Duluth Child Solicitation Attorney | MN 609.352

Fighting a Solicitation Accusation in St. Louis County with a Dedicated Defense Attorney

Your world in Duluth, or perhaps a smaller, quieter community like Proctor or Two Harbors, has just been ripped apart by an accusation under Minnesota Statute 609.352. The shock is profound, immediately casting a dark cloud over everything you hold dear. The accusation of soliciting a child or communicating sexually explicit materials to a child is one of the most terrifying and damaging charges anyone can face. The immediate fear is overwhelming: the whispers, the judgment from neighbors in a tight-knit town, the potential destruction of your job, and the unbearable thought of how this will impact your family. You feel the immense power of the state, with its police and prosecutors, bearing down on you, and it can seem like there’s no escape.

This accusation feels like the end of your life, but it is not. It is the beginning of a relentless fight, a battle for your freedom, your future, and your very identity. You are facing the full weight of the state’s resources, but an accusation is not a conviction. You need a fierce and unwavering advocate by your side, someone who understands the nuances of Minnesota Statute 609.352 and is prepared to challenge every aspect of the state’s case. My unwavering commitment is to forge a clear path forward through this crisis, armed with strength, strategic insight, and an unyielding dedication to your defense. I will stand with you, challenging every allegation and fighting to ensure this devastating charge does not define or destroy your life in Northern Minnesota, from Cloquet to Bemidji.

The Stakes: What a Conviction Truly Costs

A conviction under Minnesota Statute 609.352 is not merely a legal judgment; it is a life sentence of profound and devastating consequences that extend far beyond any prison walls or fines. The fight you are undertaking is absolutely critical because the cost of failure is immeasurable, impacting every facet of your existence for decades to come.

Your Permanent Criminal Record

A conviction for soliciting a child or communicating sexually explicit materials to a child will unequivocally result in a permanent criminal record, an indelible public mark that will follow you throughout the remainder of your life. This record is not discreet; it is easily accessible to anyone conducting a background check, including potential employers, landlords, and professional licensing boards. It serves as a perpetual scarlet letter, constantly resurfacing to demand explanations, invite judgment, and cast a long, inescapable shadow of doubt, irrespective of how much time has passed or how diligently you attempt to rebuild your life. In close-knit communities across St. Louis County, this permanent record can lead to profound social ostracization and a persistent, suffocating feeling of being perpetually scrutinized and condemned.

Loss of Second Amendment Rights

A profound and frequently overlooked consequence of a felony conviction under Minnesota Statute 609.352 is the permanent forfeiture of your Second Amendment rights. This means that, for the rest of your life, you will be legally prohibited from owning, possessing, or transporting firearms. For many individuals throughout Northern Minnesota, where hunting, recreational shooting, and the fundamental right to self-defense are deeply cherished cultural values and integral aspects of their daily lives, this loss is not merely a legal restriction; it represents a fundamental and irreversible alteration of their freedoms and activities. This prohibition is absolute and represents a permanent surrender of a liberty that many consider a cornerstone of their existence.

Barriers to Employment and Housing

A conviction for soliciting a child or communicating sexually explicit materials to a child erects formidable and often insurmountable barriers to securing stable employment and suitable housing. Employers are typically highly reluctant, and often legally mandated, from hiring individuals with such a conviction, particularly for roles involving children, vulnerable populations, or any position of trust. Landlords, too, routinely conduct comprehensive criminal background checks, and a conviction under this statute will severely limit your housing options, potentially forcing you into undesirable or precarious living situations. This isn’t merely about inconvenience; it fundamentally impacts your ability to earn a livelihood, provide for your family, and secure a safe place to reside, leading to long-term financial instability, social marginalization, and a constant struggle for basic necessities.

Impact on Professional Licenses and Reputation

For those holding professional licenses—whether as a teacher, coach, daycare provider, or in any other regulated profession involving interaction with children—a conviction under Minnesota Statute 609.352 will almost certainly lead to the immediate suspension or permanent revocation of that license. This effectively dismantles your career, rendering years of education, training, and dedicated service meaningless. Beyond the professional devastation, your personal reputation within your community—be it Duluth, Bemidji, Cloquet, or any other town in Northern Minnesota—will be irrevocably shattered. The accusation itself can be deeply damaging, but a conviction publicly validates the allegations, leading to profound social isolation, an enduring loss of trust from friends, family, and neighbors, and widespread personal and professional discredit that will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.

The Accusation: Understanding the State’s Case

When facing an accusation under Minnesota Statute 609.352, it can feel like you’re adrift in a sea of terrifying allegations and legal complexities. Understanding precisely what the state alleges and the specific elements of this statute they will attempt to prove against you is the first, crucial step in charting a course for your defense. You cannot fight what you do not comprehend.

What Does the State Allege? Solicitation of Children to Engage in Sexual Conduct; Communication of Sexually Explicit Materials to Children Explained in Plain English

Minnesota Statute 609.352 addresses two main types of prohibited acts: “solicitation of children to engage in sexual conduct” and “communication of sexually explicit materials to children.” In simple terms, the law aims to criminalize attempts by adults (18 or older) to get children (15 or younger) to engage in sexual acts, or to engage in sexually explicit communication with them, or to send them sexually explicit materials. “Sexual conduct” is broadly defined to include sexual contact, sexual penetration, or sexual performance. “Solicit” means attempting to persuade, command, or entice someone in person, by phone, letter, or any electronic means. This law also specifically addresses the use of the Internet and other electronic communication systems for these purposes.

The critical aspect of this statute is the element of intent and the reasonable belief of age. The state must prove that the person 18 or older intended to engage in sexual conduct with a child, or intended to arouse sexual desire through communication or distribution of materials. It also covers situations where the person reasonably believes the other individual is a child, even if they turn out to be older (such as an undercover officer). This means that even if a child was not actually present, an adult’s online behavior, including specific communications or sharing of materials, can be enough to trigger a felony charge if the intent and belief elements are met. My role is to scrutinize every piece of the state’s alleged evidence—from communications to digital forensics—to challenge their claims regarding your intent and your reasonable belief about the other person’s age.

The Law on the Books: Minnesota Statute 609.352

Minnesota Statute 609.352 broadly criminalizes the solicitation of children for sexual conduct and the electronic communication of sexually explicit materials to children. Its purpose is to protect minors from sexual predators, particularly in the digital age, by making the act of attempting to engage a child in sexual behavior or sending them sexually explicit content a felony offense, regardless of whether actual physical contact occurs.

609.352 SOLICITATION OF CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL CONDUCT; COMMUNICATION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIALS TO CHILDREN.

Subdivision 1.Definitions. As used in this section:

(a) “child” means a person 15 years of age or younger;

(b) “sexual conduct” means sexual contact of the individual’s primary genital area, sexual penetration as defined in section 609.341, or sexual performance as defined in section 617.246; and

(c) “solicit” means commanding, entreating, or attempting to persuade a specific person in person, by telephone, by letter, or by computerized or other electronic means.

Subd. 2.Prohibited act. A person 18 years of age or older who solicits a child or someone the person reasonably believes is a child to engage in sexual conduct with intent to engage in sexual conduct is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 4.

Subd. 2a.Electronic solicitation of children. A person 18 years of age or older who uses the Internet, a computer, computer program, computer network, computer system, an electronic communications system, or a telecommunications, wire, or radio communications system, or other electronic device capable of electronic data storage or transmission to commit any of the following acts, with the intent to arouse the sexual desire of any person, is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 4:

(1) soliciting a child or someone the person reasonably believes is a child to engage in sexual conduct;

(2) engaging in communication with a child or someone the person reasonably believes is a child, relating to or describing sexual conduct; or

(3) distributing any material, language, or communication, including a photographic or video image, that relates to or describes sexual conduct to a child or someone the person reasonably believes is a child.

Subd. 2b.Jurisdiction. A person may be convicted of an offense under subdivision 2a if the transmission that constitutes the offense either originates within this state or is received within this state.

Subd. 3.Defenses. (a) Mistake as to age is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.

(b) The fact that an undercover operative or law enforcement officer was involved in the detection or investigation of an offense under this section does not constitute a defense to a prosecution under this section.

Subd. 4.Penalty. A person convicted under subdivision 2 or 2a is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years, or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

The Prosecution’s Burden: Elements of Solicitation of Children to Engage in Sexual Conduct

When the state brings a charge under Minnesota Statute 609.352, they carry the entire burden of proving every single “element” of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail to prove even one of these elements, the case against you collapses. This is the bedrock of our justice system, and it is the foundation upon which a strong defense is built. My job is to ensure they meet that burden, and if they cannot, to expose their failure to the court.

Age of the Accused: The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused person was 18 years of age or older at the time of the alleged offense. This is a clear numerical threshold and usually straightforward to prove through birth records. However, if there’s any ambiguity or an unusual circumstance regarding the exact date of the alleged offense relative to your 18th birthday, I will scrutinize that timeline.
Identity of the Accused: The state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are the specific individual who committed the alleged solicitation or communication. This is especially crucial in electronic solicitation cases where identity can be obscured. My role is to rigorously challenge any uncertain identification, particularly if the evidence relies on IP addresses, usernames, or digital footprints that could be spoofed, shared, or mistakenly attributed. We will analyze digital forensics to ensure the connection to you is irrefutable, and if it isn’t, we will expose that weakness.
Child or Reasonable Belief of Child: The prosecution must prove that the person solicited or communicated with was a “child” (15 years of age or younger) OR that you “reasonably believed” the person was a child. The “mistake as to age” defense is explicitly excluded under Subdivision 3, meaning if you thought they were 16 but they were 15, that’s not a defense. However, the reasonableness of your belief if the person was an adult (e.g., an undercover officer) is a critical area for defense. This often involves examining the nature of the communication, the profile used, and any overt representations made by the other party.
Sexual Conduct / Sexually Explicit Material: The state must prove that the communication or solicitation involved “sexual conduct” (sexual contact, penetration, or performance) or “sexually explicit materials” as defined in the statute. This requires a precise legal interpretation of the content of the communications. My defense will dissect the alleged messages or materials to determine if they truly meet the statutory definition, challenging any overzealous interpretations by the prosecution or claims that ambiguous language constitutes “sexual conduct.”
Intent to Engage in Sexual Conduct / Arouse Sexual Desire: This is often the most critical and challenging element for the prosecution to prove. For solicitation (Subdivision 2), they must show intent to engage in sexual conduct with the child. For electronic communication (Subdivision 2a), they must prove intent to arouse the sexual desire of any person. Intent is a state of mind, which can only be inferred from actions and words. My defense will meticulously examine the context of all communications, the full conversation, and any alternative interpretations to demonstrate that your actions or words did not demonstrate the requisite criminal intent, or that there is reasonable doubt about your intent.

The Potential Outcome: Penalties for a Solicitation of Children Conviction

A conviction under Minnesota Statute 609.352 carries devastating penalties that will fundamentally alter your life. This is a serious felony offense, and the consequences extend far beyond mere incarceration, impacting every aspect of your future. The severe nature of these penalties underscores the absolute necessity of a tenacious and strategic defense.

A person convicted under Minnesota Statute 609.352, Subdivision 2 (soliciting a child to engage in sexual conduct) or Subdivision 2a (electronic solicitation of children; communication of sexually explicit materials to children) is guilty of a felony.

The potential penalties for this felony conviction are:

Imprisonment: Up to five years in prison. While this may seem less than some other major felonies, even a five-year prison sentence is a profound loss of freedom, impacting your life for half a decade, and leaving a permanent felony mark.
Fine: A fine of not more than $10,000. This is a substantial financial penalty that can impose a significant burden on you and your family, adding to the already devastating consequences of a conviction.
Both Imprisonment and Fine: The court has the discretion to impose both a prison sentence and a fine, compounding the severity of the punishment.

Beyond these statutory penalties, a conviction under 609.352 almost invariably leads to:

Predatory Offender Registration: This is a mandatory, often lifetime, requirement to register as a predatory offender. This public registration severely restricts where you can live, work, and even visit, essentially marking you in the community and limiting your social interactions. It is a constant, public reminder of your conviction.
Damage to Reputation: Your reputation in places like Duluth, Bemidji, Cloquet, or any community in Northern Minnesota will be irrevocably destroyed. This stigma will follow you, impacting personal relationships, social standing, and public perception.
Employment Barriers: Finding and maintaining employment will become incredibly difficult, if not impossible, especially in any field that involves contact with children or requires background checks.
Housing Difficulties: Predatory offender registration and the nature of the crime will make it extremely challenging to find suitable housing, as many landlords refuse to rent to registered individuals.
Loss of Rights: You will lose your Second Amendment rights, prohibiting you from owning firearms, and potentially face limitations on other civil liberties.

The profound and enduring nature of these penalties means that fighting this charge with every fiber of your being is not just an option, it is an absolute necessity.

The Battle Plan: Building Your Strategic Defense

An accusation under Minnesota Statute 609.352 is a direct, devastating assault on your freedom, your reputation, and your entire future. It’s easy to feel utterly defeated, but you must understand this: an accusation is not a conviction. The fight starts now, and it demands a precise, strategic plan, executed with unwavering resolve. You are facing the immense resources of the state, but with the right defense, their case can be rigorously tested and ultimately defeated.

An Accusation is Not a Conviction: The Fight Starts Now

Let me be absolutely clear: an accusation under Minnesota Statute 609.352 is precisely that—an accusation. It is not a judgment, and it is certainly not a conviction. Your fight for justice, for your reputation, and for your freedom begins the moment the state levels this charge against you. Too many people make the critical mistake of believing that the sheer weight of the state’s power, especially in cases involving alleged crimes against children, means their guilt is predetermined. This could not be further from the truth. The prosecution carries a formidable burden – a heavy one – to prove every single element of their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that includes proving your intent and their interpretation of your words or actions. My unwavering focus, as your defense attorney, is to ensure they meet that burden, and if they cannot, to expose their failure to the court, to the jury, and to the world. We will scrutinize every piece of electronic communication, challenge every interpretation, and aggressively pursue every avenue to dismantle their narrative.

Your defense is not a passive process; it is an active, dynamic engagement. From the moment you retain my services, we embark on a thorough and independent investigation, leaving no stone unturned. This includes meticulously examining all digital evidence – chat logs, emails, device forensics – to identify inconsistencies, prove the true context of conversations, locate favorable communications, and challenge the prosecution’s evidence at every turn. In cases involving electronic communication, understanding the nuances of how data is stored, transmitted, and interpreted is paramount. I will relentlessly leverage every legal provision to your advantage, ensuring that the charges brought against you are legally sound and that only admissible, relevant evidence is considered. We will expose any police misconduct, flaws in their digital investigation, or overze zealous interpretations of your conduct, all in preparation to fight for your future in any court in Northern Minnesota, from Duluth to Bemidji.

How a Solicitation of Children Charge Can Be Challenged in Court

Defending against a charge under Minnesota Statute 609.352 requires a multifaceted and aggressive approach, meticulously dissecting the state’s evidence, particularly electronic communications, and challenging every element of their case.

Lack of Intent

The element of intent is paramount in these cases, and often the weakest link in the prosecution’s chain.

No Intent to Engage in Sexual Conduct/Arouse Sexual Desire: The prosecution must prove that you intended to engage in sexual conduct with a child, or intended to arouse sexual desire through your communications. This is a state of mind that can be extremely difficult to prove definitively. My defense will meticulously analyze the entire context of all communications, not just isolated phrases, to demonstrate that your words or actions did not indicate such intent, or that there are innocent or alternative interpretations. Perhaps the conversation was misinterpreted, or your intent was misconstrued by law enforcement or the alleged victim.
Misunderstanding or Misinterpretation: Communications, especially online, can be easily misunderstood or misinterpreted. What one person intends as a joke, a casual remark, or a misunderstanding of context, another might view as sexually explicit or a solicitation. I will work to show that your communications, when viewed objectively and in their full context, do not support the state’s claim of criminal intent, but rather were subject to misinterpretation or were taken out of context by the accuser or investigators.

Reasonable Belief of Age

While “mistake as to age” is not a defense if the person was a child, if the person was actually an adult (like an undercover officer), your reasonable belief of their age becomes critical.

Deception by Undercover Officer: If the alleged “child” was an undercover law enforcement officer, the defense will focus on the extent to which the officer actively misrepresented their age and appearance to induce the belief that they were a child. This could involve examining their online profile, the language they used, and any specific tactics employed to deceive you. My argument would be that based on the officer’s representations, it was entirely reasonable for you to believe you were communicating with an adult, not a child.
Ambiguous Age Cues: In many online interactions, age cues can be ambiguous. If the person’s profile, photos, or language did not clearly indicate they were a child, or actively suggested they were older, this can undermine the state’s ability to prove a “reasonable belief” that they were 15 or younger. We will scrutinize all available digital evidence to demonstrate that there was nothing to reasonably suggest the person was a child.

Challenging the Communication Itself

The specific nature and content of the communications are central to the charge.

Not Sexual Conduct/Sexually Explicit Material: The prosecution must prove the communications or materials meet the strict legal definitions of “sexual conduct” or “sexually explicit material” as defined in the statute. Vague, suggestive, or non-explicit language may not meet these definitions. I will dissect the alleged communications word-for-word, image-by-image, to argue that they do not, in fact, fall within the precise legal parameters of the statute. This is a critical legal argument about the interpretation of the content itself.
Contextual Misinterpretation: Digital communications are often devoid of tone, body language, and immediate context, leading to misinterpretations. I will work to establish the broader context of the communication, including prior conversations, the nature of the online platform, or the relationship between the parties, to demonstrate that the alleged “sexual conduct” or “sexually explicit material” was taken out of context or had a non-criminal meaning.

Violation of Constitutional Rights / Police Misconduct

Law enforcement must adhere to strict protocols during investigations, especially in digital sting operations.

Entrapment: Law enforcement cannot induce an innocent person to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed. If an undercover officer went beyond merely providing an opportunity and actively pressured, coerced, or unduly enticed you into the alleged conduct, an entrapment defense may be viable. This involves a thorough examination of the entire communication history to demonstrate that the criminal intent originated with the police, not with you.
Illegal Search and Seizure: Any evidence obtained in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights (e.g., an illegal search of your devices or home without a warrant or probable cause) can be suppressed, meaning it cannot be used against you in court. I will meticulously review how law enforcement obtained all evidence, challenging any procedural errors or constitutional violations that occurred during the investigation, particularly in the digital realm.

Defense in Action: Scenarios in Northern Minnesota

Applying these defense strategies to real-world scenarios illustrates how a rigorous and strategic defense can effectively challenge an accusation under Minnesota Statute 609.352 in the courts of Northern Minnesota.

Scenario in Duluth: Misinterpreted Online Conversation

Imagine you’re in Duluth, engaged in online conversations on a public forum or social media platform. You believe you’re chatting with an adult, perhaps someone slightly younger than you, but the conversation, taken out of context, is later interpreted by law enforcement as solicitation or communication of sexually explicit material with a minor. An anonymous tip leads to an investigation, and suddenly your reputation in Duluth is on the line, simply from a series of misunderstood digital exchanges. The fear and confusion are overwhelming when your words are twisted against you.

In this scenario, a primary defense would be lack of intent and challenging the communication itself. I would meticulously analyze the entire conversation history, not just isolated snippets, to demonstrate the true context and your actual intent. We would highlight any ambiguous language, colloquialisms, or slang that might have been misinterpreted by law enforcement. Furthermore, if the person was, in fact, an adult undercover officer, we would vigorously pursue the reasonable belief of age defense, showcasing any representations made by the officer that led you to believe they were 18 or older, such as their profile picture, stated age, or topics of conversation that would be unusual for a child.

Scenario in Cloquet: Entrapment by an Undercover Operation

Consider a situation in Cloquet where an individual, perhaps struggling with loneliness or isolation, is targeted by an aggressive online sting operation. An undercover officer, posing as a child, initiates contact and uses manipulative tactics, including persistent suggestive language and emotional appeals, to draw the individual into communicating explicit material or making a solicitation. The individual, who might not have initiated such behavior independently, falls prey to the manufactured scenario. An arrest is made, and the news spreads quickly through the tight-knit community of Cloquet.

Here, the strongest defense would likely be violation of constitutional rights / police misconduct, specifically entrapment. I would meticulously review every single communication exchanged between you and the undercover officer, looking for evidence that the officer went beyond merely providing an opportunity and actively induced you to commit a crime you would not have otherwise committed. This involves demonstrating that the criminal intent originated with the police, not with you. Additionally, we would pursue the reasonable belief of age defense, emphasizing any efforts by the officer to portray themselves as an adult and how those efforts contributed to your belief.

Scenario in Bemidji: Ambiguous Age Representation Online

You are in Bemidji, communicating with someone online whose age is unclear. Their profile photos are ambiguous, their stated age is somewhat vague, and the content of their posts or messages doesn’t definitively indicate they are a child. You proceed with a conversation that the state later alleges falls under Minnesota Statute 609.352. You genuinely believed you were speaking to someone of legal age, but now face a felony charge. The rural and interconnected nature of Bemidji means such an accusation can have devastating personal and professional repercussions.

In this scenario, the defense would heavily rely on reasonable belief of age. I would present evidence from the online profile, the content of the communications, and any other digital footprints to show that the person you were communicating with did not explicitly or implicitly represent themselves as 15 or younger. If anything, we would highlight information that reasonably suggested they were 16 or older. This would involve a detailed analysis of the digital persona created by the alleged child or undercover officer. Coupled with this, we would challenge the lack of intent, arguing that if you genuinely believed the person was an adult, then your intent to engage in criminal sexual conduct with a child could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Scenario in St. Louis County: Device Forensic Challenges

An individual in a more remote part of St. Louis County, perhaps near Two Harbors, has their electronic devices seized during an investigation under Minnesota Statute 609.352. The state claims to have found incriminating communications on a computer or phone. However, the accused denies sending the messages or believes their device was compromised. The technical nature of the evidence can feel intimidating, but the consequences are severe. This situation demands a meticulous examination of how the digital evidence was handled and interpreted.

This scenario calls for a defense focused on challenging the communication itself and violation of constitutional rights / police misconduct related to digital evidence. I would engage forensic digital analysts to scrutinize how the police seized and analyzed the electronic devices. We would look for evidence of improper chain of custody, data contamination, or flaws in the forensic techniques used by law enforcement. Furthermore, we would investigate the possibility of device compromise, malware, or shared access, which could lead to messages being sent without your knowledge or intent. This defense challenges the authenticity and reliability of the digital evidence itself, seeking to suppress it if it was improperly obtained or handled, thereby weakening the prosecution’s entire case.

The Advocate: Why a Dedicated Duluth Defense Attorney is Essential

When you are accused under Minnesota Statute 609.352, particularly with charges as severe and reputation-destroying as soliciting a child or communicating sexually explicit materials, you are not just battling a legal charge; you are fighting for your very identity, your livelihood, and your future. This is not a fight to undertake alone. You need an unwavering advocate, a fighter who understands the immense power of the state and is prepared to stand between you and a potentially devastating conviction.

Countering the Resources of the State

You are facing an adversary with virtually limitless resources: the state of Minnesota. Through its prosecution offices in Duluth and across St. Louis County, they command the full force of law enforcement, sophisticated digital forensic units, and seemingly endless funding to build a case against you. They have investigators tirelessly gathering digital evidence, police officers trained in online sting operations, and experienced prosecutors whose sole mission is to secure a conviction. Without a powerful counter-force, you risk being overwhelmed. I stand as that counter-force. I will leverage my knowledge, resources, and aggressive defense strategies to match their efforts, meticulously challenging every piece of digital evidence, every interpretation of your communications, and relentlessly pursuing every legal avenue to expose weaknesses in their case. I will ensure that their vast resources are met with a defense that is equally rigorous and far more focused on protecting your rights and your future.

Strategic Command of the St. Louis County Courts

Navigating the criminal justice system in St. Louis County, whether in the bustling courtrooms of Duluth or the quieter dockets of Two Harbors or Proctor, demands more than a general understanding of the law. It requires strategic command of the local courts, their specific procedures, and the individual judges and prosecutors you will encounter. Each courtroom, each judge, and each prosecutor in St. Louis County has their own nuances, their own tendencies, and their own approach to cases, especially those involving sensitive allegations under 609.352. An attorney who regularly practices in these courts possesses an invaluable advantage, understanding these subtle dynamics that can profoundly influence the outcome of your case. I am intimately familiar with the St. Louis County judicial landscape. This localized insight allows me to anticipate the prosecution’s moves, craft arguments that resonate with the local judiciary, particularly concerning issues of digital evidence and intent, and negotiate from a position of strength, ensuring that your case is handled with the precision and foresight it demands within this specific legal environment.

Fighting for Your Story, Not Just the Police Report

When an accusation under Minnesota Statute 609.352 is made, the police report and the digital evidence collected by law enforcement often become the default narrative, painting a picture that is heavily skewed against you. This is a one-sided account, often based on isolated messages or misinterpretations, and if left unchallenged, it can dictate the entire course of your case. Your true story, your perspective, and the full context of what actually transpired are often entirely absent or distorted in these initial records. My unwavering commitment is to fight for your story. I will not allow the prosecution’s truncated narrative, heavily reliant on a biased interpretation of digital communications, to define you or your case. This involves a comprehensive, independent investigation, meticulously gathering all digital evidence, interviewing potential witnesses, and uncovering facts that were overlooked, misinterpreted, or deliberately excluded by the initial police investigation. I will ensure that your voice is heard, that your side of the story is presented powerfully and clearly, and that the court considers the full, complex truth, not just a biased official record.

An Unwavering Commitment to a Winning Result

My commitment to your case is absolute and unwavering. When facing a charge under Minnesota Statute 609.352, the stakes are impossibly high—your freedom, your reputation, your entire future hangs in the balance. This is not a situation for half-measures or passive representation. My philosophy is rooted in a relentless pursuit of the best possible outcome for you, whether that means a complete dismissal of charges, an acquittal at trial, or a favorable resolution that minimizes the devastating impact on your life. I will tirelessly work to identify every weakness in the prosecution’s digital evidence, to challenge their interpretation of intent and age, to build the strongest possible defense, and to advocate fiercely on your behalf at every stage of the legal process. My goal is simple: to secure a winning result, to clear your name, and to help you reclaim your life in Duluth, Bemidji, Cloquet, or wherever you call home in Northern Minnesota.

Your Questions Answered

What is the most important element for the prosecution to prove under 609.352?

The most critical element for the prosecution to prove is your “intent” – either the intent to engage in sexual conduct with a child (Subdivision 2) or the intent to arouse sexual desire (Subdivision 2a). This is a state of mind that can be challenging to prove definitively and is often a key area for defense.

Does it matter if I never met the alleged child in person?

No, under Minnesota Statute 609.352, particularly Subdivision 2a, the offense can be committed entirely through electronic communications. Physical contact or meeting in person is not required for a felony charge.

What if I thought the person was an adult?

Minnesota Statute 609.352, Subdivision 3(a) states “Mistake as to age is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.” However, if the person was actually an adult (e.g., an undercover officer), your “reasonable belief” that they were an adult is a critical defense point, challenging the “reasonable belief is a child” element.

How does law enforcement find these alleged communications?

Law enforcement uses various methods, including undercover online sting operations, tips from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), or forensic examination of electronic devices seized during other investigations.

What is “entrapment” in the context of online sting operations?

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime they would not have committed but for the police’s undue persuasion, coercion, or enticement. It’s a defense that challenges the origin of the criminal intent.

Will my computer or phone be seized?

Yes, if you are suspected of an offense under 609.352, it is highly likely that law enforcement will seek to seize your electronic devices, including computers, phones, tablets, and external storage, for forensic analysis.

What is the difference between “solicit” and “communicate” under this law?

“Solicit” implies commanding, entreating, or attempting to persuade a specific person to engage in sexual conduct. “Communicate” relates to broader discussions or distribution of materials describing or relating to sexual conduct, with the intent to arouse sexual desire.

Can old or deleted messages still be found?

Yes, digital forensics can often recover deleted messages, images, and other data from electronic devices, even if you thought they were permanently removed. This is why immediate legal counsel is critical.

Will I have to register as a predatory offender if convicted?

Yes, a conviction under Minnesota Statute 609.352 almost always results in mandatory predatory offender registration, often for life. This public registration severely restricts your living and working environments.

What if the child in question was also engaging in inappropriate conduct?

The focus of 609.352 is on the adult’s conduct towards the child. While the child’s actions might be relevant to context or intent, they typically do not negate the adult’s culpability under this specific statute.

Can I be charged if the communications were on a private platform?

Yes, the law applies regardless of whether the communication occurred on a public forum, private chat, or encrypted messaging service, as long as the electronic means are used.

What is the statute of limitations for this crime?

Most felony criminal sexual conduct and child exploitation offenses, including those under 609.352, have very long or no statutes of limitation in Minnesota, meaning charges can be brought many years after the alleged offense.

How important is the exact definition of “sexual conduct” or “sexually explicit material”?

The precise legal definitions are extremely important. Ambiguous or non-explicit language in communications might not meet the statutory definitions, which is a key area for defense to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation.

Can I be convicted if the “child” was actually a fake profile created by a child?

Yes, if the person you communicate with is a child (15 or younger), regardless of who created their profile, you can be charged. The key is their actual age, or your reasonable belief about their age if they are an adult undercover.

What is the jurisdiction for electronic solicitation?

Minnesota Statute 609.352, Subdivision 2b, states that a person can be convicted if the electronic transmission either originates within this state or is received within this state, giving Minnesota broad jurisdiction over online offenses.