture at the outset shapes what the defense can still do.

Charging decisions in these matters often rest on inference. The State connects a device to a person, a person to an account, and an account to a file, and each link carries an assumption that defense counsel can test. Mr. Sris approaches a Maryland file by asking which of those links the State has actually established and which links the paperwork asserts without support.

Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys work these matters together, because a CSAM case runs on parallel tracks: the criminal exposure under §§ 11-207 and 11-208, and the registration exposure under Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 11-701. Clients reach the firm through its Maryland locations and through a 24/7 phone intake at (888) 437-7747.

Frequently Asked Questions

What separates a possession charge from a distribution charge in Maryland?

Possession sits in Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-208, which reaches knowing possession with intentional retention and knowing access with intentional viewing of a representation showing a child under 16. Distribution sits in Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-207, which reaches knowingly promoting, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute, along with production conduct. Section 11-208 states a misdemeanor carrying up to 5 years or a $2,500 fine. Section 11-207 states a felony, with a first violation carrying up to 10 years or a $25,000 fine. The statutes also carry different registration tiers.

Why does § 11-208 refer to a child under 16?

The General Assembly wrote that threshold into the text of Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-208, which describes a representation showing an actual child, or a computer-generated image indistinguishable from an actual and identifiable child, under 16 engaged in sadomasochistic abuse, sexual conduct, or a state of sexual excitement. Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-207 uses the broader term minor instead. A case can therefore satisfy one statute without satisfying the other, and defense counsel examines which description the State’s own allegations actually match.

What is the affirmative defense written into § 11-208?

Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-208 provides an affirmative defense for prompt good-faith destruction of the material or a report to law enforcement. The defense turns on what the person did after encountering the material, so the timing and the good faith of that response carry the argument. Because the defense depends on the client’s own conduct, the account has to be accurate and consistent from the beginning. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys collect that history early and evaluate whether the statute’s language covers it.

Does the parental exception cover ordinary family photographs?

Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-208 contains a parental exception for nude images of the parent’s own child. The statute withdraws the exception when the child is shown in sadomasochistic abuse or in sexual conduct and a state of sexual excitement. The exception therefore addresses images of a parent’s own child and stops at the conduct the statute names. Whether a particular image falls inside or outside that boundary depends on what the image depicts, and the firm addresses that question against the statutory language rather than against general impressions.

What happens to a person previously convicted under § 11-208?

Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-208 states that a person previously convicted under this section is guilty of a felony, up to 10 years or a $10,000 fine, instead of the misdemeanor exposure of up to 5 years or a $2,500 fine. A prior conviction therefore changes the character of the offense and the sentencing range together. Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 11-701 governs the tier I, tier II, and tier III classifications, so a second matter also raises questions about registration that the firm addresses alongside the criminal exposure.

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.