Orange County Child Pornography Lawyer

What Are California’s Child Pornography Laws?

California has several laws that prohibit specific conduct related to child pornography.

It is illegal for a person to knowingly do any of the following with matter depicting a person under 18 years of age engaged in sexual conduct:

• Possess or control
• Send or distribute
• Develop, duplicate, print, or exchange
• Advertise

It is also unlawful for a person to hire or employ a minor for the purpose of having them perform sexual acts.
According to California Penal Code 311.4(d) PC, sexual conduct includes the following:

• Sexual intercourse
• Oral copulation
• Anal intercourse
• Anal oral copulation
• Masturbation
• Bestiality
• Sexual sadism
• Sexual masochism
• Penetrating the vagina or anus with an object in a sexual way
• Exposing the rectal area or genitals

When it comes to child pornography, specific actions are prohibited whether the material depicted a child actually involved in the sexual conduct or simulated it.

What Are the Penalties for a Child Pornography Conviction?

Child pornography charges are serious, and the state harshly prosecutes and penalizes these crimes.

Depending on the circumstances, these offenses can be pursued as either misdemeanors or felonies, and the specific punishments depend on the facts of the case. For instance, a person found guilty of possessing child pornography can be sentenced to up to 1 year in jail and/or fined up to $2,500. However, if that individual was previously found guilty of a child pornography offense or other sex crime, they could be looking at imprisonment for 2, 4, or 6 years.

To fully understand your child pornography charge and the potential conviction penalties, it’s best to speak with a knowledgeable Orange County criminal defense lawyer. Attorney Jacqueline Goodman is ready to deliver the legal representation you need.

Defenses Against Child Pornography Charges

Common defenses may include:

• Lack of Knowledge or Intent: One of the most frequently used defenses in child pornography cases is demonstrating that the defendant had no knowledge or intent to possess or view illicit material. In the digital age, it is possible to unknowingly download or view images or videos embedded in other files or accessed through malware or spam emails. Establishing a lack of intent can help show that the accused did not purposely seek out or knowingly possess illegal material.
• Insufficient Evidence: To secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed, accessed, or distributed child pornography. In many cases, digital evidence may be circumstantial or unreliable, particularly when devices are shared or accessible by multiple users. Challenging the evidence by questioning data reliability, device ownership, or the chain of custody can help raise doubts and potentially weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Illegal Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures. Law enforcement must follow strict protocols when seizing and examining electronic devices. If evidence was obtained without a proper warrant or beyond the scope of what was authorized by a warrant, it may be possible to suppress that evidence. An attorney can examine the circumstances surrounding the search and file a motion to exclude unlawfully obtained evidence, which could lead to reduced charges or even case dismissal.
• Entrapment: Entrapment is a defense used when law enforcement induces an individual to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed. In child pornography cases, entrapment may occur in sting operations or undercover investigations. This defense could apply if officers or agents used coercive tactics to compel or convince someone to access or download illegal material. Demonstrating entrapment requires proving that law enforcement went beyond permissible boundaries and effectively encouraged the crime.
• Identity Theft or Unauthorized Device Use: With the rise in cybercrime, identity theft and unauthorized use of digital devices have become increasingly common. If someone else gained access to the accused person’s device or account without their knowledge, it may appear that the accused was responsible. Proving that another party accessed the device through hacking or physical access can establish reasonable doubt and protect the defendant from a wrongful conviction.
• Misidentification of Content or Age: In some cases, images or videos in question may not actually meet the legal definition of child pornography. Content that appears questionable may not necessarily depict illegal acts or involve minors. Additionally, individuals who appear young might actually be adults. A detailed forensic examination of the content may reveal inaccuracies in the prosecution’s case, allowing for a possible reduction or dismissal of charges.