Where do these cases come from?
Most CSAM cases originate from a CyberTipline report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Electronic service providers like Facebook, Google, Instagram, Snapchat, Yahoo, and Microsoft are required by federal law to report suspected CSAM detected on their platforms. NCMEC reviews each report, assigns a priority, and forwards it to the appropriate law enforcement agency for investigation. The report typically includes a description of the images, cryptographic hash values assigned to each file, and the Internet Protocol (IP) address linked to the account in question.
Other cases begin when computer repair technicians encounter suspected CSAM on a device, when witnesses see images on a suspect’s phone, or when law enforcement discovers contraband files during an unrelated investigation such as a child sexual assault case.
Why Possession Cases Are Prosecuted
Although possession cases do not involve direct contact between the accused and a victim, they are not considered victimless crimes. Each image or video is evidence of a real act of sexual abuse committed against a real child. Possession and distribution sustain the demand that motivates offenders to produce new material. In many instances, those who create and circulate CSAM operate in closed online communities where members exchange or purchase access to files.
Within those circles, the adults committing the abuse and recording it are sometimes referred to as “directors,” and the child victims are described as “stars.” Subscribers or members may contribute money or cryptocurrency in exchange for input on the acts depicted or the type of material to be produced. These exchanges occur on encrypted platforms and dark-web forums that mirror ordinary social networks in their structure and tone. From the perspective of law enforcement, every download or file exchange represents continued participation in that system of exploitation.
For prosecutors, this connection justifies treating possession as a serious offense even when no direct contact occurred. For the victims whose images have circulated worldwide, the harm continues each time those files are viewed. The re-exposure is both an invasion of privacy and a psychological wound: the knowledge that strangers are deriving sexual gratification from their recorded abuse.
Devices Commonly Seized in CSAM Investigations
Investigators typically seize every device capable of storing, transmitting, or displaying digital files. This includes desktop and laptop computers, external hard drives, flash drives, and SD cards used in cameras or drones. Phones and tablets are standard evidence sources because of integrated cameras, messaging, and cloud-syncing functions. Game consoles such as PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo Switch systems are often taken as well, since they support messaging, image transfer, and internet browsing. Investigators also collect digital cameras, GoPros, camcorders, and any removable media associated with them. Routers, network-attached storage, and even smart-TVs or voice-assistant hubs can be imaged when they contain cached or shared data. Any device with storage capacity or network connectivity becomes subject to seizure, duplication, and forensic analysis until investigators confirm whether it contains contraband or related communications.
What is a hash value and why does it matter?
A hash value is a digital fingerprint created through cryptographic algorithms such as SHA1, MD5, or PhotoDNA. Two files will produce the same hash value only if every byte is identical. This precision allows law enforcement to identify known CSAM with a reliability greater than DNA matching. Hash values enable investigators and prosecutors to prove that specific images or videos correspond to known CSAM files without requiring victim testimony in every case.
How do investigators link an IP address to a suspect?
Once law enforcement receives a CyberTip, they can use a grand jury subpoena to obtain the name and address associated with the IP address. If they want to seize computers, phones, or cloud data, they must obtain a search warrant. Because IP addresses can change frequently, time is critical. Investigators move quickly to preserve digital evidence before data is deleted, overwritten, or lost. In some cases, associates or family members of the accused attempt to delete account information or remotely wipe devices after an arrest, which is why preservation orders and prompt forensic imaging are essential.
How does the government prove possession?
Finding CSAM on a computer, tablet, or phone is not enough. The government must prove the accused knowingly possessed the material. This requires proof of both control and awareness. Investigators conduct interviews to determine who used or accessed the devices, review search histories, and analyze peer-to-peer software. They also examine cloud storage, messaging apps, and file-sharing services. Investigators look for ancillary documents, emails, or ordinary photographs that link the accused to the device and demonstrate familiarity with its contents.
What makes these cases hard to defend?
Prosecutors frequently charge images and videos as both “actual or simulated” because many files contain elements of both, and it is often difficult to determine what is real and what is computer-generated. In the age of digital editing and artificial intelligence, this distinction becomes even more complicated. Under Article, computer-generated or AI-altered depictions may still be charged if they are judged to be obscene. Some cases require expert testimony from Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners or pediatricians to establish that the depicted person is a minor. See the note on Tanner Staging below.
Prosecutors typically introduce a limited selection of the images or videos as exhibits to meet their burden of proof. They choose the most explicit or aggravating material and charge multiple counts, often ten or more. Each count is identified by a unique filename or hash value so that the defense cannot challenge the charges as vague or duplicative.
How do you defend a CSAM case?
The defense begins with challenging the government’s proof of possession. The fact that CSAM is located on a device does not prove the accused knowingly possessed it. The defense must determine who had access to the computer or phone, whether the files were saved intentionally or by automatic download, and whether the accused took steps to delete or report the material immediately upon discovery.
Hash values are powerful prosecution tools, but they are not infallible. The defense must verify that hash values were properly generated, that the files were not corrupted or altered, and that the matching process was accurate. Errors in forensic imaging, chain of custody, or analytical software can create reasonable doubt. Defense counsel also reviews whether the search warrant exceeded its authorized scope or whether investigators relied too heavily on NCMEC summaries without independent verification.
The central issue in every case is knowledge. Did the accused know what the files depicted? Were they stored in obvious folders or hidden in obscure system directories? Were filenames suggestive, or were they randomly generated by the device or application? The answers to these questions determine whether the government can prove wrongful possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
What role do forensic experts play in the defense?
Digital forensic experts are essential. They can determine whether files were intentionally accessed, whether timestamps were manipulated, and whether malware or remote-access software could have created the material without the accused’s knowledge. Forensic psychologists assess the accused’s mental health, trauma history, and cognitive capacity to evaluate mitigation or treatment options. Both technical and clinical experts are crucial during sentencing to argue for rehabilitation rather than the maximum penalty.
Limiting the Use of Victim-Related Evidence
When NCMEC identifies a file as matching known CSAM, the associated materials often include investigative records from the jurisdiction where the victim was originally identified. These attachments may contain police reports, forensic interviews, or victim impact statements describing the harm suffered by the real child depicted in the imagery. Although these documents are emotionally powerful, they are also hearsay.
The accused in a possession or distribution case has no connection to the original offense against that child, and the government cannot rely on third-party police investigations or victim narratives to prove knowledge, intent, or motive. Such materials fall outside the proper evidentiary scope of a possession prosecution and are inadmissible unless the government produces a live witness subject to cross-examination.
In practice, excluding these materials can sharply limit the government’s aggravation case at sentencing. Without the victim-impact evidence embedded in NCMEC files, prosecutors are restricted to the forensic facts of the charged possession itself (file counts, timestamps, and device data) rather than the emotional weight of the underlying abuse case. Effective defense counsel should move early to exclude these attachments, preserving the distinction between the accused’s alleged conduct and the crimes committed by others.
There are a number of other potential issues related to these third-party entities, either NCMEC itself, the service providers that made the initial report, or companies the service providers might have employed for analysis. These issues can critically swing the case. Bottom line: just because a file was supposedly a “hit” in a database, that doesn’t mean it’s contraband and it doesn’t mean there aren’t critical questions that need to be answered.
Return and Destruction of Seized Media
Once forensic imaging is complete, defense counsel should move for the prompt return or certified destruction of seized media that contains no contraband. In practice, investigators copy entire drives or cloud accounts, even when only a small number of files are at issue. Devices that do not contain illicit material can usually be returned after the forensic report is finalized and the chain of custody verified. Defense counsel should insist on a written inventory confirming which devices were copied, which were retained as evidence, and which are eligible for release.
When contraband files are present, physical devices are generally destroyed under court order after conviction or administrative closure. The accused may request preservation of non-contraband data such as family photos, business records, or personal correspondence, but retrieval requires a protective order and a government-approved forensic examiner. These procedures prevent re-exposure to illegal material while safeguarding the defendant’s remaining property and privacy interests.
How does the defense handle the emotional weight of the evidence?
Defense attorneys must review the same explicit material as prosecutors and investigators. This requires psychological discipline and the ability to separate personal emotion from professional responsibility. The attorney’s role is to identify technical defects, legal weaknesses, and procedural errors, not to respond emotionally to the content. Every person accused of a crime is entitled to a competent defense, and that principle applies regardless of the nature of the charges.
What are the consequences of conviction?
A conviction for possession, distribution, or production of CSAM carries severe penalties. Under Article 134, these offenses incorporate 18 U.S.C. §2252A and follow similar sentencing frameworks. A conviction may result in a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, total loss of veterans benefits, mandatory sex offender registration under SORNA, and confinement that can range up to thirty years depending on the charge. Employment opportunities become limited, and lifelong restrictions on residence, travel, and community involvement apply. The accused cannot coach youth activities, volunteer in schools, or live near parks, playgrounds, or churches.
What is the defense strategy in these cases?
The defense must challenge every element of the government’s case, from the reliability of the CyberTip to the integrity of the forensic analysis. This includes questioning whether the IP address truly identifies the accused, whether files were intentionally saved, and whether the accused understood what was being viewed or downloaded. The defense also evaluates whether mitigating factors (mental health, coercion, or inadvertent exposure) call for leniency.
Early engagement is critical. The defense should retain digital forensic experts immediately, preserve exculpatory evidence, and confront investigative errors before charges are referred. The goal is not only to contest guilt but to prevent weak cases from advancing to trial by demonstrating fundamental flaws in the government’s proof.
Why does the defense take these cases?
Every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial and competent representation. The defense attorney’s role is to ensure that constitutional rights are protected, that the government meets its burden of proof, and that sentencing reflects both justice and proportionality. Defending CSAM cases requires composure, technical precision, and a commitment to fairness that does not depend on the popularity of the cause.
Sidebar: Tanner Staging and Its Limitations
What is Tanner staging?
Tanner staging is a medical scale used to describe physical development during puberty. It was developed by British pediatrician James Tanner and classifies sexual maturation into five stages based on external characteristics such as breast development, genital growth, and the appearance of pubic hair. In CSAM cases, prosecutors sometimes rely on Tanner staging to support expert testimony that the person depicted is under 18.
How is it used in court?
Medical experts, often pediatricians or sexual assault nurse examiners, may review images or video stills and compare visible features to Tanner’s developmental stages. A depiction consistent with Tanner stage 1 through 3 is generally interpreted as prepubescent or early pubescent, while stages 4 and 5 may indicate mid-to-late adolescence. This testimony is used to help a judge or jury decide whether a depicted individual meets the statutory definition of a “minor.”
What are the limitations?
Tanner staging was designed for clinical use in living patients, not for evaluating photographs or videos. Lighting, posture, camera angles, and ethnic variation can distort apparent features. Puberty onset also varies widely by genetics, nutrition, and environment, making any remote assessment uncertain. Courts increasingly recognize that Tanner-based opinions carry significant margins of error and should not be treated as conclusive medical findings.
Why it matters for the defense.
When Tanner staging is cited, defense counsel should cross-examine the expert on methodology, inter-observer reliability, and the absence of direct examination. Many experts acknowledge that, outside a clinical setting, Tanner analysis can only offer a general estimate. Highlighting these limitations can reduce the perceived certainty of the government’s age-identification evidence.