Internet Luring and Internet Sexual Exploitation of a Child in Colorado

Internet sexual exploitation of a child, C.R.S. 18-3-405.4

A person commits internet sexual exploitation of a child when they knowingly importune, invite, or entice, through a computer network, phone network, data network, text message, or instant message, a person they know or believe to be under 15 and at least four years younger, to (C.R.S. 18-3-405.4(1)):

• Expose or touch their own or another person’s intimate parts while communicating with the person accused, or
• Observe the intimate parts of the person accused through the same kind of communication

Internet sexual exploitation of a child is a class 4 felony (C.R.S. 18-3-405.4(3)).

Internet luring of a child, C.R.S. 18-3-306

A person commits internet luring of a child when they knowingly communicate by computer, phone, data network, text, or instant message with someone they know or believe to be under 15, and in that communication or a later one (C.R.S. 18-3-306(1)):

1. Describe explicit sexual conduct, and
2. In connection with that description, make a statement persuading or inviting the person to meet for any purpose, and
3. Are more than four years older than the person, or than the age they believe the person to be

A meeting does not have to happen. The statute says it is not a defense that a meeting did not occur (C.R.S. 18-3-306(2)). "In connection with" covers communications that further or have a continuity of purpose with the invitation, and they can come before, during, or after it (C.R.S. 18-3-306(4)).

Internet luring is a class 5 felony, and a class 4 felony if committed with the intent to meet for sexual exploitation or sexual contact (C.R.S. 18-3-306(3)).

The two charges side by side

Sources: C.R.S. 18-3-405.4, 18-3-306, 18-1.3-401, 18-1.3-1003(5).

Why "knows or believes" matters: sting operations

Both statutes apply when the person knows or believes the other party is under 15. So the law can apply even when there was no child at all, only an undercover officer or volunteer posing as one. A large share of these cases come from exactly that kind of operation.

That does not end the analysis. It moves it:

• What did the person actually believe? Profiles, photos, the platform, and the words used in the conversation all bear on whether the belief element is proven.
• Who pushed the conversation where it went? Colorado recognizes an entrapment defense when law enforcement induced conduct in a way that created a substantial risk it would be committed by someone who otherwise would not have engaged in it. The statute is also clear that simply offering an opportunity is not entrapment (C.R.S. 18-1-709). Where a case falls on that line is a question of detail.
• What exactly was said, and when? Luring requires a description of explicit sexual conduct in connection with an invitation to meet. Exploitation requires an invitation to expose, touch, or view intimate parts. Each element has to be matched to actual messages.

Sentencing, lifetime supervision, and registration

Internet sexual exploitation of a child and class 4 felony internet luring are both "sex offenses" under Colorado’s Lifetime Supervision Act (C.R.S. 18-1.3-1003(5)). A prison sentence for a sex offense under that Act is indeterminate, with a minimum set by the court and a maximum of the person’s natural life (C.R.S. 18-1.3-1004(1)(a)).

Both offenses are also listed as "unlawful sexual behavior" under Colorado’s registration law (C.R.S. 16-22-102(9)), so a conviction requires sex offender registration (C.R.S. 16-22-103).

Related charges

Online cases often come with more than one count. Depending on the facts, a person may also face online solicitation or sexual exploitation of a child charges, the statute that covers images and videos. Some online conduct involving minors can also be charged federally, which changes the penalties and the process.

Where these cases are actually decided: the gray area

The state presents an internet case as simple: here are the messages. But messages without context are exactly what the black and white story depends on.

• The full conversation, not the excerpt. Screenshots and summaries in a police report can leave out who started the conversation, what the other side said, and how the tone shifted. The complete record, including metadata, is where the real story is.
• Who was actually typing. Shared devices, shared accounts, and compromised logins are real issues. Attribution has to be proven.
• The search and seizure. These cases usually rest on phone and computer searches. The warrant, its scope, and how the devices were examined can all be challenged when the facts support it.
• Forensic analysis. A defense expert’s independent review of the devices often finds what a rushed review missed.

We prepare every case for trial from the first day, because in digital evidence cases the details decide everything. That preparation does not guarantee any result. It is what puts the person accused in the strongest position to negotiate, or to try the case when that is the right call. Whether to go to trial is always your decision.

What to do right now

• Do not talk to investigators without a lawyer, even if they say they only want to "clear something up."
• Do not delete anything or reset any device. Destroying data can create new charges and can remove evidence that helps you.
• Do not log in to or contact any account involved.
• Get counsel before any interview, search, or court date.

Frequently asked questions