(1) An actor commits internet luring of a child if the actor knowingly communicates over a computer or computer network, telephone network, or data network or by a text message or instant message to a person who the actor knows or believes to be under fifteen years of age and, in that communication or in any subsequent communication by computer, computer network, telephone network, data network, text message, or instant message, describes explicit sexual conduct as defined in section 18-6-403 (2)(e), and, in connection with that description, makes a statement persuading or inviting the person to meet the actor for any purpose, and the actor is more than four years older than the person or than the age the actor believes the person to be.
(2) It shall not be a defense to this section that a meeting did not occur. (a) and (b) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2007, p. 1688, § 8, effective July 1, 2007.)
(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.
Source: L. 2006: Entire section added, p. 2055, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2007: (1) and (2) amended, p. 1688, § 8, effective July 1. L. 2009: (1) amended, (HB 09-1132), ch. 341, p. 1792, § 2, effective July 1.
PART 4 UNLAWFUL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR Editor's note: This title was repealed and reenacted in 1971, and this part 4 was subsequently repealed and reenacted in 1975, resulting in the addition, relocation, and elimination of sections as well as subject matter. For amendments to this part 4 prior to 1975, consult the Colorado statutory research explanatory note and the table itemizing the replacement volumes and supplements to the original volume of C.R.S. 1973 beginning on page vii in the front of this volume and the editor's note following the title heading. Former C.R.S. section numbers prior to 1975 are shown in editor's notes following those sections that were relocated.
Cross references: For introduction of evidence of similar acts or transactions by a defendant prosecuted pursuant to this part 4, see § 16-10-301.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
People v. Boles, 280 P.3d 55 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
People v. Boles, 280 P.3d 55 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 15× “Constitutionality of Internet Luring Statute Defendant challenges the constitutionality of the Internet luring statute, section 18-3-306, C.R.S.2010 1 , on several grounds.”
People v. Helms, 2016 COA 90, 396 P.3d 1133.
· cites it 6× “The division held that the Internet child luring statute does not discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce because it only regulates the conduct of persons who, through sexually explicit communications sent over the Internet, seek to endanger the welfare of…”
v. Williamson, 2021 COA 77.
“§§ 18-3-306(1), (3), 18-3-405.4(1), C.R.S.”
People v. Janousek, 871 P.2d 1189 (Colo. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Section 18-3-306 provides that a person is guilty of attempting to influence a public servant if he or she: [A]ttempts to influence any public servant by means of deceit or by threat of violence or economic reprisal against any person or property, with the intent thereby to…”
People v. Herrera, 2015 CO 60, 357 P.3d 1227.
· cites it 2× “5 § 18-3-306(1), (3), C.R.S. (2015). 6 The People also filed a certificate pursuant to section 16-12-102(2), C.”
People v. MacLeod, 176 P.3d 75 (Colo. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See § 18-3-407(2) (stating that the rape shield statute’s protections apply to criminal prosecutions under sections 18-3-306(3), C.R.S. (2007); 18-3-402 to -405.”
v. Mentzer, 2020 COA 91, 487 P.3d 1236.
“See § 18-3-306(1), (3), C.R.S. 2019 (luring); § 18-3- 405.”
Peo v. Jacobs, No. 24CA0837 (Colo. Ct. App. May 29, 2025).
· cites it 20× “2 See § 18-3-306; § 18-3-405, C.R.S. 2024 (sexual assault on a child); § 18-2-101, C.”
Peo v. Martinez, No. 23CA2198 (Colo. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2024).
· cites it 4× “12 ¶ 20 The majority, like the district court, focuses its analysis on whether there was evidence presented at the preliminary hearing that in his Facebook chat messages Martinez “describe[d]” expli cit sexual conduct, as required by section 18-3-306(1), C.R.S. 2024. In reaching…”
Say v. Fabbricatore, No. 1:21-cv-00754 (D. Colo. May 19, 2021).
· cites it 2× “On May 3, 2019, Applicant was convicted in the Jefferson County, Colorado, District Court 1 of internet luring of a child, in violation of C.R.S. § 18-3-306, and attempted sex assault on a child, in violation of C.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-306(1): 7 cases
People v. Boles, 280 P.3d 55 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“Constitutionality of Internet Luring Statute Defendant challenges the constitutionality of the Internet luring statute, section 18-3-306, C.R.S.2010 1 , on several grounds.”
v. Williamson, 2021 COA 77.
“§§ 18-3-306(1), (3), 18-3-405.4(1), C.R.S.”
People v. Helms, 2016 COA 90, 396 P.3d 1133.
“The division held that the Internet child luring statute does not discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce because it only regulates the conduct of persons who, through sexually explicit communications sent over the Internet, seek to endanger the welfare of…”
People v. Herrera, 2015 CO 60, 357 P.3d 1227.
“5 § 18-3-306(1), (3), C.R.S. (2015). 6 The People also filed a certificate pursuant to section 16-12-102(2), C.”
v. Mentzer, 2020 COA 91, 487 P.3d 1236.
“See § 18-3-306(1), (3), C.R.S. 2019 (luring); § 18-3- 405.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-306(3): 1 case
People v. MacLeod, 176 P.3d 75 (Colo. 2008).
“See § 18-3-407(2) (stating that the rape shield statute’s protections apply to criminal prosecutions under sections 18-3-306(3), C.R.S. (2007); 18-3-402 to -405.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-306(4): 1 case
People v. Boles, 280 P.3d 55 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“Constitutionality of Internet Luring Statute Defendant challenges the constitutionality of the Internet luring statute, section 18-3-306, C.R.S.2010 1 , on several grounds.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.