Home
Menu
904-383-7448
F.S. 847.0135 on Google Scholar

F.S. 847.0135 on Casetext

Amendments to 847.0135


The 2022 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 847
OBSCENITY
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 847.0135 Florida Statutes and Case Law
847.0135 Computer pornography; prohibited computer usage; traveling to meet minor; penalties.
(1) SHORT TITLE.This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act.”
(2) COMPUTER PORNOGRAPHY.A person who:
(a) Knowingly compiles, enters into, or transmits by use of computer;
(b) Makes, prints, publishes, or reproduces by other computerized means;
(c) Knowingly causes or allows to be entered into or transmitted by use of computer; or
(d) Buys, sells, receives, exchanges, or disseminates,

any notice, statement, or advertisement of any minor’s name, telephone number, place of residence, physical characteristics, or other descriptive or identifying information for purposes of facilitating, encouraging, offering, or soliciting sexual conduct of or with any minor, or the visual depiction of such conduct, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The fact that an undercover operative or law enforcement officer was involved in the detection and investigation of an offense under this section shall not constitute a defense to a prosecution under this section.

(3) CERTAIN USES OF COMPUTER SERVICES OR DEVICES PROHIBITED.Any person who knowingly uses a computer online service, Internet service, local bulletin board service, or any other device capable of electronic data storage or transmission to:
(a) Seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, or attempt to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, a child or another person believed by the person to be a child, to commit any illegal act described in chapter 794, chapter 800, or chapter 827, or to otherwise engage in any unlawful sexual conduct with a child or with another person believed by the person to be a child; or
(b) Solicit, lure, or entice, or attempt to solicit, lure, or entice a parent, legal guardian, or custodian of a child or a person believed to be a parent, legal guardian, or custodian of a child to consent to the participation of such child in any act described in chapter 794, chapter 800, or chapter 827, or to otherwise engage in any sexual conduct,

commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any person who, in violating this subsection, misrepresents his or her age, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Each separate use of a computer online service, Internet service, local bulletin board service, or any other device capable of electronic data storage or transmission wherein an offense described in this section is committed may be charged as a separate offense.

(4) TRAVELING TO MEET A MINOR.Any person who travels any distance either within this state, to this state, or from this state by any means, who attempts to do so, or who causes another to do so or to attempt to do so for the purpose of engaging in any illegal act described in chapter 794, chapter 800, or chapter 827, or to otherwise engage in other unlawful sexual conduct with a child or with another person believed by the person to be a child after using a computer online service, Internet service, local bulletin board service, or any other device capable of electronic data storage or transmission to:
(a) Seduce, solicit, lure, or entice or attempt to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child or another person believed by the person to be a child, to engage in any illegal act described in chapter 794, chapter 800, or chapter 827, or to otherwise engage in other unlawful sexual conduct with a child; or
(b) Solicit, lure, or entice or attempt to solicit, lure, or entice a parent, legal guardian, or custodian of a child or a person believed to be a parent, legal guardian, or custodian of a child to consent to the participation of such child in any act described in chapter 794, chapter 800, or chapter 827, or to otherwise engage in any sexual conduct,

commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) CERTAIN COMPUTER TRANSMISSIONS PROHIBITED.
(a) A person who:
1. Intentionally masturbates;
2. Intentionally exposes the genitals in a lewd or lascivious manner; or
3. Intentionally commits any other sexual act that does not involve actual physical or sexual contact with the victim, including, but not limited to, sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, or the simulation of any act involving sexual activity

live over a computer online service, Internet service, or local bulletin board service and who knows or should know or has reason to believe that the transmission is viewed on a computer or television monitor by a victim who is less than 16 years of age, commits lewd or lascivious exhibition in violation of this subsection. The fact that an undercover operative or law enforcement officer was involved in the detection and investigation of an offense under this subsection shall not constitute a defense to a prosecution under this subsection.

(b) An offender 18 years of age or older who commits a lewd or lascivious exhibition using a computer commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) An offender less than 18 years of age who commits a lewd or lascivious exhibition using a computer commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(d) A mother’s breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance constitute a violation of this subsection.
(6) OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF COMPUTER SERVICES LIABLE.It is unlawful for any owner or operator of a computer online service, Internet service, or local bulletin board service knowingly to permit a subscriber to use the service to commit a violation of this section. Any person who violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,000.
(7) STATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.A person is subject to prosecution in this state pursuant to chapter 910 for any conduct proscribed by this section which the person engages in, while either within or outside this state, if by such conduct the person commits a violation of this section involving a child, a child’s guardian, or another person believed by the person to be a child or a child’s guardian.
(8) EFFECT OF PROSECUTION.Prosecution of any person for an offense under this section shall not prohibit prosecution of that person in this state or another jurisdiction for a violation of any law of this state, including a law providing for greater penalties than prescribed in this section or any other crime punishing the sexual performance or the sexual exploitation of children.
History.s. 11, ch. 86-238; s. 213, ch. 91-224; s. 71, ch. 96-388; s. 3, ch. 2001-54; s. 5, ch. 2007-143; s. 4, ch. 2008-172; s. 7, ch. 2009-194.

Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: August 29, 2022
F.S. 847.0135 on Google Scholar

F.S. 847.0135 on Casetext

Amendments to 847.0135


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 847.0135
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

847.0135 2 - OBSCENE COMMUNICATION - COMPILE ENTER ETC COMPUTER PORNO RE MINOR - F: T
847.0135 2b - OBSCENE COMMUNICATION - MAKE PRINT PUBLISH COMPUTER PORNO - F: T
847.0135 2c - OBSCENE COMMUNICATION - CAUSE ALLOW USE OF COMPUTER PORNO - F: T
847.0135 2d - CRUELTY TOWARD CHILD - BUY SELL ETC MINOR INFO FOR SEX PURPOSE - F: T
847.0135 3 - OBSCENE COMMUNICATION - MISREP AGE USE COMPUTER SOLICIT LURE SEDUCE - F: S
847.0135 3a - OBSCENE COMMUNICATION - USE COMPUTER TO SEDUCE SOLICIT LURE CHILD - F: T
847.0135 3b - OBSCENE COMMUNICATION - USE COMPUTER SOLICIT PARENT GUARDIAN CONSENT - F: T
847.0135 4a - OBSCENE COMMUNICATION - TRAVEL TO MEET AFTER USE COMPUT TO LURE CHILD - F: S
847.0135 4b - OBSCENE COMMUNICATION - TRAVEL TO MEET USE COMPUTER SOLICIT GUARDIAN - F: S
847.0135 5b - OBSCENE COMMUNICATION - TO MINOR VIA COMPUTER OFFENDER 18 YOA OLDER - F: S
847.0135 5c - OBSCENE COMMUNICATION - TO MINOR VIA COMPUTER OFFENDER LESS 18 YOA - F: T
847.0135 6 - OBSCENE COMMUNICATION - OWNER OPERATOR PERMIT COMPUTER PORN VIOLATION - M: F


Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S847.0135
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

Current data shows no reason a civil citation or a suspension or revocation of license should have been issued under Florida Statute 847.0135.


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

  1. State v. Shelley

    176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015)   Cited 85 times
    Similarly, though the State also points to section 847.0135(8)'s statement that prosecuting a person for “an offense” under section 847.0135 “shall not prohibit” that person's prosecution “for a violation of any law of this state” as an explicit statement of legislative intent to allow dual convictions, subsection (8) does not purport to address prosecution for multiple offenses under section 847.0135. Instead, when read in context, subsection (8) refers to the effect that prosecuting a person under section 847.0135 has on the ability of the State and other jurisdictions to prosecute that person for violations of other laws.
    PAGE 919
  2. Shelley v. State

    134 So. 3d 1138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 36 times
    In this case, section 847.0135(3)(b) expressly provides, “Each separate use of a computer online service, Internet service, local bulletin board service, or any other device capable of electronic data storage or transmission wherein an offense described in this section is committed may be charged as a separate offense.” Thus, there is an explicit statement of the legislature's intent to authorize multiple punishments for each violation of section 847.0135(3)(b).
    PAGE 1140
  3. Cashatt v. State

    873 So. 2d 430 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 45 times
    Appellant contends that section 847.0135(3) violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because it is a content-based restriction on protected "pure speech" which cannot pass the "strict scrutiny" test, that the statute is overbroad and void for vagueness, and that it places discriminatory restrictions on interstate commerce. We have considered and rejected each of his arguments.
    PAGE 434
  4. Hartley v. State

    129 So. 3d 486 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 30 times
    Appellant also argues that his convictions on counts I, II and III under section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), should be dismissed as they are in violation of double jeopardy. He argues that all of the elements under which these counts are charged are subsumed in count IV, which was charged under section 847.0135(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2011). “Determining whether double jeopardy is violated based on undisputed facts is a purely legal determination, so the standard of review is de novo.” Binns v. State, 979 So.2d 439, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citation omitted). We find that appellant's conviction and sentence under count III should be vacated for violation of double jeopardy.
    PAGE 490
  5. Holt v. State

    173 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 16 times
    In Barnett, we rejected the State's argument that section 847.0135(8) expressed a clear legislative intent to authorize dual convictions under section 847.0135(3)(a) and section 847.0135(4)(a), Florida Statutes. 159 So.3d at 925 n. 5. In doing so, we stated, “We think the better interpretation of this statutory provision is that it authorizes convictions for violations of other statutes together with violations of section 847.0135, regardless of whether the offenses have overlapping elements.” Id.
    PAGE 1084
  6. Pinder v. State

    128 So. 3d 141 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 21 times
    Marc Pinder was convicted, after a jury trial, of: (1) traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual activity in violation of section 847.0135(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2011); (2) use of computer services to solicit unlawful sexual activity with a minor in violation of section 847.0135(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2011); and (3) attempted lewd or lascivious battery. We find only one issue raised on appeal by Pinder merits discussion. He argues that his convictions under both section 847.0135(3)(b) and section 847.0135(4)(b) violate double jeopardy. We agree with Pinder's argument that a single violation of subsection (3)(b) would be a lesser-included offense of an offense found under subsection (4)(b). However, in the instant case, the information alleged, and the evidence established, more than one violation of subsection (3)(b). Accordingly, we affirm Pinder's convictions.
    PAGE 142
  7. Barnett v. State

    159 So. 3d 922 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 6 times
    In Shelley, the defendant was charged with a single count of violating section 847.0135(3)(b) and one count of violating section 847.0135(4)(b). Both offenses were alleged to have occurred on the same day. In setting aside the solicitation conviction on double jeopardy grounds, the Shelley court similarly recognized that the elements of solicitation under section 847.0135(3)(b) were subsumed by the elements of traveling after solicitation under section 847.0135(4)(b). 134 So.3d at 1141. While recognizing that the Legislature had expressly authorized multiple punishments for violations of section 847.0135(3)(b), it rejected the State's argument that the Legislature also intended to allow separate punishments for conduct that violates both section 847.0135(3)(b) and section 847.0135(4)(b). Id. at 1140. The Shelley court did acknowledge, however, that convictions for both soliciting and traveling could be legally imposed “in cases in which the State has charged and proven separate uses of computer devices to solicit.” Id. at 1142.
    PAGE 925
  8. Meythaler v. State

    175 So. 3d 918 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 15 times
    The holding in Shelley is binding in this case. In Kim v. State, 154 So.3d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), as in the present case, the appellant was charged with violating sections 847.0135(3)(a) and 847.0135(4)(a). This court held that the analysis in Shelley v. State, 134 So.3d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), applies equally to the charges arising from the subsections involved in the present case. Id. at 1169.
    PAGE 920
  9. Griffis v. State

    133 So. 3d 653 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 7 times
    We affirm the second issue based upon State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), in which this court held that dual convictions for solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet the minor do not violate double jeopardy because sections 847.0135(3) and (4) reflect a clear legislative intent to punish the offenses separately. Accord Cantrell v. State, No. 1D12–4952, 132 So.3d 931, 2014 WL 660193 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 21, 2014); Elsberry v. State, 130 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). We recognize that the Fourth District reached the opposite conclusion in Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and accordingly we certify conflict with that decision. See also Pinder v. State, 128 So.3d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (stating that the defendant's convictions under sections 847.0135(3) and (4) would have violated double jeopardy but for the fact that the solicitation occurred over an eight-day period before the defendant traveled to meet the minor).
    PAGE 654
  10. State v. Murphy

    124 So. 3d 323 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 33 times
    The provisions of section 847.0135, Florida Statutes (2011), under which the State charged and prosecuted Murphy, state in pertinent part:
    PAGE 326