Legal Defense Services We Provide

Both the Federal Government and the State of North Carolina prosecute child pornography production, distribution, possession, and intentional viewing.

Federal Law

In Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), the United States Supreme Court interpreted the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, reaffirmed the criminalization of child pornography (the visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct) and distinguished virtual child pornography as speech protected by the First Amendment.

Any person who knowingly participates in the production of live child pornography faces a mandatory prison sentence of 15 to 30 years and a sentence of 25 to 50 years for repeat offenders. Knowingly participating in the production or distributionof child pornography results in a mandatory prison sentence of 5 to 20 years and 15 to 40 years for repeat offenders. Any person who knowingly possesses or intentionally views child pornography confronts a sentence of 0 to 10 years or 0 to 20 years if the child pictured is under the age of 12.

North Carolina Law

Participating in the production of child pornography is a Class C felony with a minimum sentence of 44 to 182 months in prison. N.C.G.S. § 14-190.16. Knowingly distributing child pornography is as Class E felony with a minimum sentence of 15 to 63 months and the possibility of probation. N.C.G.S. § 14-190.17. Possession of child pornography is a class H felony with a minimum sentence of 4 to 20 months and the possibility of probation. N.C.G.S. § 14-190.17A. Mistake of age is not a defense.

Law enforcement identifies alleged child pornography violations in several ways.

First, every photograph or video transmitted over the internet can be identified by the series of pixels at the end of the image. Law enforcement has a library of images previously identified as child pornography. Search engines monitor images passing through the internet and compare their pixels to those of images in the child pornography library. When a search engine identifies a match, law enforcement is notified with the internet address for the sender and recipient. Law enforcement will begin monitoring those internet addresses to confirm the transmission of prohibited images, present their evidence to a judge and obtain a search warrant to seize the electronic devices. Then, law enforcement tries to identify the suspected offender and refers the case for prosecution.

Second, law enforcement may monitor a computer that contains child pornography to identify other computers that have shared those images. After obtaining internet addresses for the other computers, law enforcement may obtain warrants to seize those computers and arrest suspected offenders.

Third, the “dark web” refers to content that is not indexed by search engines and that requires special software or authorization to access. When law enforcement locates a dark web site disseminating child pornography, it can trace the computers accessing that dark web site to identify suspected offenders.

Fourth, law enforcement agents may participate in internet chat rooms associated with child pornography and convince other chat room participants to share prohibited images leading to their arrest. This list is merely a summary of law enforcement’s most common tactics.

Unfortunately, some computer users may become suspects without their knowledge.

Many pier to pier computer networks allow one computer to remotely access another computer and copy data to and from that computer. These open computer networks may allow others to place child pornography on your computer without your knowledge. Pier to pier computer networks are inherently risky and should be avoided.

Additionally, unsecured Wi-Fi locations may allow computer users to access child pornography anonymously. If your home has a Wi-Fi connection that can be accessed without entering a password, then a stranger or neighbor may use your Wi-Fi connection to exchange prohibited images without your knowledge. When law enforcement trace those prohibited images your Wi-Fi connection, you become the suspected offender.

Additionally, unsecured Wi-Fi locations may allow computer users to access child pornography anonymously. If your home has a Wi-Fi connection that can be accessed without entering a password, then a stranger or neighbor may use your Wi-Fi connection to exchange prohibited images without your knowledge. When law enforcement trace those prohibited images to your Wi-Fi connection, you become the suspected offender.

Defending Alleged Violations

Our strategy is to investigate the case, prepare it for trial and force the prosecutor to prove every element of the alleged crime to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. A plea bargain is our last resort.

I employ a computer forensic expert who can confirm whether a computer contains images (or deleted images) of child pornography and how those images entered the computer. Also, our expert may identify terms used in suspected internet searches and confirm that prohibited image files were never opened supporting a defense that no one intentionally downloaded or viewed prohibited images. We compare our computer expert’s report with law enforcement’s analysis to identify any discrepancies. These discrepancies are issues we can present at trial as we pursue an acquittal. When appropriate, these discrepancies may help us negotiate a better plea bargain as well.

Next, we identify who had access to the computer containing the prohibited images. Was the computer password protected? Who had physical access to the computer? Who had virtual access to the computer by a pier to pier server, unsecured Wi-Fi connection or otherwise? Identifying others who had access to a computer is not necessarily intended to shift blame to someone else but may undermine the prosecutor’s ability to prove a suspect downloaded prohibited images.

In cases where negotiating a plea bargain becomes necessary, limiting the number of prohibited images or recategorizing images as less offensive may reduce the sentence. Participating in a diagnostic psychological screening and therapy or a successful polygraph examination may also aid in negotiating a shorter sentence.

Securing immediate release from custody with manageable release conditions is our initial priority. Offering to add electronic monitoring or house arrest to release conditions may reduce the cost of posting bond. Pretrial release enables a suspect to better assist in trial preparation and return to work. If a suspect’s residence is too close to a school or daycare, we can help arrange alternate housing. We are ready to begin work on the case today. Please call Attorney McCoppin at 919-306-7621.

Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)

18 USCS 2251

18 USCS 2252

18 USCS 2252A

18 USCS 2252A

Example of website content monitoring notice:
18 U.S.C. §2257 Records Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement

Any record required to be kept pursuant to the above referenced regulation are maintained properly and in compliance. All models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual portrayal of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct appearing on, or otherwise contained in, this Website were over the age of eighteen (18) years at the time the visual image was produced. Records required by Title 18 U.S.C. §2257 are on file with the appropriate Records Custodian, etc.