Internet Luring Laws

1. A person commits internet sexual exploitation of a child if a person, who is at least four years older than a child who is under fifteen years of age, knowingly importunes, invites, or entices the child through communication via a computer network or system to:
   1. Expose or touch the child’s own or another person’s intimate parts while communicating with the person via a computer network or system; or
   2. Observe the person’s intimate parts while communicating with the person via a computer network or system.
2. It shall not be an affirmative defense to this section that the child was actually a law enforcement officer posing as a child under fifteen years of age.
3. Internet sexual exploitation of a child is a class 4 felony.

1. A person commits internet luring of a child if the person knowingly communicates a statement over a computer or computer network to a child under fifteen years of age, describing explicit sexual conduct as defined in section 18-6-403 (2) (e), and, in connection with the communication, makes a statement persuading or inviting the child to meet the person for any purpose, and the person is more than four years older than the child.
2. It shall not be an affirmative defense to this section that:
   1. A meeting did not occur; or
   2. The child was actually a law enforcement officer posing as a child under fifteen years of age.
3. Internet luring of a child is a class 5 felony; except that luring of a child is a class 4 felony if committed with the intent to meet for the purpose of engaging in sexual exploitation as defined in section 18-6-403 or sexual contact as defined in section 18-3-401.
4. For purposes of this section, “in connection with” means communications that further, advance, promote, or have a continuity of purpose and may occur before, during, or after the invitation to meet.

H. Michael’s Take: individuals charged with Internet Luruing are often the targets of so called Sting Operations. It is important to realize that these stings are not immediatley considered entrapment — but — depending on how the case was investigated and “sprung” – entrapment may have occurred.

The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement official or other person acting under his direction, seeking to obtain evidence for the purpose of prosecution, and the methods used to obtain that evidence were such as to create a substantial risk that the acts would be committed by a person who... but for such inducement, would not have conceived of or engaged in conduct of the sort induced.

Merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense is not entrapment even though representations or inducements calculated to overcome the offender’s fear of detection are used.

Denver Colorado Criminal Defense Lawyer. Subject Matter: Colorado Internet Luring Laws and Defenses