Child Pornography Defense Lawyer in Scottsdale

What Arizona Law Defines as Sexual Exploitation of a Minor

A.R.S. 13-3553(A) makes it a crime to knowingly record, film, photograph, develop, or duplicate a visual depiction of a minor engaged in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct. The statute also criminalizes knowingly distributing, transporting, exhibiting, receiving, selling, purchasing, electronically transmitting, possessing, or exchanging such a depiction. Under this statute, a minor is anyone under the age of 18.

The word “knowingly” is central to every prosecution under this statute. The state must prove the accused was aware of what the material contained and that their possession or distribution was intentional. This element is frequently contested when files arrived through automatic downloads, appeared on shared devices, or were never opened.

The statute separately criminalizes knowingly possessing, manufacturing, distributing, or selling a child sex doll that uses the likeness of a real minor under age twelve.

Class 2 Felony Penalties & Dangerous Crimes Against Children

Sexual exploitation of a minor is a Class 2 felony under Arizona law. When the minor depicted is under fifteen, the charge is prosecuted under A.R.S. 13-705, Arizona’s Dangerous Crimes Against Children statute, which carries mandatory minimum prison terms significantly longer than standard felony sentences.

When a defendant faces multiple counts, sentences under A.R.S. 13-705 are generally served consecutively rather than concurrently, meaning each count adds to the total. A conviction also requires mandatory registration as a sex offender, a consequence that extends well beyond any prison term. Because Scottsdale sits within Maricopa County, felony charges under A.R.S. 13-3553 are prosecuted in the Maricopa County Superior Court rather than a municipal or justice court.

How These Investigations Unfold & Where Defense Begins

Most sexual exploitation of a minor cases begin with a digital forensic investigation. Law enforcement typically executes a search warrant to seize computers, phones, tablets, or external storage devices, and forensic examiners then reconstruct file histories, download logs, and user activity.

Two questions arise in almost every case: whether the search warrant was properly obtained and executed, and whether the person actually knew the material was present on their device. Our experience with forensic evidence, witness credibility, and cross-examination is directly relevant to both. Challenging the foundation of the state’s digital evidence or the knowing-possession element can be central to the defense strategy, and we’re prepared to take that fight to trial when it matters.