(1) An actor commits internet sexual exploitation of a child if the actor knowingly importunes, invites, or entices through communication via a computer network or system, telephone network, or data network or by a text message or instant message, a person whom the actor knows or believes to be under fifteen years of age and at least four years younger than the actor, to:
(a) Expose or touch the person's own or another person's intimate parts while communicating with the actor via a computer network or system, telephone network, or data network or by a text message or instant message; or
(b) Observe the actor's intimate parts via a computer network or system, telephone network, or data network or by a text message or instant message.
(2) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2009, (HB 09-1163), ch. 343, p. 1797, § 1, effective July 1, 2009.)
(3) Internet sexual exploitation of a child is a class 4 felony.
Source: L. 2006: Entire section added, p. 2056, § 5, effective July 1. L. 2009: Entire section amended, (HB 09-1163), ch. 343, p. 1797, § 1, effective July 1; (1) amended, (HB 09- 1132), ch. 341, p. 1793, § 3, effective July 1.
Editor's note: Amendments to subsection (1) by House Bill 09-1163 and House Bill 09- 1132 were harmonized.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case:
People v. Helms, 2016 COA 90 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
People v. Helms, 2016 COA 90 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 16× “§ 18-3-405.4(1) (emphasis added). It— like the statutes at issue in Foley and Boles , and unlike the statutes challenged in Johnson and American Libraries Association— contains an active element which obviates any concern about regulation of legitimate interstate commerce.”
v. Daley, 2021 COA 85 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “2020; internet sexual exploitation of a child, § 18-3-405.4(1), C.R.S. 2020; four counts of sexual exploitation of a child, § 18-6-403, C.”
People v. Herrera, 2015 CO 60 (Colo. 2015).
· cites it 6× “4 § 18-3-405.4(1), C.R.S. (2015). 5 § 18-3-306(1), (3), C.”
People v. Interest of T.B., 2019 CO 53 (Colo. 2019).
· cites it 8× “¶36 The internet luring statute criminalizes “knowing[ly] importun[ing], invit[ing], or entic[ing] through [electronic] communication” “a person who the actor knows or believes” to be under fifteen years old to expose or touch their own intimate parts or observe the actor’s…”
People in the Interest of T.B, 2016 COA 151 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” § 18-3-405.4(1), C.R.S. 2016. The juvenile also notes that in 2009 the legislature amended both the Internet child exploitation statute and the sexual exploitation of a child statute.”
People v. Sheth, 318 P.3d 533 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
“5, § 18-3-405.4, 2006 Colo. Sess. Laws 2056 .”
People v. Griego, 411 P.3d 135 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “2014, where the undisputed evidence proved "at most only that [the defendant], without any information about the viewer's age, invited a person to view a webcam stream of him masturbating, and then did not stop the stream until several minutes after the viewer had said that she…”
People v. Heywood, 357 P.3d 201 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 16× “But this difference impacts only the second step in plain error analysis-obviousness-not the rationale for limiting reversal for unpre-served insufficiency claims to plain error.”
Peo v. Delmolino (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 5× “1 Delmolino was charged with three counts of internet sexual exploitation of a child under section 18-3-405.4(1), C.R.S. 2024, and a jury convicted him as charged.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-405.4(1) — 7 cases
v. Daley, 2021 COA 85 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
“2020; internet sexual exploitation of a child, § 18-3-405.4(1), C.R.S. 2020; four counts of sexual exploitation of a child, § 18-6-403, C.”
People v. Herrera, 2015 CO 60 (Colo. 2015).
“4 § 18-3-405.4(1), C.R.S. (2015). 5 § 18-3-306(1), (3), C.”
People v. Interest of T.B., 2019 CO 53 (Colo. 2019).
“¶36 The internet luring statute criminalizes “knowing[ly] importun[ing], invit[ing], or entic[ing] through [electronic] communication” “a person who the actor knows or believes” to be under fifteen years old to expose or touch their own intimate parts or observe the actor’s…”
People v. Helms, 2016 COA 90 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-3-405.4(1) (emphasis added). It— like the statutes at issue in Foley and Boles , and unlike the statutes challenged in Johnson and American Libraries Association— contains an active element which obviates any concern about regulation of legitimate interstate commerce.”
People in the Interest of T.B, 2016 COA 151 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“” § 18-3-405.4(1), C.R.S. 2016. The juvenile also notes that in 2009 the legislature amended both the Internet child exploitation statute and the sexual exploitation of a child statute.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-405.4(1)(b) — 2 cases
People v. Griego, 411 P.3d 135 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“2014, where the undisputed evidence proved "at most only that [the defendant], without any information about the viewer's age, invited a person to view a webcam stream of him masturbating, and then did not stop the stream until several minutes after the viewer had said that she…”
People v. Heywood, 357 P.3d 201 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
“But this difference impacts only the second step in plain error analysis-obviousness-not the rationale for limiting reversal for unpre-served insufficiency claims to plain error.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-405.4(l)(a) — 1 case
People v. Helms, 2016 COA 90 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-3-405.4(1) (emphasis added). It— like the statutes at issue in Foley and Boles , and unlike the statutes challenged in Johnson and American Libraries Association— contains an active element which obviates any concern about regulation of legitimate interstate commerce.”
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.