Charged with an internet sex crime or a child sexually abusive material offense in Michigan? Start with the exact count
I am Mitchell Bisson, a Grand Rapids criminal defense lawyer. I have litigated for over 15 years. This page covers two groups of Michigan felony charges that often arrive together: using the internet or a computer to communicate with a minor for a sexual purpose, and making, sharing or possessing child sexually abusive material. I write about them from the defense side and without graphic detail. These cases turn on the statute, the digital evidence and the exact count of conviction, so that is where I start. I do not promise outcomes.
The short answer. Michigan charges these cases under a handful of statutes: MCL 750.145d for using the internet or a computer, MCL 750.145a for accosting or enticing a child under 16, and MCL 750.145c for child sexually abusive material. The statutes reach a person who only believed the other party was a minor, so a real child is not always required. Possession carries up to 4 years, distributing up to 7 years and making up to 20 years, and each tier goes higher in listed circumstances. A conviction can also bring sex offender registration. Nothing here predicts how your case will end.
These cases usually begin without an arrest. Detectives get a tip from an online platform, run an undercover chat, or trace an account to an address, and then they come with a search warrant for phones, computers and cloud accounts. The first contact is often a knock on the door or a call asking you to come in and “clear things up.” That is the moment to stop talking and call a lawyer. Everything said to an investigator can be used, and the case is mostly built from the devices and the account records, not from what you say.
One investigation can produce an internet count, an enticement count and one or more material counts, and the maximum for each depends on a subsection that a plea can change. I read the warrant, the forensic report and the chat logs before I give anyone an opinion.
The charges at a glance
The table lists the counts I see most often. The “class” is the offense class the sentencing statute assigns to the felony. It is one input to the sentencing guidelines, not the sentence.
| Charge | What the prosecutor has to show | Maximum and offense class | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Using the internet or a computer to commit a listed sex crime against a minor | You used the internet or a computer to communicate with a person for the purpose of committing, attempting, conspiring or soliciting a listed offense in which the victim or intended victim is a minor or is believed by you to be a minor | Set by the underlying crime, from a misdemeanor of up to 1 year to a felony of up to 20 years. The felony tiers are class G, F, D, C or B depending on the tier | MCL 750.145d(1)(a), (2); MCL 777.16g |
| Accosting, enticing or soliciting a child under 16 | You accosted, enticed or solicited a child under 16, or an individual you believed was under 16, with intent to induce or force an immoral act, sexual intercourse, gross indecency or another act of depravity or delinquency. Knowing the actual age is not required | Felony, up to 4 years or a $4,000 fine, class F | MCL 750.145a; MCL 777.16g |
| Making or producing child sexually abusive material | You arranged, produced, made, copied, reproduced or financed child sexually abusive activity or material (or persuaded or caused a child to take part for that purpose) with the required knowledge of the child’s age or appearance | Up to 20 years or $100,000. Up to 25 years or $125,000 in the aggravated tier. Class B | MCL 750.145c(2); MCL 777.16g |
| Distributing or promoting child sexually abusive material | You distributed, promoted or financed the distribution or promotion of the material, or received it to distribute or promote it, with the required knowledge | Up to 7 years or $50,000. Up to 15 years or $75,000 in the aggravated tier. Class D, or C in the aggravated tier | MCL 750.145c(3); MCL 777.16g |
| Possessing child sexually abusive material | You knowingly possessed, or knowingly sought and accessed, the material, with the required knowledge | Up to 4 years or $10,000. Up to 10 years or $50,000 in the aggravated tier. Class F, or B in the aggravated tier | MCL 750.145c(4); MCL 777.16g |
| Second or subsequent offense under section 145c | An earlier conviction under 145c or of another crime involving a sexual offense against a minor, before the later conviction | Mandatory minimum sentence of not less than 5 years | MCL 750.145g |
“Aggravated” in the table means the statute’s higher tier, which applies when the material involves a prepubescent child, sadomasochistic abuse or bestiality, or includes a video or more than 100 images. MCL 750.145c(2)(b), (3)(b), (4)(b). I check the forensic count before I accept the tier charged.
Using the internet or a computer to commit a sex crime against a minor
Section 145d is a separate crime that sits above an underlying offense. The statute forbids using the internet or a computer, computer network or computer system to communicate with any person for the purpose of committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit or soliciting another person to commit one of the listed offenses. For the sex offenses on the list, the victim or intended victim must be a minor or be believed by the defendant to be a minor, and “minor” means an individual under 18. MCL 750.145d(1)(a), (9)(g). “Computer” is defined to include a cell phone or other handheld device. MCL 750.145d(9)(a).
The penalty is tied to the underlying crime. If the underlying crime is a felony with a maximum of 4 years or more but less than 10 years, for example, the 145d count is a felony with a maximum of 10 years. If the underlying crime carries 15 years or more, or life, the 145d maximum is 20 years. MCL 750.145d(2)(d), (f). A few other features of the statute matter in practice:
- A conviction or even a charge on the underlying offense is not required. The section applies whether or not the person is convicted of the underlying offense. MCL 750.145d(5).
- The court may order the 145d sentence to run consecutively to the sentence for the underlying offense, and the prosecutor may charge the underlying offense and 145d together. MCL 750.145d(3), (4).
- A violation occurs if the communication originates in this state, is intended to terminate in this state, or is intended to terminate with a person who is in this state, and it may be prosecuted in any jurisdiction where the communication originated or terminated. MCL 750.145d(6), (7).
- The court may order a person convicted to reimburse the state or a local government for expenses incurred in relation to the violation. MCL 750.145d(8).
The “believed to be a minor” language is why a sting works. If the person on the other end was an undercover officer, the statute still applies. The Michigan Supreme Court has also said that it has never recognized impossibility, whether factual or legal, as a defense to a charge of attempt, and it applied the attempt statute, MCL 750.92, in a case that began as an internet chat with an undercover officer posing as a minor. People v. Thousand, 465 Mich. 149, 162 to 163 (2001). That closes off the argument that the other person was not really a child. What stays open is what the prosecutor can prove about who typed the messages, what was said, what was intended and whether the police created the crime. Those are the questions I work on in a sting case.
Child sexually abusive material: what the statute covers
Child sexually abusive material is defined broadly. It means any depiction, made by electronic, mechanical or other means, of a child, or of what appears to include a child, engaging in a listed sexual act, and it expressly includes photographs, video, electronic visual images and computer-generated images. A “child” is a person under 18, and the “listed sexual acts” are defined in the statute. MCL 750.145c(1)(c), (i), (o). The statute does not require that the person knew the exact age. For each tier, the prosecutor can meet the knowledge element if the defendant knew, had reason to know, or should reasonably have been expected to know that the child is a child or that the material includes or appears to include a child, or if the defendant did not take reasonable precautions to determine the child’s age. MCL 750.145c(2) to (4).
Material that does not involve a real person. The definition of “appears to include a child” has two paths. If the depiction was created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under 18, it qualifies. If it was not, the prosecutor must also show that the average individual applying contemporary community standards would find it, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, that a reasonable person would find it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and that it depicts or describes a listed sexual act in a patently offensive way. MCL 750.145c(1)(b). A defendant who wants to prove that a depiction was not created using an actual person under 18 has to file and serve written notice with the specific facts and the names of witnesses at the arraignment on the information, or within 15 days after it but not less than 10 days before trial, or at another time the court directs. Failing to file a timely notice bars that defense. MCL 750.145c(8). This is a deadline I calendar on day one.
What “make” means. The statute defines “make” as bringing material into existence by copying, shaping, changing or combining, including intentionally creating a reproduction, copy or print. It excludes creating an identical copy within the same digital storage device or the same piece of digital storage media. MCL 750.145c(1)(j). That carve-out matters when the forensic report counts copies on one drive as separate acts.
Possession and “seeks and accesses.” Subsection (4) covers a person who “knowingly possesses or knowingly seeks and accesses” the material, and “access” means to intentionally cause it to be viewed by or transmitted to a person. MCL 750.145c(1)(a), (4). In People v. Flick, 487 Mich. 1, 4 (2010), the Michigan Supreme Court held that “possesses” in subsection (4) includes both actual and constructive possession, and that two defendants who intentionally accessed and viewed the material online constructively possessed it even though the only copies were in temporary internet files. The Court said the defendants did more than passively view the material: when it was displayed on the screen, each knowingly had the power and the intention to exercise dominion or control over it. Files that arrive on a device without the user’s knowledge are a different situation, and who used the device, when and how becomes the question.
Distribution and promotion. In People v. Tombs, 472 Mich. 446, 464 to 465 (2005), the Court held that to convict under subsection (3) the prosecutor must prove the defendant distributed or promoted the material, knew it was child sexually abusive material at that time, and acted with criminal intent. The Court also held that the mere obtaining and possessing of material using the internet is not a violation of subsection (3), and it pointed to the Legislature’s separate treatment of production, distribution or promotion, and simple possession. That distinction matters when the prosecutor charges sharing through a file-sharing program or a messaging account and the evidence of intent to share is thin.
Defenses and issues I look at
Every case is different, and I do not use a checklist as a substitute for reading the evidence. These are the questions I put to the case first.
- Who used the device or the account. A shared computer, a family tablet, a router, an unsecured network or a cloud account can all lead to the wrong person. The charge needs proof that you, and not someone else with access, did what the records show.
- Knowledge. Possession must be knowing. I look at how and when the files got onto the device, whether they were in an area a user could reach, and what the browsing history, downloads and file dates show. MCL 750.145c(4).
- Age and appearance. The statute allows opinion testimony on the age of the child when age is not otherwise proven. MCL 750.145c(6). It also creates an affirmative defense, proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged child was emancipated by operation of law. MCL 750.145c(7).
- Intent and the content of the messages. In an internet count the communication must have been made for the purpose of committing the listed offense. Context, who started the conversation and what was actually said can matter more than the prosecutor’s summary.
- Entrapment. In an online sting I look at who raised the subject, how many times the officer pushed, and whether the conduct goes beyond giving a chance to commit the crime.
- The warrant and the search. I review the affidavit, the warrant and the extraction to see whether the search stayed within what the warrant allowed.
Penalties and what follows a conviction
Sentence. The maximums in the table are the statutory ceilings. The sentencing statute assigns each count an offense class, and the class feeds the guidelines, so the subsection of conviction matters as much as the number of years. MCL 777.16g. A second or subsequent 145c conviction carries a mandatory minimum of at least 5 years, and the earlier conviction can be a 145c conviction or another crime involving a sexual offense against a minor. MCL 750.145g.
Registration. A conviction under these statutes is likely to bring sex offender registration, and the tier follows the section of conviction. By statute, a violation of 145c(4) is a tier I offense with a 15 year registration period, and a violation of 145a, 145c(2) or (3), or 145d(1)(a) is a tier II offense with a 25 year period, with an exception for certain 145d violations arising out of another section. MCL 28.722(r), (t); MCL 28.725(11), (12). How the registration clock runs, what a plea does to it and how registration can end are separate questions, and I treat the registration consequence as part of any plea discussion from the start.
Time limits for filing charges
| Charge | Time limit to file | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Child sexually abusive material, section 145c | Within 10 years after the offense or by the alleged victim’s twenty-first birthday, whichever is later. If DNA evidence from an unidentified individual is obtained, the indictment may be filed at any time, and after the person is identified, within 10 years after identification or by the alleged victim’s twenty-first birthday, whichever is later | MCL 767.24(3) |
| Crimes not listed in a special subsection, which on my reading includes sections 145a and 145d | Within 6 years after the offense is committed | MCL 767.24(10) |
| Time spent living outside Michigan | Any period during which the person did not usually and publicly reside in this state is not counted | MCL 767.24(11) |
The statute says that the changes made by the 2024 amendatory act apply to offenses committed on or after its effective date and do not apply retroactively to earlier offenses. MCL 767.24(13). For an older offense I check which version of the statute governed on the offense date before I advise on a limitations argument.
How I handle an internet sex crime or child sexually abusive material case
- Stop the statements. I tell you not to talk to detectives, to the other party or to anyone else, and not to delete anything. Deleting files after you know about an investigation creates new problems.
- Read the exact counts. I identify each statute and subsection charged, the tier, the offense class and the maximum, and I note any deadline, such as the written notice under section 145c(8).
- Get the warrant papers and the extraction. I review the affidavit, the warrant, the scope of the search and the forensic report, and I look at how the examiner attributed files and accounts to you.
- Test the proof of knowledge, identity and intent. I build the case around the elements the prosecutor has to prove, not around what the investigators say the case is.
- Use the preliminary examination. A felony starts in district court, and if the magistrate decides no felony was committed or there is no probable cause, the magistrate must discharge the defendant or reduce the charge to a non-felony. MCL 766.13. I use the hearing to hear the officer’s testimony under oath.
- Explain every offer in terms of the count and its consequences. A plea to a different subsection can change the maximum, the offense class and the registration tier. I put the numbers and the consequences side by side before you decide.
- Prepare for trial. If the case should be tried, I prepare it that way, including a defense examiner where the digital evidence calls for one.
Ways an internet sex crime case may end without a trial
None of these is automatic. Each depends on the evidence, the prosecutor and the judge.
Dismissal or a reduced charge at the preliminary examination. If the evidence on a count does not show probable cause, the magistrate may discharge the defendant or reduce the charge to a non-felony. MCL 766.13.
A plea to a different count. A plea can change the subsection, which can change the maximum, the offense class and the registration tier. A plea that gives up the right to challenge a search or a statement also gives up the issue, so I decide whether to file those motions before the plea discussion, not after.
What I need from you
Bring the warrant, the property receipt for anything taken, any paperwork the police left, the charging documents and every court notice. Write down which devices and accounts you used, who else had access to them, the passwords or locks that were in place, and the dates you remember. Do not delete anything, do not wipe or reset a device or an account, and do not contact the other person in the case. Do not answer questions from detectives or from anyone connected to the case.
Where your Kent County case will be heard
I represent clients charged in Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Grandville, Wyoming and across Kent County. A felony begins in district court with an arraignment and, if the case continues, a preliminary examination. MCL 600.8311(c), (e). Michigan law sets the Kent County district courts by municipality. The 61st District Court serves the city of Grand Rapids, the 59th serves the cities of Grandville and Walker, the 62A serves the city of Wyoming and the 62B serves the city of Kentwood. MCL 600.8128a; MCL 600.8130(1)-(3). The 63rd District Court serves the rest of Kent County, which includes the cities of Rockford, Lowell, Cedar Springs and East Grand Rapids and the surrounding townships. MCL 600.8130(4). If the magistrate binds the case over, the felony is arraigned in the circuit court, which for Kent County is the 17th Judicial Circuit. MCL 766.13; MCL 600.8311(f); MCL 600.518.
Why people hire me for a Michigan internet sex crime or child sexually abusive material case
You work directly with me, the lawyer handling your case. I tell you where the prosecutor’s case is strong and where it is thin, and I explain what each charge and each offer means for the sentence, the registration tier and everything else that follows. I do not promise outcomes. I read the digital evidence, build the case the facts support, and then we decide together how to proceed.
My fee depends on the charges, how complicated the digital evidence is and how far the case is likely to go. We talk about the fee at the consultation, before you decide whether to hire me.
Questions I hear from people charged in an internet sex crime or child sexually abusive material case
The person I was chatting with turned out to be an undercover officer, not a minor. Can I still be charged?
Yes. The statutes reach a person the defendant believed to be a minor, so a real child is not required. MCL 750.145d covers communication with someone who “is believed by that person to be a minor,” and MCL 750.145a covers an individual believed to be under 16. The Michigan Supreme Court has never recognized impossibility as a defense to an attempt charge. The real fights are about belief, identity and sometimes entrapment.
Can I raise entrapment if police pushed me in an online sting?
Possibly, but the bar is high. Michigan recognizes entrapment in two situations: police conduct that would induce a law-abiding person, in similar circumstances, to commit the crime, or police conduct so reprehensible that a court cannot tolerate it. Merely giving a person the chance to commit a crime is not entrapment. Because a trial judge’s ruling is reviewed for clear error on appeal, the chat logs and the record made at the entrapment hearing carry most of the weight.
I did not know the files were on my computer or I only looked at them online. Is that still possession?
It can be. Michigan requires knowing possession, but the Supreme Court held in People v Flick that a person who intentionally seeks out and views images online can constructively possess them, even if the images sit only in temporary internet files. Constructive possession means knowingly having the power and intention to exercise control over the material. Files that arrived without the user’s knowledge are a different case, and who had access to the device becomes the main question.
Is computer-generated, cartoon or AI-made material treated as child sexually abusive material?
It can be. The statute covers a computer-generated image of a child or one that “appears to include a child.” If no real person under 18 was used to make it, the material still counts only when it also meets three conditions: it appeals to a prurient interest by community standards, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and it shows a listed sexual act in a patently offensive way. A defendant who wants to prove no real minor was used must file a written notice by the statute’s deadline or lose that defense.
Will my lawyer get copies of the images and the forensic report, and can a defense examiner look at the devices?
The forensic report, the search warrant papers and the list of evidence are discoverable on request under MCR 6.201, and the court rule lets a party ask the court to allow testing of physical evidence without destruction on good cause. For the images themselves, MCL 750.145c(11) says the court must deny a request to copy or photograph the pictures if the prosecutor makes them reasonably available for inspection by the defendant, the lawyer and any person the defense may seek to qualify to give opinion testimony at trial, at a facility the prosecutor approves.
How are sentences set in an internet sex crime or child sexually abusive material case, and why does the charge I plead to matter so much?
The sentencing guidelines are advisory, and a judge who goes outside the range is reviewed for reasonableness. The statute puts each charge in an offense class, from class B for production and for the aggravated possession tier to class F for ordinary possession and for accosting a child. Because the subsection of conviction also controls the sex offender registration tier and whether a mandatory minimum applies, the exact count in a plea matters as much as the number of years.
Detectives want to talk to me about messages or files on my devices. Should I talk to them?
Anything said to investigators can be used against you, and staying quiet protects a person only if the right is invoked clearly. Under Berghuis v Thompkins, a suspect must unambiguously invoke the right to remain silent, and a suspect who did not say he wanted to remain silent or did not want to talk to the police had his later answers used. Saying out loud that you want a lawyer and will not answer questions, and then stopping, is the plain way to protect the right.
Related Michigan pages
- Grand Rapids criminal defense lawyer
- Criminal sexual conduct charges
- Sex offender registration
- Felony defense
- Criminal appeals
I defend people charged with internet sex crimes and child sexually abusive material offenses in Kent County and West Michigan. Contact me 24/7 by phone or email. Your Rights, My Fight! Call for a free initial consultation.
Big-Firm Power. Street-Level Grit.
Law Offices of Mitchell S. Bisson, 2828 Kraft Ave SE, Suite 295, Grand Rapids, MI 49512, serving Kent County and West Michigan.
This page provides general information about Michigan law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and every case turns on its own facts. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.