3.1.2. Laws

Often, participants pointed out that the laws and legal framework that guide CSAM investigations and prosecutions are outdated and do not reflect the changing nature of technology. The following quotes exemplify what participants said about outdated laws:

*Our laws have not caught up with our technology and the reality of our situation. (FG1, 2)*

*If you look at the statutes governing this area [CSAM], most of them were written in the seventies, some are written in the eighties. There was no way that they'd envision what we're seeing today. (FG13, 3)*

The previous participant also noted that current statutes of limitation are not long enough, and thus, rarely protect victims or account for images being stored online rather than just hard-copy formats. While some participants noted that laws are changing in some states, generally participants agreed this was not happening consistently or quickly enough.

Participants also talked about challenges in writing and obtaining warrants. Participants explained that difficulties with warrants are related to having to write warrants for specific devices or accounts, which may require more specific evidence and expertise. The next two quotes demonstrate these challenges:

*I applied for the search warrant. We got the search warrant, did the search of the house and everything went fine. But that is in itself a problem because you know, the old way, you just write it, you go seize everything and analyze it. We can't do that anymore. You have to specifically identify which device you want to search [and] explain your probable cause to search that device. And so it's created a whole other set of challenges. (FG10, 1)*

*You have to develop the expertise over the years to be able to feel confident in your ability to write solid warrants for a variety of di*ff*erent internet platforms like Google Mail and Snapchat and Facebook. And so, he's really been focused on that for the last several years. (FG8, 2)*

Further, participants talked about challenges in obtaining appropriate sentencing, and creating effective probation conditions for CSAM-related offenses. In terms of sentencing, they specifically discussed inconsistencies across jurisdictions. For example, one participant noted that in some states child pornography offences were a misdemeanor whereas other states treat such offences as a felony. Another participant further noted that sentencing even differed by county where some offenders only received probation, yet in nearby counties, other offenders received more significant sentences. Additionally, participants in the current study felt that child pornography offenders often received substantially lesser prison sentences than hands-on child abuse offenders. Finally, participants shared that probation terms do not always reflect the need to limit offender access to the internet and technological devices.

While these challenges were frequently discussed, some participants indicated that having CSAM as evidence was helpful in the investigative process and aided in gaining both confessions and plea deals from perpetrators. This idea is highlighted in the next quote:

*There is corroboration through an image. The likelihood that we would get a plea on that case, it would be very high, I would say above 90 percent* . . . *it's [an image] a damning piece of evidence for the defense. (FG7, 1)*
