Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

Sexual exploitation of a minor is a crime that works to criminalize the production of child pornography, and is one that seems to be occurring with increasing frequency in Tennessee and around the country. Tennessee’s statute codifying especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, T.C.A. §39-17-1005, reads in pertinent part:
(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use, assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of, or in the production of, acts or material that includes the minor engaging in:

(1) Sexual activity; or

(2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive.

(b) A person violating subsection (a) may be charged in a separate count for each individual performance, image, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, videocassette tape, or other pictorial representation.

Thus, the statute not only makes it a crime to engage in any of the six types of activity listed in T.C.A. §39-17-1005(a) but also provides that a person charged with the offense can be charged with a separate count for every single image, video, or other representation of child pornography in their possession, meaning that one individual could potentially be looking at hundreds of felony charges based on the amount of child pornography that is in his or her possession. Especially aggravates sexual exploitation of a minor is a Class B felony, punishable by up to thirty years in prison and a fine of $25,000.

One ray of hope for a defendant facing such charges is the fact that evidence such as child pornography that is seized from a defendant’s computer or home may be subject to suppression if the search that led to the seizure of the evidence was unconstitutional. Simply put, law enforcement officers must either have (1) consent by a person entitled to give consent to search the property or (2) a valid search warrant supported by an affidavit showing probable cause that evidence of the crime will be found in the place to be searched. Whether a search was in fact unconstitutional will depend on the circumstances of the case, but if the search is deemed unconstitutional it is possible that the entirety of the evidence of the defendant can be suppressed, leaving no such evidence available for use by the prosecution at trial.