of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Minnesota Statute § 609.352 addresses profoundly serious conduct targeting the safety and well-being of children. This law criminalizes the act of adults soliciting or attempting to persuade children to engage in sexual activities, and also prohibits using electronic means to communicate with children about sexual conduct or distribute sexually explicit materials to them for the purpose of sexual arousal. Enacted to combat child sexual exploitation and grooming behaviors, this statute recognizes the vulnerability of minors and the predatory nature of such acts, whether they occur in person, over the phone, or increasingly, through online platforms like social media, chat rooms, and messaging apps. The law specifically targets adults aged 18 or older who prey on individuals under the age of 16, or those they reasonably believe to be that young.
The statute outlines two main pathways to a felony conviction. The first involves direct solicitation – an adult trying to entice or persuade a child into sexual conduct with the specific intent to carry out that conduct. The second, broader provision targets electronic communications, criminalizing not only online solicitation but also engaging in sexually explicit conversations or sending sexually explicit materials (including images or videos) to a child via electronic means when done with the intent to arouse sexual desire. This acknowledges the significant danger posed by online predators who use technology to groom, exploit, or entice minors. A conviction under either part of this statute carries substantial penalties, including potential imprisonment and mandatory sex offender registration.
Minnesota Statute § 609.352 is codified within the state’s main criminal code chapter. It defines specific felony offenses aimed at protecting children aged 15 and younger from sexual solicitation and exposure to sexually explicit communications by adults. The statute details the prohibited acts, defines key terms, addresses jurisdiction for online offenses, explicitly excludes certain defenses, and sets forth the penalties.
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 $10,000,1 or both.
To secure a conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.352, the prosecution carries the heavy burden of proving each essential component, or element, of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The specific elements differ slightly depending on whether the charge falls under Subdivision 2 (general solicitation) or Subdivision 2a (electronic solicitation, communication, or distribution). Failure by the prosecution to establish any one of the required elements for the specific subdivision charged necessitates an acquittal. An attorney defending against these charges meticulously analyzes whether the state’s evidence sufficiently proves every single element.
A conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.352, whether for general solicitation under Subdivision 2 or electronic acts under Subdivision 2a, is classified as a serious felony offense. The potential penalties reflect the gravity with which the state views the exploitation and endangerment of children. These penalties can include significant prison time, substantial fines, and mandatory compliance with other requirements like sex offender registration, leading to severe and long-lasting consequences for the convicted individual.
Minnesota Statute § 609.352 targets adults who attempt to draw children into sexual activity or expose them to sexually explicit communications for sexual arousal purposes. Subdivision 2 covers the more direct “solicitation” – trying to persuade a child (someone 15 or younger, or believed to be) to engage in sexual conduct, with the actual intent to commit that conduct. This could happen face-to-face, over the phone, or electronically. It focuses on the attempt to arrange or entice the child into a sexual act. The key here is the defendant’s intent to actually do something sexual with the child.
Subdivision 2a broadens the scope significantly for acts committed using electronic means (computers, internet, phones, etc.). It prohibits not only electronic solicitation (Clause 1) but also simply engaging in communication about sexual conduct with a child (Clause 2) or sending them sexually explicit materials or messages (Clause 3), provided these acts are done with the “intent to arouse the sexual desire of any person.” This targets online grooming, sexting initiated by an adult towards a child, and distributing explicit content to minors electronically when motivated by sexual arousal. The required intent here is slightly different – arousal, rather than the intent to physically engage in conduct required for Subd. 2.
An adult man, age 40, creates a fake online profile posing as a 16-year-old boy. He enters a chat room popular with teenagers and initiates a private conversation with a user whose profile indicates they are 14. Over several days, the man steers the conversation to sexual topics, describes sexual acts in detail, and asks the 14-year-old user to send explicit photos and eventually meet him in person for sexual activity. His messages clearly indicate his own sexual arousal.
This scenario likely violates § 609.352, Subd. 2a on multiple grounds. The man is over 18, using the internet, communicating with someone he believes is a child (14), and his actions fit clauses (1) soliciting for sexual conduct, and (2) engaging in communication describing sexual conduct. His messages provide evidence of his intent to arouse sexual desire. The fact he used a fake profile is irrelevant, and that he believed the user was 14 meets the age element.
A 50-year-old individual repeatedly loiters near a middle school. They approach a 13-year-old student walking home alone and offer them money and gifts if the student will accompany them to a nearby secluded park area “to have some fun.” The individual explicitly describes wanting to engage in sexual contact with the student’s genital area.
This scenario likely constitutes solicitation under § 609.352, Subd. 2. The individual is over 18, the student is under 16 (a “child”), the act involves attempting to persuade the child in person, and the description of the desired activity clearly shows intent to engage in “sexual conduct” as defined. The offer of gifts is part of the enticement or persuasion.
A 25-year-old sends unsolicited graphic photos depicting sexual conduct via a social media messaging app to another user whose public profile clearly states they are 15 years old. The sender includes messages indicating the images are meant to excite the recipient or demonstrate the sender’s own desires.
This conduct falls under § 609.352, Subd. 2a(3). The sender is over 18, used an electronic communication system, distributed material depicting sexual conduct to someone reasonably believed to be a child (15), and the accompanying messages suggest the intent to arouse sexual desire. The unsolicited nature reinforces the problematic intent.
An adult interacts online via a chat platform with someone they believe is a 14-year-old girl interested in sexual experimentation (but who is actually an undercover police officer posing as a minor). The adult explicitly solicits the “girl” for sexual penetration and makes arrangements to meet, expressing clear sexual desires in the messages. The adult is arrested when they arrive at the arranged meeting spot.
This scenario would likely lead to charges under § 609.352, Subd. 2a(1) and (2). The adult is over 18, used electronic means, solicited someone reasonably believed to be a child for sexual conduct, engaged in communication describing sexual conduct, and demonstrated intent to arouse sexual desire. Crucially, under § 609.352, Subd. 3(b), the fact that the “child” was actually an undercover officer does not, by itself, constitute a defense under this specific statute, preventing an easy dismissal based solely on police involvement in the investigation.
Facing allegations under Minnesota Statute § 609.352 is extremely serious, carrying the potential for felony conviction, imprisonment, substantial fines, and lifelong consequences like sex offender registration. Given the stakes, mounting a vigorous defense is critical. This involves meticulously examining the prosecution’s evidence to determine if they can truly prove every single required element of the specific offense (Subdivision 2 or 2a) beyond a reasonable doubt. While the statute itself explicitly bars mistake of age and the mere fact of police involvement as defenses under § 609.352, other factual, legal, and constitutional defenses may still be available depending on the specific circumstances of the case.
An effective defense strategy requires a thorough investigation into the facts, including analysis of electronic communications, witness accounts, and police procedures. The defense attorney scrutinizes the evidence for weaknesses, inconsistencies, or violations of the defendant’s rights. Key areas often involve challenging the prosecution’s interpretation of intent, questioning the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of electronic acts, disputing the “reasonable belief” regarding the recipient’s age, or arguing that the communication does not legally meet the definition of solicitation or description of sexual conduct. Constitutional defenses, such as entrapment (if police conduct went beyond mere investigation) or First Amendment challenges (in narrow circumstances regarding communication content), might also be explored, although they face high hurdles in this context.
A central element in § 609.352 charges is the defendant’s mental state or intent. The defense can argue the prosecution failed to prove the specific intent required for the charged subdivision beyond a reasonable doubt.
While mistake of age is not a defense if the victim was a child (15 or younger), other age-related arguments might exist.
The defense can challenge whether the alleged act actually occurred or meets the legal definition required by the statute.
Although § 609.352(b) states police involvement is not itself a defense under the statute, the constitutional defense of entrapment might still be raised if police conduct was sufficiently egregious.
For the purposes of this specific statute, a “child” is defined as a person 15 years of age or younger.
“Solicit” means commanding, entreating, or attempting to persuade a specific person. This can occur in person, by phone, by letter, or through electronic means like the internet or messaging apps.
“Sexual conduct” includes sexual contact involving the primary genital area, sexual penetration (as defined in § 609.341), or sexual performance (engaging in or depicting sexual conduct for an audience, as defined in § 617.246).
No. Subdivision 2 applies to solicitation generally, regardless of the method used (in person, phone, letter, electronic). Subdivision 2a specifically addresses acts committed using electronic means like the internet, computers, or phone systems.
Under § 609.352, Subd. 3(a), mistake as to the person’s age is not a defense if the person solicited or communicated with was, in fact, 15 years old or younger. However, if the person was 16 or older, the prosecution must prove you reasonably believed they were 15 or younger.
No. Section 609.352, Subd. 3(b) explicitly states that the involvement of an undercover operative or law enforcement officer in the investigation or detection does not constitute a defense under this statute. However, the separate constitutional defense of entrapment might be raised if police conduct was unduly coercive.
A conviction under either Subdivision 2 or 2a is a felony, punishable by imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine of up to $10,000.
The intent element varies. For Subdivision 2 (solicitation), the state must prove intent to engage in sexual conduct. For Subdivision 2a (electronic acts), the state must prove intent to arouse the sexual desire of any person. Proving intent to cause harm isn’t explicitly required, but proving these specific intents is.
Conviction under § 609.352 does not require proof that sexual conduct actually happened. The crime focuses on the act of solicitation, or the electronic communication/distribution itself, when done with the required intent toward a child (or believed child). It targets preparatory and grooming behaviors.
Yes, potentially under Subdivision 2a(2) or (3). If you are 18 or older, the recipient is 15 or younger (or believed to be), the messages relate to or describe sexual conduct, and you sent them with the intent to arouse sexual desire, it could constitute a felony under this statute.
Under Subdivision 2b, Minnesota has jurisdiction to prosecute electronic offenses under Subd. 2a if the electronic transmission either originated in Minnesota or was received in Minnesota. This gives the state broad reach for online crimes.
While the child’s initiation might be a factor considered in the overall context, it doesn’t automatically negate the adult’s criminal liability under § 609.352 if the adult (18+) then engages in prohibited solicitation, communication, or distribution with the required intent toward someone they know or reasonably believe is a child (15 or younger).
No, although they are related offenses aimed at protecting children. Section 609.352 focuses on solicitation and communication with or directed toward a child (or believed child). Child pornography laws (like Minn. Stat. § 617.247) generally deal with the possession, production, or distribution of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexual conduct, regardless of direct communication with a specific child victim depicted.
Yes, a conviction under § 609.352 is generally considered an offense that mandates registration as a predatory offender in Minnesota under Minn. Stat. § 243.166. The duration and level of registration depend on a risk assessment.
Subdivision 2 covers general solicitation (any method) requiring proof of intent to engage in sexual conduct. Subdivision 2a covers specific electronic acts (solicitation, communication, distribution) requiring proof of intent to arouse sexual desire. Subdivision 2a is broader regarding the types of electronic interactions covered beyond just direct solicitation.
A conviction for violating Minnesota Statute § 609.352 carries devastating and long-lasting consequences that extend far beyond any prison sentence or fine imposed by the court. The felony conviction itself, combined with the nature of the offense involving a minor and the likely requirement of sex offender registration, creates significant barriers and stigma that can profoundly impact nearly every aspect of an individual’s life indefinitely. Understanding these collateral consequences is crucial when facing such serious charges.
A conviction under § 609.352 results in a permanent felony record. This record is accessible through background checks conducted by potential employers, landlords, educational institutions, and licensing boards. The presence of a felony conviction, especially one related to sexual misconduct involving a minor, can automatically disqualify individuals from many jobs (particularly those involving children, vulnerable adults, finance, or positions of trust), make finding safe and stable housing extremely difficult, hinder educational opportunities, and prevent obtaining certain professional licenses. Overcoming the barrier of a felony record of this nature is exceptionally challenging.
Convictions under § 609.352 typically trigger mandatory registration as a predatory offender in Minnesota. This isn’t just a one-time listing; it involves ongoing, burdensome requirements potentially lasting for decades or even a lifetime. Registrants must regularly update their address, employment, vehicle information, and other details with law enforcement. Strict residency restrictions often prohibit living near schools, parks, or daycare centers, severely limiting housing options. Employment restrictions also apply, particularly in child-related fields. Depending on the assessed risk level, community notification might occur, where neighbors and local institutions are informed of the registrant’s presence, leading to potential harassment and social ostracization.
A felony conviction in Minnesota results in the loss of certain civil rights. Convicted felons lose the right to possess firearms or ammunition under both state and federal law, typically for life. The right to vote is lost while incarcerated or on supervision (probation, parole); it is restored upon completion of the sentence. Felons are also generally barred from holding public office or serving on a jury. Restoring these rights can be difficult or impossible, particularly the right to possess firearms after conviction for certain offenses.
Beyond the formal legal consequences, the social stigma associated with a conviction for soliciting a minor is immense and pervasive. It can lead to the breakdown of personal relationships with family and friends, intense public scrutiny (especially if community notification occurs), difficulty forming new relationships, and severe damage to one’s reputation. The label associated with the offense and registration status often leads to social isolation, shame, and significant mental health challenges. Rebuilding a life and regaining trust within the community after such a conviction presents enormous personal hurdles.
Successfully defending against charges under § 609.352 requires a deep understanding of the statute’s specific elements, particularly the distinct intent requirements for Subdivision 2 (intent to engage in sexual conduct) versus Subdivision 2a (intent to arouse sexual desire). An experienced criminal defense attorney meticulously analyzes the prosecution’s evidence – chat logs, emails, witness statements – to determine if the state can truly prove the required intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The attorney identifies weaknesses in the state’s interpretation of ambiguous language or actions, developing arguments that challenge whether the defendant possessed the specific criminal mindset mandated by the relevant subdivision. This careful dissection of the elements is fundamental to building an effective defense strategy against these nuanced charges.
Cases under § 609.352, especially Subdivision 2a, heavily rely on electronic evidence. This includes chat logs, social media messages, emails, images, videos, IP addresses, device data, and internet service provider records. A defense attorney must be adept at handling this type of evidence, understanding how it is collected, preserved, and analyzed by law enforcement’s digital forensics units. The attorney works to identify potential issues with the evidence, such as problems with attribution (proving the defendant was actually the one using the device or account), chain of custody, search warrant validity, or forensic analysis methods. Challenging the reliability or admissibility of crucial electronic evidence can be key to undermining the prosecution’s case.
Beyond intent and electronic evidence, a defense attorney rigorously challenges every aspect of the prosecution’s case. This includes scrutinizing the identification procedures used, questioning the credibility of witnesses (including undercover officers regarding potential bias or improper inducement), verifying the alleged age of the minor or the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief about their age, and disputing whether the communications legally meet the definition of “solicitation” or “sexual conduct” under Minnesota law. The attorney may file pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights (e.g., illegal searches) or motions to dismiss if the evidence, even taken as true, fails to establish a prima facie case for the charged offense.
Despite the statutory limitations on certain defenses (mistake of age, police involvement), a dedicated attorney explores every possible avenue for defending the client. This includes investigating factual defenses (e.g., mistaken identity, lack of required intent), assessing the viability of constitutional defenses like entrapment if police conduct crossed the line, and raising any applicable procedural defenses. Where outright acquittal seems unlikely, the attorney focuses on mitigation, presenting factors about the client’s background, mental health, or the circumstances of the offense to argue for the most lenient possible sentence within the legal framework. This comprehensive approach ensures the client’s rights are protected at every stage, aiming for the best possible outcome whether through negotiation or trial.
