Internet & cyber crime defense
These cases are won or lost on the forensic record. Reading it, and challenging it, is the core of the defense.
Internet crime cases are investigated differently, charged differently, and defended differently than traditional offenses. They live on servers, in metadata, in IP logs, and in forensic images of hard drives. A good defense is built as much in the digital forensics room as in the courtroom — and an engineer-turned-lawyer is comfortable in both.
Charges handled here
- Possession, distribution, or production of child pornography (Wis. Stat. §§ 948.05, 948.12; 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251–2252A): mandatory minimums are common.
- Child enticement by computer (§ 948.075), including sting-operation cases.
- Sexting and minor-to-minor image cases: where the accused and the “victim” are both teenagers.
- Unauthorized computer access and hacking (§ 943.70), including exceeded-authorization workplace cases.
- Identity theft and online fraud: account takeovers, phishing, card fraud.
- Online harassment, stalking, and threats (§§ 947.0125, 940.32).
- Non-consensual image distribution (§ 942.09).
- Cryptocurrency-related allegations: fraud, theft, and money-laundering claims involving digital assets.
Why the technical record decides these cases
- Does the forensic image the State relies on match the hash values reported at seizure?
- Was the file downloaded by a person, or pulled automatically by a peer-to-peer client, a browser cache, or malware?
- Who else had access? Shared computers and open Wi-Fi routinely implicate the wrong person.
- Did an undercover operation cross into entrapment under Jacobson v. United States?
- Was the warrant overbroad? Digital warrants are often drafted to seize everything, and overbreadth is a live Fourth Amendment issue.
Defense strategies
Independent digital forensics
Defense-side forensic examiners image, analyze, and (when warranted) dismantle the State's conclusions. Cases collapse when the defense shows files were never opened, arrived by automatic software, or belong to a different user on the same machine.
Knowing possession
Most internet-crime statutes require knowing possession or distribution. A cached file, an OS-generated thumbnail, or an automatic share of a file never opened is not automatically “knowing.”
Fourth Amendment challenges
Digital device warrants, cloud subpoenas, geofence warrants, and keyword warrants are evolving legal frontiers. A well-drafted suppression motion can exclude the core of the State's case.
Entrapment
Sting operations are legitimate; government-manufactured crimes are not. The line runs through who initiated what, and how the target was selected.
State vs. federal strategy
Many Wisconsin cyber cases can be charged in either system, with very different sentencing exposure. Early jurisdictional strategy can change the outcome.
If federal agents have contacted you
The FBI, HSI, and ICAC task forces do not knock for a friendly conversation. If an agent has called or left a card, you are a subject or a target. Do not answer questions, do not consent to a search, do not hand over a device. Call a defense attorney first.
Whenever you're ready to talk, someone steady is ready to listen.
The first conversation is free and confidential. It costs nothing to find out where you stand, and it's the first step toward getting your footing back.