Internet & Cyber Crime Defense

Internet crime cases in Wisconsin 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 forensic room as in the courtroom.

Internet crimes we defend

• Possession, distribution, and production of child pornography (Wis. Stat. §§ 948.05, 948.12) and federal equivalents under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252, 2252A. Mandatory minimums are common.
• Child enticement by computer (§ 948.075) including "Operation Net Nanny"-style sting operations.
• Sexting and minor-to-minor image cases — where the "defendant" and the "victim" are both teenagers.
• Unauthorized computer access and hacking (§ 943.70), including workplace cases where access allegedly exceeded authorization.
• Identity theft and online fraud — account takeover, phishing, credit-card fraud, synthetic identity cases.
• Online harassment, stalking, and threats (§§ 947.0125, 940.32).
• Non-consensual image distribution (§ 942.09).
• Cryptocurrency-related offenses — fraud, theft, and money-laundering allegations involving digital assets.

Why these cases are won or lost on the technical record

• Does the forensic image the State is relying on match the hash values reported at seizure?
• Was the file downloaded by a human or pulled automatically by a peer-to-peer client, a cache, or malware?
• Did more than one person have access to the device? Shared computers and Wi-Fi routinely implicate the wrong person.
• Did the government's undercover operation cross into entrapment under Jacobson v. United States?
• Was the warrant overbroad? Digital-device warrants are often drafted to seize "everything," and overbreadth is a live Fourth Amendment issue.

Defense strategies

Independent digital forensics

We work with defense-side forensic examiners to image, analyze, and — when warranted — challenge the State's forensic conclusions. Cases collapse when the defense shows files were never opened, were pulled by automatic software, or belong to a different user on the same machine.

Knowing possession and intent

Most internet-crime statutes require knowing possession or distribution. A file in a cache, an OS-generated thumbnail, or an automatic P2P share of a file the user never opened is not automatically "knowing" possession.

Fourth Amendment challenges

Digital warrants, cloud-provider 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 and outrageous government conduct

Sting operations are legitimate; government-manufactured crimes are not. The line runs through who initiated what and how the target was selected.

Federal vs. state strategy

Many Wisconsin cyber-crime cases can be charged in either state or federal court — often 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 send agents for a "friendly conversation." If an agent has called, knocked, or left a card, you are a target or a subject. Do not answer questions, do not consent to a search, do not hand over a device. Call a defense attorney first.