Online solicitation charges frequently arise from undercover law enforcement operations where no actual minor was involved. These cases present powerful entrapment and predisposition defenses that require an attorney with both the legal knowledge and the technical expertise to challenge the government's investigation. D.J. Rivera provides that defense.
Virginia Code § 18.2-374.3 — Use of Communications Systems to Facilitate Offenses Involving Children
It shall be unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to use a communications system, including but not limited to computers or computer networks or bulletin boards, or any other electronic means, for the purposes of soliciting, with lascivious intent, any person he knows or has reason to believe is a child younger than 15 years of age to knowingly and intentionally: (i) expose his sexual or genital parts to any child to whom he is not legally married or propose that any such child expose his sexual or genital parts to such person; (ii) propose that any such child feel or fondle the sexual or genital parts of such person or propose that such person feel or fondle the sexual or genital parts of any such child; (iii) propose to such child the performance of an act of sexual intercourse or any act constituting an offense under § 18.2-361; or (iv) entice, allure, persuade, or invite any such child to enter any vehicle, room, house, or other place, for any of the purposes set forth in the preceding clauses.
Virginia's online solicitation statute is one of the most aggressively enforced computer crime laws in the Commonwealth. The statute applies to solicitation of any person the defendant "knows or has reason to believe" is a child — meaning that undercover law enforcement officers posing as minors can form the basis of a prosecution even when no actual child was involved.
The statute is tiered by the age of the alleged victim: solicitation of a child under 15 carries the most serious penalties, while solicitation of a child between 15 and 18 carries somewhat lesser penalties. The statute also covers attempts — meaning that the offense is complete when the solicitation is made, regardless of whether any meeting or sexual contact occurred.
| Offense | Classification | Prison | Sex Offender Registration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Solicitation of child under 15 | Class 5 Felony | 1–10 years | Required |
| Solicitation of child 15–17 | Class 6 Felony | 1–5 years | Required |
| With intent to commit contact offense | Class 4 Felony | 2–10 years | Required |
| Federal Enticement (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) | Federal Felony | 10 years to life (mandatory min.) | Required |
Critical: Online solicitation charges almost always result in immediate arrest and frequently trigger parallel federal investigations. Do not speak to law enforcement without an attorney. Contact D.J. Rivera immediately.
Entrapment is a complete defense to online solicitation charges when law enforcement induced the defendant to commit an offense he was not predisposed to commit. Virginia and federal courts recognize the entrapment defense, but it requires proof that: (1) the government induced the defendant to commit the offense; and (2) the defendant was not predisposed to commit the offense before the government's inducement. D.J. Rivera develops entrapment defenses by scrutinizing the undercover operation's methodology, the sequence of communications, and who initiated the sexual content of the conversation.
The statute requires "lascivious intent" — a specific sexual intent directed at the alleged minor. Conversations that are ambiguous, that began innocuously and escalated through the undercover officer's direction, or that were clearly fantasy or roleplay rather than genuine solicitation may not satisfy the lascivious intent element. D.J. Rivera analyzes the full context of the communications to challenge the prosecution's characterization of the defendant's intent.
The prosecution must prove that the defendant was the person who engaged in the alleged solicitation. In cases involving shared devices, hacked accounts, or anonymous communications, D.J. Rivera challenges the technical evidence used to attribute the communications to the defendant. His cybersecurity expertise allows him to identify weaknesses in the government's attribution methodology that most defense attorneys would miss.
Undercover online solicitation operations must be conducted within constitutional limits. Law enforcement cannot manufacture crimes by aggressively pursuing targets who show no predisposition to offend. D.J. Rivera scrutinizes the entire undercover operation — the platform used, the profile created, the communications initiated by law enforcement, and the techniques used to escalate the conversation — to identify constitutional violations and entrapment.
Online solicitation cases are built on digital evidence — chat logs, IP records, device forensics, and undercover communications. D.J. Rivera's technical expertise allows him to challenge this evidence at the same level as the investigators who collected it. His experience in federal court — including the Eastern District of Virginia, one of the most aggressive federal districts in the country — gives him the trial experience these cases demand.
Do not speak to investigators. D.J. Rivera is available 24/7 for a confidential consultation.
Get a Confidential Consultation Now