18 U.S.C. § 2258
Failure to report child abuse
A person who, while engaged in a professional capacity or activity described in subsection (b) of section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 on Federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility, or a covered individual as described in subsection (a)(2) of such section 226 who, learns of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse, as defined in subsection (c) of that section, and fails to make a timely report as required by subsection (a) of that section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: United States v. Stratton
United States v. Stratton (2017)
“Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC (“Sony”), as a “professional entity,” is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 2258 . This provision states: “A person who, while engaged in a professional capacity .”
United States v. Moore (2023)
“, 18 U.S.C. § 2258 . Section 2251 is followed by § 2251A, titled “Selling or buying of children”; § 2252, titled “Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors”; and § 2252A, titled “Certain activities relating to material constituting or…”
United States v. Randy Beltramea (2017)
“Hull, wheréin the court was tasked with defining what constituted “property” under § 18 U.S.C. § 2258 (a)(3), a criminal forfeiture statute applicable in the distribution of child pornography context.”
Lucero v. Suthers (2001)
“The court subsequently denied Petitioner’s Rule 59(c) motion to alter or amend the judgment, and further declined to grant a certificate of appealability required by 18 U.S.C. § 2258 (c) to appeal the dismissal of a § 2254 petition.”
United States v. Gleason (2008)
“§ 2423 (b), and the second *539 count seeking forfeiture of certain facilitating equipment, such as Gleason’s computer and cellular phone, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2258 (a)(3). Gleason pleaded not guilty, and the district court set January 23, 2006, as the trial date.”
United States v. Jeremy Noyes (2014)
“Thereafter, the United States sought criminal forfeiture of two of Noyes’ computers pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2258 (a)(3). The jury found that Noyes had used the two computers at issue to commit the offenses for which he had been found guilty, and on April 13, 2011, the District…”
United States v. Fisk (2003)
“” The applicable statute is 18 U.S.C. § 2258 (a)(8), which allows forfeiture of personal and real property only when the defendant has an “interest” in the property.”
Duty to Report Suspected Child Abuse Under 42 U.S.C. § 13031 (2012)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 2258 (2006). You have raised two questions about the scope of section 13031.”
Humphries v. Newman (2022)
“, and “ADA Section 504”; (4) failure to report child abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2258 , 42 U.S.C. § 5106 , and 18 U.”
USA Gymnastics (2020)
“18 U.S.C.A §2258 imposes criminal fines and possible imprisonment upon those who fail to timely report abuse upon learning of facts that give reason to suspect a child has suffered such abuse.”
State Of Washington, V Jorden David Knight (2020)
“NCMEC is statutorily obligated to operate the official national clearinghouse for information about missing and exploited children to help law enforcement locate and recover those children, to track and identify patterns of attempted child abductions, and to operate the…”
State Of Washington, V Jorden David Knight (2021)
“NCMEC has broad federal law enforcement powers under two primary statutes 18 U.S.C. § 2258 and 34 U.S.C. § 11293 . NCMEC is statutorily obligated to operate the official national clearinghouse for information about missing and exploited children to help law enforcement locate…”
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.