Virginia Solicitation of a Minor Lawyer

Online Solicitation of a Minor is a felony offense in Virginia. The law can be found at Virginia Code § 18.2-374.3, and generally it prohibits the use of a computer, cell phone, or any similar device to propose that a child perform a sexual act. Specifically, the law prohibits the following:

• Expose your genitals to a child;
• Propose that the child expose his or her genitalia;

• Propose that the child perform a sexual act;
• Entice/invite the child to a place in order to commit such acts.

Virginia law defines a “child” as anyone under the age of 18, but as discussed below, the penalties depend on the age of the child. If you are facing charges related to child sexual abuse, our team includes experienced child sexual abuse lawyers who can provide a strong defense and work to protect your rights throughout the legal process.

Under Virginia law, a person convicted of solicitation of a minor can be sentenced up to 10 years in prison if the victim is between 15 and 17 years old. If the victim is under the age of 15 and the defendant is more than 7 years older, Virginia law imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison. Penalties increase significantly if someone breaks the same law a second time.

It should be noted that in the vast majority of cases involving internet sting operations, the “child” claims to be 14 or younger, thereby triggering the mandatory minimum sentence. A conviction will also cause an individual to have to register on Virginia’s sex offender registry. A conviction, however, can be sealed under Virginia Code § 19.2-392.12 unless the 5-year mandatory minimum applies. It is important to understand that a minor can be charged with sexual abuse in certain cases, and the penalties can vary depending on the specific circumstances and the age of the involved parties.

An internet sting in Virginia involves law enforcement posing online as a minor to lure adults into sexual communication. People are typically arrested for this offense after communicating with the undercover officer and agreeing to meet somewhere. During these sting operations, the police will create a fake online profile or a fake posting on a website or cellphone application. When someone responds, the officer will normally state that he or she is a minor and then ask the person to send sexually explicit pictures or agree to meet somewhere. By sending a photo or agreeing to meet, the individual can find himself being charged with online solicitation of a minor.

The best way to defend yourself against criminal charges is to hire a lawyer as soon as possible. Contact us today to discuss how we can help your case.

The most common defenses to online solicitation of a minor in Virginia include lack of knowledge regarding the minor’s age and entrapment.

While people often wrongly assume that there are no defenses to solicitation of a minor charges, the arrested individual in these cases often believed that they were talking to an adult. In other cases. In other cases, the person may have been entrapped by law enforcement. To understand these legal defenses, it is important to first understand the background of internet sting operations in Virginia. Our team of criminal defense lawyers can help you navigate these complex issues and work to protect your rights throughout the legal process.

Virginia’s internet sting operations are largely conducted by the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force which is comprised of law enforcement officers across Virginia. This Task Force is federally funded, and the amount of funds that it receives from the federal government is dependent on the number of people who are arrested in internet sting operations. Because the Task Force is motivated by the number of arrests, the members of the Task Force often engage in aggressive and unfair tactics. The result is that many innocent people are charged.

To get a conviction, the Commonwealth has to show that the defendant “knew or had reason believe that the child was younger than 15 years of age.” Undercover officers will often engage in tactics to lead someone to think that they are talking to an adult. If the defendant did not believe the child was underage, there can be no conviction. An experienced internet sex crimes attorney will examine all of the surrounding circumstances (e.g., platform used, chat name, language used, length of the chat, exchanged photographs, etc.), to determine if this is a viable defense.

Here are some common tactics that we’ve seen law enforcement use to confuse or mislead someone into thinking they’re talking to an adult:

• Use a website or cellphone app that is for adults only.
• Mention their age in passing and only once.
• List an age on their profile that is 18 or older (or blank).
• Send photographs of themselves depicting an adult (we had one case where the photograph in question was of a 35-year-old woman but with a filter to make her appear younger).
• Target users in chats labeled “role play,” “fantasy,” or something similar.
• Use language to suggest that he or she is actually an adult engaged in role play.
• Engage in multiple chats with the same individual over days, weeks, or months (while only mentioning their age in a prior chat).

We have seen a number of cases where the undercover officer only briefly mentions an age in passing. If there is a long chat (or multiple chats) or if the individual was talking with many people at the same time, it is entirely plausible that he simply didn’t pay attention to the stated age or that he forgot what the officer stated earlier in the chat. We have also seen cases where our client fully believed that he was simply engaged in role play chat with an adult, and the officer used language to reinforce this belief.

Under Virginia law, entrapment consists of two elements: 1) the undercover officer induced the defendant to commit the crime; and 2) the defendant was not predisposed to engage in the crime. If the individual was entrapped by law enforcement into committing the offense, he cannot be guilty of solicitation of a minor in Virginia. Inducement generally means that the idea to commit the offense originated with the police, that the police used undue persuasion, and that the person would not have committed the act except for the police conduct.

In our experience, the most important element in any entrapment defense is establishing that the person would not have committed the crime but for the actions of the police. This means that the defense lawyer’s job is to show that his client never would have agreed to send a picture, or to meet with the child, if it wasn’t for the manner in which the sting operation was conducted.

To do this, we gather as much evidence as we can to show that our client had no sexual interest in children. This means gathering witnesses (such as family members, close friends, and prior lovers) to testify about our client’s traits and that our client was never interested in children. As discussed below, we also use psychological experts and computer forensic experts to bolster this defense. We also closely scrutinize the chats themselves to see if our client was reluctant to continue the chats, if the officer attempted to persuade our client into doing or saying something, and if the officer violated any ICAC rules or regulations.

In addition to analyzing all the surrounding circumstances of the chats in question, a good sex crimes attorney will also employ expert witnesses to reinforce the defense’s theory of the case. To support the defense that the defendant did not know the age of the “child,” a psychologist or psychiatrist can perform a psychosexual evaluation on the defendant and then testify that the defendant is not sexually interested in children. Similarly, with an entrapment defense, a psychologist or psychiatrist can testify that the defendant lacked the motive to solicit a minor. Such testimony is powerful evidence that the defendant never intended to commit a crime and is therefore innocent.

The defense can also employ a computer forensic expert to show that the defendant never chatted with other children and that his computer history only showed an interest in adults (e.g., search history, search terms, adult pornography). In cases involving false allegations of child pornography, our experienced legal team can help build a defense by challenging the evidence and working to prove that the accusations are unsubstantiated.

Yes, hiring a lawyer who specializes in internet sting and solicitation of a minor cases is absolutely critical. These cases involve a deep understanding of technical issues and computer forensics.

Our Virginia criminal defense lawyers know how to defend against charges alleging online solicitation of a minor. We have helped dozens of clients obtain pretrial dismissals and reductions. If you or someone you know is facing an online solicitation of a minor charge, contact our firm for immediate help. We have offices in Alexandria and Charlottesville, and we represent clients throughout Virginia.