Sexting Charges Lawyer Maryland

Maryland has no criminal statute that uses the word sexting. Prosecutors reach instead for statutes written about images of minors and about the nonconsensual sharing of intimate pictures, so the charge that follows a phone exchange depends on the ages of the people involved and on what the image shows. An exchange between adults who both agreed to it sits outside the child protection statutes, until one of them forwards the image to hurt the other. An exchange that includes a minor moves the analysis into Md. Code, Crim. Law §§ 11-207 and 11-208, where the penalty ranges and the registration consequences change sharply.

Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. defends sexting allegations throughout Maryland, including matters that begin with a school report, a parent’s complaint to law enforcement, or a device examined during an unrelated investigation. 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 reads the charging document before it reads anything else, because a client often describes a single event while the paperwork alleges several distinct acts under different subsections and different statutes. Charges of this kind also carry consequences that outlast the sentence, including the registration tiers that Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 11-701 assigns. Request a consultation. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. maintains a 24/7 phone intake at (888) 437-7747.

On this page

Age and Content Decide Which Maryland Statute Applies

Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-207 addresses child pornography. 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 also 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.

Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-208 addresses possession and access, and it draws a different age line. The statute 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. A violation is 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. The statute contains a parental exception for nude images of the parent’s own child, unless the child appears in sadomasochistic abuse or in sexual conduct and a state of sexual excitement, and an affirmative defense for prompt good-faith destruction or a report to law enforcement. Section 11-208 is a Tier I registration offense if the victim is a minor.

Md. Code, Crim. Law § 3-809 answers a different problem, and the age of the depicted person does not control it. The statute prohibits knowingly distributing a visual representation of another identifiable person with intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual activity, with intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce, knowing the person did not consent. A visual representation expressly includes a computer-generated image indistinguishable from the person, while excluding drawings, cartoons, sculptures and paintings. A violation is a misdemeanor carrying up to 2 years or a $5,000 fine. 2025 Md. Laws ch. 219, effective July 1, 2025, added that definition and a statutory civil cause of action. Maryland does not call this provision a revenge porn law.

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

Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys start with the charging document and the age of every person named in it. A single exchange can generate counts under several statutes, and the distance between a § 11-208 misdemeanor and a § 11-207 felony often turns on whether the State alleges distribution, or an intent to distribute, rather than retention alone. The attorneys separate the counts, match each count to the conduct the State describes, and identify the elements the paperwork leaves unaddressed.

Intent carries much of the weight in these matters. Section 3-809 requires intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce, and it requires knowledge that the depicted person did not consent. Section 11-208 requires knowing possession with intentional retention, or knowing access with intentional viewing. An image that arrived unsolicited, or that a client never opened, does not answer those descriptions the way a saved and organized collection does, and the firm builds that distinction into the record early.

The firm also works the defenses that Maryland wrote into the statutory text. Section 11-208 supplies a parental exception for nude images of the parent’s own child, subject to the limits the statute states, and an affirmative defense for a person who promptly and in good faith destroyed the material or reported it to law enforcement. Those provisions reward early attention, because what a client did after an image arrived can matter as much as the arrival itself.

Registration exposure shapes every negotiation. Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 11-701 sets the tier I, tier II, and tier III classifications, and the statute of conviction drives the tier. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys measure any proposed resolution against that consequence, not only against the sentence. Request a consultation.

Mr. Sris and the Firm’s Of Counsel Attorneys

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 allegations that arise from phones, computers, and stored images.

Work as a prosecutor teaches an attorney how the State assembles a charging decision from an incomplete picture. Mr. Sris applies that reading to a Maryland file, separating the counts the State can support from the counts that rest on inference about who held a device, who sent a message, and who kept what arrived. That reading shapes the motions the firm files, the questions it puts to the State, and the preparation it brings to a Maryland courtroom.

Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys share responsibility for Maryland matters. The attorneys assigned to a case of this kind work with how §§ 11-207, 11-208, and 3-809 interact, and with how a plea to any one of them changes 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

Does Maryland have a law that specifically covers sexting?

No Maryland statute uses that word. The State charges the conduct people describe as sexting under statutes written for other purposes. Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-207 covers the production and distribution of child pornography. Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-208 covers possession and access involving a child under 16. Md. Code, Crim. Law § 3-809 covers the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images of an identifiable person. Which statute applies depends on the age of the person shown, on what the image depicts, and on whether the allegation involves keeping an image or sending it onward to someone else.

What changes when everyone in the exchange is an adult?

Consensual exchanges between adults fall outside the child protection statutes, because exposure under those provisions begins with the age of the person depicted. The same picture can still support a charge under Md. Code, Crim. Law § 3-809 when someone later distributes it. That statute requires knowing distribution of a visual representation of an identifiable person with intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual activity, intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce, and knowledge that the person did not consent. A violation is a misdemeanor carrying up to 2 years or a $5,000 fine.

Can a minor face charges over an image of the minor’s own body?

Maryland wrote §§ 11-207 and 11-208 around the age of the person depicted rather than the age of the sender, so a minor who creates or sends such an image can fall inside language the General Assembly aimed at child sexual abuse material. Section 11-208 reaches a representation showing a child under 16, and it carries an affirmative defense for a person who promptly and in good faith destroyed the material or reported it to law enforcement. Defense work in a juvenile matter begins from those distinctions and from the registration tiers each statute triggers.

What did the 2025 amendment to § 3-809 change?

2025 Md. Laws ch. 219 amended Md. Code, Crim. Law § 3-809 effective July 1, 2025. The amendment added a definition that brings computer-generated images inside the statute, so a visual representation includes an image indistinguishable from the identifiable person even when no camera ever recorded that person. The definition excludes drawings, cartoons, sculptures and paintings. The amendment also created a statutory civil cause of action, which lets a depicted person pursue a civil claim alongside the criminal case. The criminal penalty remains a misdemeanor carrying up to 2 years or a $5,000 fine.

Does a conviction lead to sex offender registration in Maryland?

That depends on the statute of conviction. Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 11-701 sets the tier I, tier II, and tier III classifications. Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-207 is a Tier II registration offense. Md. Code, Crim. Law § 11-208 is a Tier I registration offense if the victim is a minor. Because the tier follows the statute rather than the version of events a client remembers, the choice among counts during negotiation carries weight far beyond the sentence, and Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys weigh every offer against it.

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.