What is Federal Online Solicitation of a Minor?

At its core, federal online solicitation of a minor, legally termed “Coercion and Enticement,” is defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). This law makes it a serious felony to use the internet or any other means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice an individual believed to be under 18 to engage in any sexual activity for which a person could be criminally charged.

This statute is the workhorse for federal prosecutors in these cases. To secure a conviction, the Assistant U.S. Attorney must prove several distinct elements beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s crucial to break these down, as a defense often lies in the government’s inability to prove just one of them.

The Elements of an 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) Offense:

1. Use of Interstate or Foreign Commerce: This is the jurisdictional hook that makes the crime federal. Using the internet, a cell phone network, a social media app, or an email service to communicate across state lines (or even within the same state, as most internet infrastructure is interstate) satisfies this element. In today’s world, virtually any online communication qualifies.
2. Knowingly Persuading, Inducing, Enticing, or Coercing: This is the “action” element, the actus reus of the crime. The government must demonstrate that the defendant’s words or actions were intended to lure or tempt the minor. This is not about passive conversation; it’s about active encouragement or pressure towards a specific end. The term “knowingly” is vital—it implies a conscious and deliberate act, not an accident or misunderstanding.
3. An Individual Who Has Not Attained the Age of 18 Years: The law protects individuals under 18. Critically, the government does not have to prove the defendant knew the person was *actually* a minor. They only need to prove the defendant *believed* the person was a minor. This is why undercover sting operations, where an FBI agent poses as a teenager, are legally permissible and form the basis of most prosecutions. If the agent credibly represents themselves as, for example, a 15-year-old, and the defendant proceeds, this element is met.
4. To Engage in Prostitution or Any Sexual Activity for Which Any Person Can Be Charged: The enticement must be for a specific illegal purpose. This means luring the minor to engage in sexual acts that are themselves criminal offenses under federal, state, or tribal law. The conversation does not need to use explicit legal terms; prosecutors will use chat logs to argue that the language, however coded, was clearly directed at arranging an illegal sexual encounter.

The Role of the PROTECT Act

The legal landscape for these offenses was significantly hardened by the PROTECT Act of 2003 (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act). This landmark legislation amended various statutes, including § 2422(b), to increase penalties and close legal loopholes. A key change was clarifying that the government only needed to prove the defendant *believed* the victim was a minor, which greatly empowered the use of undercover officers in sting operations. The PROTECT Act also established presumptions that someone advertising or soliciting a minor for sex knew their age, shifting a significant burden onto the defendant.

The Severe Penalties for a Federal Conviction

A conviction for online enticement of a minor under federal law results in some of the most severe penalties in the criminal justice system. A guilty verdict typically carries a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 10 years, can extend to life imprisonment, includes substantial fines, and mandates lifetime registration as a sex offender under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).

It is impossible to overstate the gravity of these consequences. Unlike some state offenses where probation might be a possibility, federal law, particularly after the PROTECT Act, has removed much of that discretion. The penalties are designed to be punitive and incapacitating.

Federal Incarceration

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines provide a framework for judges, but for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), Congress has imposed a statutory floor. The mandatory minimum sentence is 10 years in a federal prison. This means that, absent very specific and rare circumstances (like providing “substantial assistance” to the government in other prosecutions), a judge cannot sentence a convicted individual to less than a decade of imprisonment. Depending on the specific facts of the case—such as the age of the purported minor, the nature of the acts discussed, or any attempt to meet in person—the guideline range can easily call for 20, 30, or more years.

Lifetime Supervised Release

Upon release from prison, a person convicted of this offense will be placed on federal supervised release, often for life. This is far more intensive than typical parole. A federal probation officer will have sweeping authority over the individual’s life. Conditions almost always include:

• Severe restrictions on internet and computer use, often requiring monitoring software.
• Prohibitions on being in places where children congregate (parks, schools, libraries).
• Restrictions on travel, employment, and personal relationships.
• Mandatory, ongoing polygraph examinations.

Violation of any of these conditions can result in being sent back to federal prison.

Sex Offender Registration (SORNA)

A federal conviction triggers a lifelong requirement to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). This is not just a one-time registration. It involves regular, in-person reporting to law enforcement, and personal information—including name, address, photograph, and nature of the offense—is made publicly available on websites. This registration follows a person wherever they move and creates immense and permanent barriers to finding housing, securing employment, and reintegrating into society.

How Federal Online Enticement Cases are Investigated and Prosecuted

Federal online enticement cases are typically initiated by specialized units within the FBI or Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). The process involves sophisticated digital surveillance and undercover sting operations, followed by a decision to prosecute by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Once indicted by a grand jury, the case proceeds through the U.S. District Court system, a formal and demanding legal environment.

Understanding this process is vital because actions taken—or not taken—at the earliest stages can have irreversible consequences. The federal government has a near-limitless arsenal of investigative tools and resources.

The Investigation Stage: FBI and HSI

The investigation almost never begins with a civilian complaint. The vast majority of these cases are proactive “sting” operations conducted by federal agents.

• Undercover Operations: An FBI or HSI agent creates a profile on a chat site, social media platform, or messaging app, posing as a minor (e.g., a 14-year-old girl named “Jessica”). They populate the profile with details to make it appear authentic.
• Monitoring and Engagement: Agents monitor these platforms for individuals who initiate contact or respond to their profile. They engage in conversation, carefully documenting every word. The goal is to steer the conversation towards sexual topics and eventually an agreement to meet for an illegal purpose.
• Digital Forensics: Simultaneously, other agents work to identify the real person behind the screen name. They issue subpoenas and warrants to internet service providers (ISPs), social media companies, and app developers to obtain account information and IP addresses. An IP address can be traced to a specific physical location, like a home or office.
• Search Warrants and Arrest: Once they have sufficient evidence and have identified a target, agents will obtain a search warrant for the target’s residence and an arrest warrant. These are often executed simultaneously in a pre-dawn raid by a heavily armed federal team. They will seize all electronic devices: computers, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and external drives.

Prosecution: The U.S. Attorney’s Office

The evidence gathered by the FBI or HSI is turned over to an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA). The AUSA decides whether to bring charges. If they proceed, they will present their case to a federal grand jury—a secret proceeding where the grand jury hears the government’s evidence and decides if there is probable cause to issue an indictment. The defense is not present at this stage.

The Federal Court Process

Once an indictment is issued, the case enters the U.S. District Court.

1. Initial Appearance & Arraignment: The defendant is brought before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, formally advised of the charges, and enters a plea (usually “not guilty”).
2. Detention Hearing: The AUSA will often argue that the defendant is a danger to the community or a flight risk and should be detained without bail pending trial. This is a critical hearing where having seasoned counsel is essential.
3. Discovery: The government must turn over its evidence to the defense. This includes chat logs, forensic reports from seized devices, agent reports, and recordings.
4. Plea Negotiations: The vast majority of federal cases end in a plea agreement. The AUSA may offer a plea to a specific charge in exchange for the defendant waiving their right to a trial. Evaluating such an offer in the face of a 10-year mandatory minimum requires profound legal experience.
5. Trial: If no plea is reached, the case proceeds to a jury trial in U.S. District Court. The trial is a formal, high-stakes battle where the government must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

The SRIS Federal Enticement Case Analysis Worksheet

When confronted with a mountain of digital evidence from the government, a structured and methodical approach is essential. This worksheet is designed to guide you and your legal counsel through a systematic review of the core facts and evidence in a federal online enticement case. It helps organize the narrative, identify potential weaknesses in the government’s case, and build a foundation for a strong defense strategy.

Use this framework with your attorney to deconstruct the allegations and scrutinize every detail. An effective defense begins with a comprehensive understanding of the evidence.

Step 1: Document the Initial Contact & Platform

• Platform(s) Used: (e.g., Kik, Omegle, Discord, Facebook Messenger, specific chat website)
• Who Initiated Contact? (The accused, or the undercover agent/purported minor?)
• Initial Subject of Conversation: (Was it immediately sexual, or did it begin innocuously?)
• Date and Time of First Contact: ____________________

Step 2: Analyze the Communication Timeline & Content

• Create a chronological log of all communications. Review the full, unedited chat logs provided in discovery.
• Identify Key Turning Points: Pinpoint the exact moment the conversation shifted to sexual topics. Who introduced the subject?
• Note Ambiguities: Are there statements that could be interpreted in multiple ways? Was sarcasm or hyperbole used? Context is everything.
• Language Analysis: Document the specific words used to allegedly “entice” or “persuade.” Are they direct and explicit, or vague and suggestive?

Step 3: Scrutinize the “Age” Element

• How Was Age Represented? What specific statements did the undercover agent make about their age? (e.g., “I’m 15,” “I’m in 9th grade”)
• Credibility of Age Representation: Did the agent’s language, grammar, and topics of conversation plausibly match their purported age?
• Defendant’s Belief: Is there any evidence in the chat logs where the defendant expressed disbelief or questioned the agent’s stated age? (e.g., “you don’t sound 15”)

Step 4: Inventory and Assess the Digital Evidence

• Devices Seized: List every computer, phone, tablet, and storage device taken by law enforcement.
• Accounts Implicated: List every email, social media, and app account linked to the investigation.
• IP Address Attribution: Confirm the government’s evidence linking the specific IP address to the defendant. Was the Wi-Fi network secured? Could someone else have used it?
• Forensic Report Review: Work with counsel to meticulously review the government’s forensic analysis of your devices. Does it confirm their narrative, or does it contain exculpatory information?

Step 5: Evaluate Investigative Procedures & Conduct

• Search Warrant Validity: Was the warrant to search the home and seize devices based on sufficient probable cause? Was it overly broad?
• Manner of Interrogation: Were Miranda rights read upon arrest? Was any statement made before counsel was present?
• Evidence of Entrapment: Did the undercover agent engage in conduct that goes beyond merely providing an opportunity? Was there persistent pressure, threats, or appeals to sympathy to induce conduct the defendant was not otherwise predisposed to commit? Document every instance of agent pushing the conversation forward.

Potential Defenses Against Federal Solicitation Allegations

Despite the government’s advantages in these cases, a robust defense is possible. Successful defenses often focus on challenging the government’s proof of intent, attacking the credibility of the investigation itself, raising the affirmative defense of entrapment, or disputing the attribution of the digital evidence to the defendant. Every case is unique, and the viability of a defense depends entirely on the specific facts.

Building a defense requires a proactive, not reactive, approach. From the moment an investigation begins, every action should be geared toward preserving rights and identifying weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.

Defense 1: Lack of Knowledge or Intent

The cornerstone of an 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) violation is that the defendant acted “knowingly.” The defense can argue that the government cannot prove this crucial mental state. This could involve:

• Arguing no belief the person was a minor: The defense may present evidence that the defendant did not believe the undercover agent’s claims of being underage. While difficult, if the agent’s persona was unconvincing or if the defendant expressed clear disbelief, it can create reasonable doubt.
• Arguing no intent to entice for illegal sex: The defense can challenge the government’s interpretation of the chat logs. Ambiguous language, sarcasm, or fantasy role-play that never crossed the line into a genuine attempt to arrange an illegal act could form the basis of a defense that the required criminal intent was absent.

Defense 2: Entrapment

Entrapment is one of the most talked-about but most difficult defenses to prove in federal court. It is an affirmative defense, meaning the defendant admits to the conduct but argues the government is responsible for it. To succeed, the defense must prove two things:

1. Government Inducement: The undercover agent’s conduct went beyond merely offering an opportunity and actively persuaded, pressured, or induced the defendant to commit the crime. This could involve repeated requests after the defendant has demurred, appeals to sympathy, or other coercive tactics.
2. Lack of Predisposition: The defendant was not ready and willing to commit the crime and had no prior inclination to do so. The government will counter by trying to show the defendant’s immediate willingness or prior bad acts (if any exist).

Because law enforcement is given wide latitude in sting operations, the bar for proving inducement is very high. However, in cases of particularly aggressive agent conduct, it remains a critical potential defense.

Defense 3: Attacking the Digital Evidence

The government’s case is almost entirely digital. This evidence is not infallible. A defense can be built on:

• Chain of Custody Issues: Challenging how devices were seized, handled, and analyzed. Any break in the chain of custody can taint the evidence.
• Mistaken Identity / Attribution: Arguing that the government cannot prove the defendant was the one behind the keyboard. This is particularly relevant in situations involving unsecured Wi-Fi networks, shared family computers, or hacked accounts. The government must tie the online persona to the specific defendant, not just their device.
• Forensic Flaws: Conducting an independent forensic analysis of the defendant’s devices to search for evidence that contradicts the government’s theory, such as evidence of spoofing, malware, or another user’s activity.

Critical Mistakes to Avoid When Facing a Federal Investigation

The time between becoming aware of a federal investigation and securing legal representation is fraught with peril. The decisions made in these initial hours or days can have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for your defense. As a seasoned federal defense attorney, I have seen clients make the same critical errors time and again, often with the best of intentions but the worst of outcomes.

Avoiding these common pitfalls is the first and most important step in protecting your rights and future.

1. Speaking to Federal Agents Without an Attorney Present. Federal agents from the FBI or HSI are highly trained in interrogation techniques. They may appear friendly and suggest that “clearing things up” now will be easier. This is a tactic. Anything you say can and will be used against you. The only words you should say are: “I am exercising my right to remain silent, and I want a lawyer.”
2. Consenting to a Search of Your Home or Devices. If agents arrive with a valid search warrant, you must comply. However, if they ask for your consent to search, you are not required to give it. Do not give them the password to your phone or computer. Consenting to a search waives your Fourth Amendment rights and makes it much harder for your attorney to challenge the legality of the search later.
3. Deleting Digital Information. In a panic, some individuals may attempt to delete chat logs, emails, browser history, or files. This is a catastrophic mistake. Not only is it often futile (forensic experts can recover deleted data), but it can lead to a separate federal felony charge for obstruction of justice or destruction of evidence.
4. Ignoring the Seriousness of a Federal Indictment. Do not underestimate the resources, determination, and power of the United States government. A federal charge is not a state matter that might be easily dismissed or pleaded down. It is a relentless and formidable prosecution that requires an equally formidable defense.
5. Believing a “Sting” Operation is Automatically Entrapment. Many people assume that if they were talking to an undercover agent, it must be entrapment. As discussed earlier, the legal definition of entrapment is extremely narrow and difficult to meet. Simply providing the opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment. Do not build your hopes on a misunderstanding of this complex legal defense.
6. Discussing the Case with Anyone But Your Attorney. Do not talk about the facts of your case with family, friends, or cellmates. The only person you should discuss the details with is your lawyer. Communications with your attorney are protected by attorney-client privilege. Conversations with anyone else are not, and they can be forced to testify against you.

Glossary of Key Federal Criminal Terms

Indictment

A formal written accusation issued by a federal grand jury after it finds probable cause that a person has committed a federal crime. An indictment is required to bring felony charges in the federal system.

18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)

The primary federal statute criminalizing the use of interstate commerce (like the internet) to knowingly entice or coerce a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity.

Entrapment

An affirmative defense in which a defendant argues that they were induced by government agents to commit a crime they were not otherwise predisposed to commit.

Sting Operation

An undercover law enforcement operation where agents pose as civilians (e.g., as minors online) to gather evidence and catch individuals in the act of committing a crime.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence

A statutory requirement that sets the minimum number of years in prison a person must receive if convicted of a particular crime. A judge cannot sentence below this floor except in very limited circumstances.

Supervised Release

A period of supervision that follows release from federal prison. It is the federal equivalent of parole but is often much more stringent, with strict conditions enforced by a federal probation officer.

Digital Forensics

The science of recovering, investigating, and analyzing material found in digital devices like computers and smartphones, often to be used as evidence in court.

Common Scenarios Involving Online Solicitation Allegations

The path to a federal indictment for online enticement often starts from seemingly innocuous online interactions. Understanding how these situations develop from the government’s perspective can provide crucial insight. Here are a few common scenarios our firm has encountered over the years.

Scenario 1: The “Random Chat” Site

“I was bored and went on a random chat website to kill time. I was connected with someone who claimed to be 16. The conversation got flirtatious and eventually sexual. I thought it was just fantasy talk and never intended to meet anyone. A month later, the FBI was at my door with a warrant.”

Analysis: This is the classic FBI sting operation. Agents specifically target these anonymous chat platforms. From their perspective, the defendant’s participation in the escalating sexual conversation, combined with the agent’s representation of being a minor, is sufficient evidence of “enticement.” The defendant’s private belief that it was “just talk” is not a legal defense if the words themselves constitute persuasion towards an illegal act.

Scenario 2: The Shared Computer

“The FBI seized our family computer, saying it was used to contact a minor. My son and his friends use that computer all the time. I have no idea what they were doing, but now I’m the one under investigation because the internet account is in my name.”

Analysis: This scenario highlights the critical issue of attribution. The government must prove who was at the keyboard. While they will start with the owner of the device or internet account, a strong defense can be built by demonstrating that other individuals had access and opportunity. This requires a thorough investigation into who was using the device at the specific times documented in the chat logs, potentially requiring independent forensic analysis.

Scenario 3: The Aggressive “Minor”

“I was messaging with someone on a dating app who I thought was an adult. When they said they were underage, I tried to end the conversation. But they became very persistent, sending explicit photos and constantly pushing to meet up. I eventually gave in and agreed, and it turned out to be a sting.”

Analysis: This fact pattern begins to approach the territory of an entrapment defense. While still a very high bar, the agent’s aggressive pursuit after the defendant expressed hesitation is a key fact. The defense would focus on arguing that the agent’s conduct constituted “inducement” and that the defendant’s initial reluctance shows a lack of predisposition. The success of this defense would depend on the precise wording and intensity of the agent’s pressure tactics.

Frequently Asked Questions About Federal Online Enticement Law

What is the difference between state and federal online solicitation charges?
Federal charges are brought by the U.S. government for violations of federal law, like 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). They involve federal agencies (FBI, HSI), federal prosecutors (AUSAs), and federal courts. The key jurisdictional element is the use of “interstate commerce” (the internet). State charges are brought for violations of state law and are handled by local police and district attorneys in state courts. Federal penalties are almost always far more severe.

Do I have to register as a sex offender if convicted of this federal crime?
Yes. A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) carries a mandatory lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).

What if I never met the person in real life?
It does not matter. The crime is the online “enticement” itself. An actual meeting does not have to occur for a person to be charged and convicted. In fact, in most sting operations, the arrest is made after an agreement to meet is reached but before any meeting takes place.

What if no explicit images were exchanged?
The exchange of images is not a required element of the crime. The offense is completed through words—the act of persuading, inducing, or enticing through communication. While the exchange of illicit images could lead to additional charges (like receipt of child pornography), it is not necessary for a conviction under § 2422(b).

Can I get bail in a federal online enticement case?
It is very difficult. There is a “presumption of detention” in federal law for these types of offenses. This means the court presumes that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the safety of the community. Your attorney must present compelling evidence to rebut this presumption at a detention hearing to secure your release pending trial.

How long does a federal investigation take?
Federal investigations can be lengthy, sometimes lasting months or even over a year before an arrest is made. Agents take their time to build what they believe is an airtight case, gathering digital evidence and securing grand jury subpoenas, before taking action.

What is the role of a U.S. Attorney?
The United States Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer for their judicial district. Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) are the federal prosecutors who handle the day-to-day prosecution of cases, from presenting evidence to the grand jury to negotiating plea deals and conducting trials.

Can a federal felony conviction for this crime be expunged?
No. As a general rule, federal felony convictions cannot be expunged. A conviction for online enticement of a minor is a permanent criminal record.

What is the very first thing I should do if the FBI contacts me?
State your name, then clearly and politely state, “I am exercising my right to remain silent, and I will not answer any questions without my lawyer present.” Then, stop talking and contact a knowledgeable federal criminal defense attorney immediately.

Is using a VPN or other anonymizing tool a defense?
No. While these tools can make investigation more difficult for law enforcement, they are not a legal defense. Furthermore, if the government successfully traces your activity despite the use of a VPN, they may argue at sentencing that your use of the tool is evidence of consciousness of guilt and a sophisticated attempt to evade detection.

What are the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?
They are a complex set of rules that provide a recommended sentencing range for federal offenses. While they are advisory, judges must calculate and consider them. However, for online enticement, the statutory mandatory minimum of 10 years often overrides the guideline calculation, serving as a hard floor for the sentence.

Does it matter which state I live in if I’m facing a federal charge?
No. If you are charged with a federal crime, you are subject to federal law, which is uniform across the country. Your case will be heard in the U.S. District Court for the district where the crime was deemed to have occurred (often where the investigation was based).

What counts as “interstate commerce” in this context?
Essentially, any form of electronic communication. The internet, email, social media apps, text messages—all rely on networks and servers that cross state lines, making any communication through these means an act in interstate commerce.

Why is hiring an attorney with specific federal court experience so important?
The federal system has its own rules of procedure, evidence, and sentencing that are vastly different from state courts. An attorney who regularly practices in U.S. District Court understands the process, the prosecutors, the judges, and the unique strategic considerations of federal defense, particularly in high-stakes cases like this one.