Here some notes from some emails I wrote, the persons they were sent too were left out. This is basically what I said:


Here’s the bottom line: this entire case hinges on a single image that was obtained through an illegal search.

In 2018, both the State and the police determined they no longer had probable cause—the original charges were dropped, and the warrant was quashed. At that point, my computers should have been returned to me. Instead, law enforcement ignored that legal conclusion and, still convinced I had made the threat, handed the devices over to the FBI days after probable cause had already collapsed.

That handoff—and the subsequent search—was unconstitutional. This is a case built on an unlawful search and seizure, carried out without a valid warrant or legal basis.

******

Following up on my previous messages, I want to express—in no uncertain terms—the core issues that continue to undermine the integrity of this case:

1. It has taken over four years to obtain a Franks hearing. That kind of delay is not only unjustified, it’s unprecedented. A Franks hearing is narrowly focused and procedural—it does not take years to schedule unless someone is actively working to obstruct it.

2. The motion to withdraw came just one week before we were finally set to have that hearing. That timing alone raises serious red flags. After waiting four years, a sudden disruption right before the hearing is not just suspect—it appears deliberate.

3. It’s even more troubling when you consider that the motion to suppress was filed in September 2024—and the State still hasn't responded. Nearly a year of silence from the prosecution on a constitutional challenge is unconscionable.

4. This pattern of delay has caused considerable strain and frustration. To be candid, the only reason I started my public forum in the first place was to give voice to that frustration and to draw attention to the court's unwillingness to move on a hearing that should have been resolved years ago.

5. These delays are not benign. They have deprived me of a fair and timely process. The courts have allowed this case to fester in limbo, while critical facts—such as the invalidity of the original warrant and the State's suppression of exculpatory evidence—go unaddressed.

6. All of this contributes to a broader picture of systemic indifference and potential interference. From third parties communicating with the Public Defender’s office and external actors contacting civil rights attorneys on my behalf, to misrepresentations made to the court about the origin of the evidence—all of it points to a process badly in need of course correction.

I hope this adds clarity to my concerns. Let me know if you need anything from me before the 23rd.

******

First, the document in question—a motion to dismiss—was not written by me. It was prepared and filed by my attorney. Despite impressions to the contrary, I did not author that motion.

Second, the CSAM allegation is based on a computer-generated image, which is not illegal under federal law or Illinois state law. That distinction matters, and it undermines the basis for the search.

Third, the search itself was conducted without a valid warrant. Even if the original warrant had not been quashed, it was constitutionally flawed from the start: it was a general warrant issued by the state in 2018 that failed to describe with particularity what digital content was to be seized. Law enforcement seized all data from 15 devices, a sweeping action that violated established constitutional protections.

This kind of broad, indiscriminate digital search was precisely what the U.S. Supreme Court condemned in Riley v. California (2014). In that decision, the Court made clear that modern digital devices cannot be subject to blanket searches—doing so without clear judicial authorization is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

I appreciate the suggestion that court delays may be due to judicial utility or the prioritization of other matters—but respectfully, after over four years of inaction on a Franks hearing, that explanation feels insufficient. We're not talking about a crowded docket stretching timelines by months—this is a constitutional challenge that's been on ice for years, despite clear and compelling Fourth Amendment concerns.

As for the idea that this isn’t “active obstruction,” I understand why it might seem unlikely. But consider this: we’ve seen sudden motions to withdraw right before scheduled hearings, prosecutorial silence on key filings like the motion to suppress (filed back in September 2024) and known third parties disseminating misinformation that has influenced both counsel and potentially the court. When that pattern emerges alongside missed deadlines, quashed warrants, and Brady violations—it’s no longer a theory. It’s a structure.

So yes, maybe it's not XXXXX or XXXXX pulling strings directly. But the deeper concern isn't necessarily about conspiracy—it's about systemic indifference that allows manipulation, misinformation, and misconduct to go unchecked.

If that’s not obstruction in effect, I don’t know what is


The issue of being "blown off" has already been resolved. In an email, she confirmed that most of the questions I had submitted were already part of her planned examination for the suppression hearing. Those questions were intended for witnesses as part of the motion to suppress, and there was no hostile exchange between us.

The claim of “irreconcilable differences” originated from an email that was actually sent to her—not by me, but by Dirty Harry. He even acknowledged on my website that he sent it. She confirmed to me personally that a series of messages from him were the catalyst for this situation.

Absolutely—it's true that the system often wears people down, and many take pleas not because they're guilty, but because they can't endure the grind. That’s a hard, unfortunate reality.

But what I’m describing isn’t just bureaucratic drag or prosecutorial indifference. It’s a documented pattern:

A warrant that was quashed.

A Franks hearing delayed for over four years.

Third-party interference with defense counsel and potential witnesses.

Suppression motions ignored.

Disclosures withheld in violation of Brady v. Maryland.

When you stack all of that together—not just the slowness, but the timing, the outside meddling, and the procedural irregularities—it's not just frustrating. It begins to look like targeted obstruction, or at minimum, a system being manipulated by people outside it for personal reasons.

So, while I understand the hesitation to label something a conspiracy, this isn’t a belief built on paranoia—it’s a conclusion drawn from patterns, documents, and missed constitutional obligations.

I’m not asking anyone to believe in smoke where there’s no fire. I’m just asking them to recognize there’s a building burning down and the sprinklers haven’t even turned on.

Thanks for the acknowledgment on the frustration—that part’s real. But I need to respond directly to this idea that my using my website or forum somehow invalidates my position or hands "ammunition" to anyone.

Let’s be clear: transparency isn’t the problem—misuse of that transparency by third parties is. I used my site and platform to document procedural delays, challenge legal irregularities, and speak openly about a process that had stalled for years. That’s not performative—it’s defensive. It’s also my First Amendment right.

Now, if people from Kiwi Farms or elsewhere twisted that information for harassment or character attacks, that’s on them—not on me for refusing to stay silent. Silence benefits institutions hoping you’ll break under pressure. I chose not to let that happen.

Could I have handled disclosure differently? Possibly. But when you're boxed out of court proceedings and legal remedies stall, sometimes putting the facts in the sunlight is the only leverage you’ve got.

So, if I'm being criticized for not going quietly? I'll wear that. But I won’t apologize for refusing to disappear.


That’s a fair question—and one that deserves a clear answer. What I believe is being "suppressed" isn’t just evidence; it’s accountability and due process.

We filed a motion to suppress back in September 2024. As of now—almost a year later—the State still hasn’t filed a response, let alone set a hearing date. That’s not just delay. That’s procedural neglect.

What’s being suppressed is:

The opportunity to examine the validity of a quashed warrant

The chance to challenge an overbroad digital search that gathered everything from 15 devices

The exposure of how CSAM allegations arose from evidence acquired after probable cause had already collapsed

The discussion around third-party interference that may have influenced legal counsel and shaped court perception

So yes, a formal evidentiary hearing hasn’t occurred—but suppression isn’t always about the moment in court. It’s about how long the road to that courtroom is conveniently stretched by one side while constitutional questions sit in limbo.

Delay is suppression—when it's used to outwait the truth.

Let me be clear—my frustration isn’t about the concept of being investigated. It’s about how that investigation was handled, what was omitted, and how key decisions were shaped by external influence and outdated assumptions.

There is evidence that third parties, specifically Dirty Tony, interfered with my defense. The public defender herself told me directly and in person that communications from him impacted her perception of the case. He even posted online that he sent those emails. That kind of external meddling—especially from someone openly antagonistic—is not harmless commentary. It’s interference.

As for “misrepresentations,” I’m referring to claims made to the court and defense that the materials cited in my motion to suppress originated from me or my family. That’s false. Every fact in that motion is sourced from official files—the city police, the state, and the FBI—including discovery the prosecution initially withheld in violation of Brady v. Maryland.

Now, regarding the origins of this case: yes, the initial accusation involved a school threat—and when it was confirmed I wasn’t the poster, that matter was dropped. The problem is, the State kept going anyway. The city police handed the computers over to the FBI because they (the city police) didn’t have the ability to investigate Internet crimes. They (the FBI) didn’t get a new warrant for two years. They searched anyway. The seizure of every file from 15 devices wasn’t specific or timely. It was a general warrant, if it can be called one at all.

The “Mdew” allegation emerged after the second warrant, supposedly prompted by an anime image. But even that timeline is murky—and the image in question was likely computer-generated, which is legal under both federal and Illinois law.

This isn’t about denying scrutiny. It’s about demanding that scrutiny be constitutional, fact-based, and free from personal bias or third-party manipulation. The Franks hearing isn’t about the image, it’s about the legality of the search warrant. Because if the warrants are invalid then the case falls apart.

That’s a fair point—and ironically, it circles right back to the very heart of what the Franks hearing is about: how law enforcement got inside those devices in the first place, why they were searching, and under what authority. The CSAM allegation is the end of the trail—not the beginning.

My focus has always been the legality of the process—not the media frenzy that trails behind it. This all began with a warrant tied to a school threat I provably had nothing to do with. When that narrative fell apart, what should have happened is exactly what the Constitution demands: stop the search, return the property, and correct the record.

Instead, we got silence, delays, a quashed warrant, and nearly two years before the FBI got a second one—based on what? An anime-style image that, by legal standards, doesn't even qualify as contraband. That jump—from vague suspicion to sweeping search—is where the rights violations stack up, and that’s why the timeline, the data trail, and the cross-agency handling all matter.

And no—I haven’t lost the plot. I’m just refusing to ignore the opening chapters because the ending is messy. Due process applies from page one. That’s what this hearing is about. That’s where my attention is.

The Charge is one count for one image that the state is claiming is child porn. Agent O'Sullivan who is the FBI forensic expert claimed it was computer-generated.

In Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition (which I was somewhat part of) the US Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that computer-generated images were not only legal but constitutional protected speech. 

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition | Oyez


In 2003 the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that virtual images including computer-generated images was legal and constitutional protected speech.

PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER (2003) | FindLaw

you can go here Todd Daugherty / N9OGL / Fox Smith / Doc Dot | Kiwi Farms you can't post all your stupid and gay shit there; they love that stuff.

1. What is a Franks Hearing?


A Franks hearing is a court proceeding that challenges the validity of a search warrant. The hearing is named after the case Franks v. Delaware, which established the legal standard for challenging search warrants. 


2. How does a Franks hearing work?

1. The defendant requests a Franks hearing by filing a Franks motion with the judge. 
   
   
2. The judge grants a hearing if the defendant makes a preliminary showing that the affidavit contains false statements. 
   
   
3. At the hearing, the defendant presents evidence to prove that the affidavit contains false statements or omissions. 
   
   
4. If the defendant is successful, the judge suppresses any evidence obtained from the search. 
   

BTW I was banned from Kiwi Farms because they didn't want to hear the truth.

POSTED BY ME - 

1. there is no statute of limitations, because this court case ongoing.

You can't file a case until a record has been made. when you file a case, the Courts tend to want to see the record ( ie. what on the record, what the judge decided and so on) Since there this is pending case which has been pretrial for closes to 4 years, the actual case has not actually started.


2. they police don't get qualified immunity because:

The police don't get qualified immunity.  For an officer not to get qualified immunity it has to be shown that 1. they violated a statutory or constitutional right and 2. that right has been well established by the courts. The search warrant was a general warrant, general warrants violated the fourth amendment (a constitutional right) which establishes number 1. The court has established from 1927 all the way to present day, that general warrants are unconstitutional and violate a person's right. So no qualified immunity. 

___________

(720 ILCS 5/11-20.1)  (from Ch. 38, par. 11-20.1)
    Sec. 11-20.1. Child pornography.
    (a) A person commits child pornography who:
        (1) films, videotapes, photographs, or otherwise
    depicts or portrays by means of any similar visual medium
    or reproduction or depicts by computer any child whom he
    or she knows or reasonably should know to be under the age
    of 18 or any person with a severe or profound intellectual
    disability where such child or person with a severe or
    profound intellectual disability is:
            (i) actually or by simulation engaged in any act
        of sexual penetration or sexual conduct with any
        person or animal; or
            (ii) actually or by simulation engaged in any act
        of sexual penetration or sexual conduct involving the
        sex organs of the child or person with a severe or
        profound intellectual disability and the mouth, anus,
        or sex organs of another person or animal; or which
        involves the mouth, anus or sex organs of the child or
        person with a severe or profound intellectual
        disability and the sex organs of another person or
        animal; or
            (iii) actually or by simulation engaged in any act
        of masturbation; or
            (iv) actually or by simulation portrayed as being
        the object of, or otherwise engaged in, any act of lewd
        fondling, touching, or caressing involving another
        person or animal; or
            (v) actually or by simulation engaged in any act
        of excretion or urination within a sexual context; or
            (vi) actually or by simulation portrayed or
        depicted as bound, fettered, or subject to sadistic,
        masochistic, or sadomasochistic abuse in any sexual
        context; or
            (vii) depicted or portrayed in any pose, posture
        or setting involving a lewd exhibition of the
        unclothed or transparently clothed genitals, pubic
        area, buttocks, or, if such person is female, a fully
        or partially developed breast of the child or other
        person; or
        (2) with the knowledge of the nature or content
    thereof, reproduces, disseminates, offers to disseminate,
    exhibits or possesses with intent to disseminate any film,
    videotape, photograph or other similar visual reproduction
    or depiction by computer of any child or person with a
    severe or profound intellectual disability whom the person
    knows or reasonably should know to be under the age of 18
    or to be a person with a severe or profound intellectual
    disability, engaged in any activity described in
    subparagraphs (i) through (vii) of paragraph (1) of this
    subsection; or
        (3) with knowledge of the subject matter or theme
    thereof, produces any stage play, live performance, film,
    videotape or other similar visual portrayal or depiction
    by computer which includes a child whom the person knows
    or reasonably should know to be under the age of 18 or a
    person with a severe or profound intellectual disability
    engaged in any activity described in subparagraphs (i)
    through (vii) of paragraph (1) of this subsection; or
        (4) solicits, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or
    coerces any child whom he or she knows or reasonably
    should know to be under the age of 18 or a person with a
    severe or profound intellectual disability to appear in
    any stage play, live presentation, film, videotape,
    photograph or other similar visual reproduction or
    depiction by computer in which the child or person with a
    severe or profound intellectual disability is or will be
    depicted, actually or by simulation, in any act, pose or
    setting described in subparagraphs (i) through (vii) of
    paragraph (1) of this subsection; or
        (5) is a parent, step-parent, legal guardian or other
    person having care or custody of a child whom the person
    knows or reasonably should know to be under the age of 18
    or a person with a severe or profound intellectual
    disability and who knowingly permits, induces, promotes,
    or arranges for such child or person with a severe or
    profound intellectual disability to appear in any stage
    play, live performance, film, videotape, photograph or
    other similar visual presentation, portrayal or simulation
    or depiction by computer of any act or activity described
    in subparagraphs (i) through (vii) of paragraph (1) of
    this subsection; or
        (6) with knowledge of the nature or content thereof,
    possesses any film, videotape, photograph or other similar
    visual reproduction or depiction by computer of any child
    or person with a severe or profound intellectual
    disability whom the person knows or reasonably should know
    to be under the age of 18 or to be a person with a severe
    or profound intellectual disability, engaged in any
    activity described in subparagraphs (i) through (vii) of
    paragraph (1) of this subsection; or
        (7) solicits, or knowingly uses, persuades, induces,
    entices, or coerces, a person to provide a child under the
    age of 18 or a person with a severe or profound
    intellectual disability to appear in any videotape,
    photograph, film, stage play, live presentation, or other
    similar visual reproduction or depiction by computer in
    which the child or person with a severe or profound
    intellectual disability will be depicted, actually or by
    simulation, in any act, pose, or setting described in
    subparagraphs (i) through (vii) of paragraph (1) of this
    subsection.
    (a-5) The possession of each individual film, videotape,
photograph, or other similar visual reproduction or depiction
by computer in violation of this Section constitutes a single
and separate violation. This subsection (a-5) does not apply
to multiple copies of the same film, videotape, photograph, or
other similar visual reproduction or depiction by computer
that are identical to each other.
    (b)(1) It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of
child pornography that the defendant reasonably believed,
under all of the circumstances, that the child was 18 years of
age or older or that the person was not a person with a severe
or profound intellectual disability but only where, prior to
the act or acts giving rise to a prosecution under this
Section, he or she took some affirmative action or made a
bonafide inquiry designed to ascertain whether the child was
18 years of age or older or that the person was not a person
with a severe or profound intellectual disability and his or
her reliance upon the information so obtained was clearly
reasonable.
    (1.5) Telecommunications carriers, commercial mobile
service providers, and providers of information services,
including, but not limited to, Internet service providers and
hosting service providers, are not liable under this Section
by virtue of the transmission, storage, or caching of
electronic communications or messages of others or by virtue
of the provision of other related telecommunications,
commercial mobile services, or information services used by
others in violation of this Section.
    (2) (Blank).
    (3) The charge of child pornography shall not apply to the
performance of official duties by law enforcement or
prosecuting officers or persons employed by law enforcement or
prosecuting agencies, court personnel or attorneys, nor to
bonafide treatment or professional education programs
conducted by licensed physicians, psychologists or social
workers. In any criminal proceeding, any property or material
that constitutes child pornography shall remain in the care,
custody, and control of either the State or the court. A motion
to view the evidence shall comply with subsection (e-5) of
this Section.
    (4) If the defendant possessed more than one of the same
film, videotape or visual reproduction or depiction by
computer in which child pornography is depicted, then the
trier of fact may infer that the defendant possessed such
materials with the intent to disseminate them.
    (5) The charge of child pornography does not apply to a
person who does not voluntarily possess a film, videotape, or
visual reproduction or depiction by computer in which child
pornography is depicted. Possession is voluntary if the
defendant knowingly procures or receives a film, videotape, or
visual reproduction or depiction for a sufficient time to be
able to terminate his or her possession.
    (6) Any violation of paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or
(7) of subsection (a) that includes a child engaged in,
solicited for, depicted in, or posed in any act of sexual
penetration or bound, fettered, or subject to sadistic,
masochistic, or sadomasochistic abuse in a sexual context
shall be deemed a crime of violence.
    © If the violation does not involve a film, videotape,
or other moving depiction, a violation of paragraph (1), (4),
(5), or (7) of subsection (a) is a Class 1 felony with a
mandatory minimum fine of $2,000 and a maximum fine of
$100,000. If the violation involves a film, videotape, or
other moving depiction, a violation of paragraph (1), (4),
(5), or (7) of subsection (a) is a Class X felony with a
mandatory minimum fine of $2,000 and a maximum fine of
$100,000. If the violation does not involve a film, videotape,
or other moving depiction, a violation of paragraph (3) of
subsection (a) is a Class 1 felony with a mandatory minimum
fine of $1500 and a maximum fine of $100,000. If the violation
involves a film, videotape, or other moving depiction, a
violation of paragraph (3) of subsection (a) is a Class X
felony with a mandatory minimum fine of $1500 and a maximum
fine of $100,000. If the violation does not involve a film,
videotape, or other moving depiction, a violation of paragraph
(2) of subsection (a) is a Class 1 felony with a mandatory
minimum fine of $1000 and a maximum fine of $100,000. If the
violation involves a film, videotape, or other moving
depiction, a violation of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) is a
Class X felony with a mandatory minimum fine of $1000 and a
maximum fine of $100,000. If the violation does not involve a
film, videotape, or other moving depiction, a violation of
paragraph (6) of subsection (a) is a Class 3 felony with a
mandatory minimum fine of $1000 and a maximum fine of
$100,000. If the violation involves a film, videotape, or
other moving depiction, a violation of paragraph (6) of
subsection (a) is a Class 2 felony with a mandatory minimum
fine of $1000 and a maximum fine of $100,000.
    (c-5) Where the child depicted is under the age of 13, a
violation of paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (7) of
subsection (a) is a Class X felony with a mandatory minimum
fine of $2,000 and a maximum fine of $100,000. Where the child
depicted is under the age of 13, a violation of paragraph (6)
of subsection (a) is a Class 2 felony with a mandatory minimum
fine of $1,000 and a maximum fine of $100,000. Where the child
depicted is under the age of 13, a person who commits a
violation of paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (7) of
subsection (a) where the defendant has previously been
convicted under the laws of this State or any other state of
the offense of child pornography, aggravated child
pornography, aggravated criminal sexual abuse, aggravated
criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of
a child, or any of the offenses formerly known as rape, deviate
sexual assault, indecent liberties with a child, or aggravated
indecent liberties with a child where the victim was under the
age of 18 years or an offense that is substantially equivalent
to those offenses, is guilty of a Class X felony for which the
person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less
than 9 years with a mandatory minimum fine of $2,000 and a
maximum fine of $100,000. Where the child depicted is under
the age of 13, a person who commits a violation of paragraph
(6) of subsection (a) where the defendant has previously been
convicted under the laws of this State or any other state of
the offense of child pornography, aggravated child
pornography, aggravated criminal sexual abuse, aggravated
criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of
a child, or any of the offenses formerly known as rape, deviate
sexual assault, indecent liberties with a child, or aggravated
indecent liberties with a child where the victim was under the
age of 18 years or an offense that is substantially equivalent
to those offenses, is guilty of a Class 1 felony with a
mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 and a maximum fine of
$100,000. The issue of whether the child depicted is under the
age of 13 is an element of the offense to be resolved by the
trier of fact.
    (d) If a person is convicted of a second or subsequent
violation of this Section within 10 years of a prior
conviction, the court shall order a presentence psychiatric
examination of the person. The examiner shall report to the
court whether treatment of the person is necessary.
    (e) Any film, videotape, photograph or other similar
visual reproduction or depiction by computer which includes a
child under the age of 18 or a person with a severe or profound
intellectual disability engaged in any activity described in
subparagraphs (i) through (vii) or paragraph 1 of subsection
(a), and any material or equipment used or intended for use in
photographing, filming, printing, producing, reproducing,
manufacturing, projecting, exhibiting, depiction by computer,
or disseminating such material shall be seized and forfeited
in the manner, method and procedure provided by Section 36-1
of this Code for the seizure and forfeiture of vessels,
vehicles and aircraft.
    In addition, any person convicted under this Section is
subject to the property forfeiture provisions set forth in
Article 124B of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.
    (e-5) Upon the conclusion of a case brought under this
Section, the court shall seal all evidence depicting a victim
or witness that is sexually explicit. The evidence may be
unsealed and viewed, on a motion of the party seeking to unseal
and view the evidence, only for good cause shown and in the
discretion of the court. The motion must expressly set forth
the purpose for viewing the material. The State's attorney and
the victim, if possible, shall be provided reasonable notice
of the hearing on the motion to unseal the evidence. Any person
entitled to notice of a hearing under this subsection (e-5)
may object to the motion.
    (f) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section:
        (1) "Disseminate" means (i) to sell, distribute,
    exchange or transfer possession, whether with or without
    consideration or (ii) to make a depiction by computer
    available for distribution or downloading through the
    facilities of any telecommunications network or through
    any other means of transferring computer programs or data
    to a computer.
        (2) "Produce" means to direct, promote, advertise,
    publish, manufacture, issue, present or show.
        (3) "Reproduce" means to make a duplication or copy.
        (4) "Depict by computer" means to generate or create,
    or cause to be created or generated, a computer program or
    data that, after being processed by a computer either
    alone or in conjunction with one or more computer
    programs, results in a visual depiction on a computer
    monitor, screen, or display.
        (5) "Depiction by computer" means a computer program
    or data that, after being processed by a computer either
    alone or in conjunction with one or more computer
    programs, results in a visual depiction on a computer
    monitor, screen, or display.
        (6) "Computer", "computer program", and "data" have
    the meanings ascribed to them in Section 17.05 of this
    Code.
        (7) For the purposes of this Section, "child
    pornography" includes a film, videotape, photograph, or
    other similar visual medium or reproduction or depiction
    by computer that is, or appears to be, that of a person,
    either in part, or in total, under the age of 18 or a
    person with a severe or profound intellectual disability,
    regardless of the method by which the film, videotape,
    photograph, or other similar visual medium or reproduction
    or depiction by computer is created, adopted, or modified
    to appear as such. "Child pornography" also includes a
    film, videotape, photograph, or other similar visual
    medium or reproduction or depiction by computer that is
    advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed
    in such a manner that conveys the impression that the
    film, videotape, photograph, or other similar visual
    medium or reproduction or depiction by computer is of a
    person under the age of 18 or a person with a severe or
    profound intellectual disability. "Child pornography"
    includes the depiction of a part of an actual child under
    the age of 18 who, by manipulation, creation, or
    modification, appears to be engaged in any activity
    described in subparagraphs (i) through (vii) of paragraph
    (1) of subsection (a). "Child pornography" does not
    include images or materials in which the creator of the
    image or materials is the sole subject of the depiction.
    (g) Re-enactment; findings; purposes.
        (1) The General Assembly finds and declares that:
            (i) Section 50-5 of Public Act 88-680, effective
        January 1, 1995, contained provisions amending the
        child pornography statute, Section 11-20.1 of the
        Criminal Code of 1961. Section 50-5 also contained
        other provisions.
            (ii) In addition, Public Act 88-680 was entitled
        "AN ACT to create a Safe Neighborhoods Law". (A)
        Article 5 was entitled JUVENILE JUSTICE and amended
        the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. (B) Article 15 was
        entitled GANGS and amended various provisions of the
        Criminal Code of 1961 and the Unified Code of
        Corrections. © Article 20 was entitled ALCOHOL ABUSE
        and amended various provisions of the Illinois Vehicle
        Code. (D) Article 25 was entitled DRUG ABUSE and
        amended the Cannabis Control Act and the Illinois
        Controlled Substances Act. (E) Article 30 was entitled
        FIREARMS and amended the Criminal Code of 1961 and the
        Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. (F) Article 35
        amended the Criminal Code of 1961, the Rights of Crime
        Victims and Witnesses Act, and the Unified Code of
        Corrections. (G) Article 40 amended the Criminal Code
        of 1961 to increase the penalty for compelling
        organization membership of persons. (H) Article 45
        created the Secure Residential Youth Care Facility
        Licensing Act and amended the State Finance Act, the
        Juvenile Court Act of 1987, the Unified Code of
        Corrections, and the Private Correctional Facility
        Moratorium Act. (I) Article 50 amended the WIC Vendor
        Management Act, the Firearm Owners Identification Card
        Act, the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, the Criminal Code
        of 1961, the Wrongs to Children Act, and the Unified
        Code of Corrections.
            (iii) On September 22, 1998, the Third District
        Appellate Court in People v. Dainty, 701 N.E. 2d 118,
        ruled that Public Act 88-680 violates the single
        subject clause of the Illinois Constitution (Article
        IV, Section 8 (d)) and was unconstitutional in its
        entirety. As of the time this amendatory Act of 1999
        was prepared, People v. Dainty was still subject to
        appeal.
            (iv) Child pornography is a vital concern to the
        people of this State and the validity of future
        prosecutions under the child pornography statute of
        the Criminal Code of 1961 is in grave doubt.
        (2) It is the purpose of this amendatory Act of 1999 to
    prevent or minimize any problems relating to prosecutions
    for child pornography that may result from challenges to
    the constitutional validity of Public Act 88-680 by
    re-enacting the Section relating to child pornography that
    was included in Public Act 88-680.
        (3) This amendatory Act of 1999 re-enacts Section
    11-20.1 of the Criminal Code of 1961, as it has been
    amended. This re-enactment is intended to remove any
    question as to the validity or content of that Section; it
    is not intended to supersede any other Public Act that
    amends the text of the Section as set forth in this
    amendatory Act of 1999. The material is shown as existing
    text (i.e., without underscoring) because, as of the time
    this amendatory Act of 1999 was prepared, People v. Dainty
    was subject to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
        (4) The re-enactment by this amendatory Act of 1999 of
    Section 11-20.1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 relating to
    child pornography that was amended by Public Act 88-680 is
    not intended, and shall not be construed, to imply that
    Public Act 88-680 is invalid or to limit or impair any
    legal argument concerning whether those provisions were
    substantially re-enacted by other Public Acts.
(Source: P.A. 101-87, eff. 1-1-20; 102-567, eff. 1-1-22.)

    (720 ILCS 5/11-20.4 new)
    Sec. 11-20.4. Obscene depiction of a purported child.
    (a) In this Section:
        "Obscene depiction" means a visual representation of
    any kind, including an image, video, or computer-generated
    image or video, whether made, produced, or altered by
    electronic, mechanical, or other means, that:
            (i) the average person, applying contemporary
        adult community standards, would find that, taken as a
        whole, it appeals to the prurient interest;
            (ii) the average person, applying contemporary
        adult community standards, would find that it depicts
        or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual acts
        or sadomasochistic sexual acts, whether normal or
        perverted, actual or simulated, or masturbation,
        excretory functions, or lewd exhibition of the
        unclothed or transparently clothed genitals, pubic
        area, buttocks or, if such person is a female, the
        fully or partially developed breast of the child or
        other person; and
            (iii) taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary,
        artistic, political, or scientific value.
        "Purported child" means a visual representation that
    appears to depict a child under the age of 18 but may or
    may not depict an actual child under the age of 18.
    (b) A person commits obscene depiction of a purported
child when, with knowledge of the nature or content thereof,
the person:
        (1) receives, obtains, or accesses in any way with the
    intent to view, any obscene depiction of a purported
    child; or
        (2) reproduces, disseminates, offers to disseminate,
    exhibits, or possesses with intent to disseminate, any
    obscene depiction of a purported child.
    © A violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) is a
Class 3 felony, and a second or subsequent offense is a Class 2
felony. A violation of paragraph (2) of subsection (b) is a
Class 1 felony, and a second or subsequent offense is a Class X
felony.
    (d) If the age of the purported child depicted is under the
age of 13, a violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) is a
Class 2 felony, and a second or subsequent offense is a Class 1
felony. If the age of the purported child depicted is under the
age of 13, a violation of paragraph (2) of subsection (b) is a
Class X felony, and a second or subsequent offense is a Class X
felony for which the person shall be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not less than 9 years.
    (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to impose
liability upon the following entities solely as a result of
content or information provided by another person:
        (1) an interactive computer service, as defined in 47
    U.S.C. 230(f)(2);
        (2) a provider of public mobile services or private
    radio services, as defined in Section 13-214 of the Public
    Utilities Act; or
        (3) a telecommunications network or broadband
    provider.
    (f) A person convicted under this Section is subject to
the forfeiture provisions in Article 124B of the Code of
Criminal Procedure of 1963.


(720 ILCS 5/11-20.1)  (from Ch. 38, par. 11-20.1)
    Sec. 11-20.1. Child pornography.
    (a) A person commits child pornography who:
        (1) films, videotapes, photographs, or otherwise
    depicts or portrays by means of any similar visual medium
    or reproduction or depicts by computer any child whom he
    or she knows or reasonably should know to be under the age
    of 18 or any person with a severe or profound intellectual
    disability where such child or person with a severe or
    profound intellectual disability is:
            (i) actually or by simulation engaged in any act
        of sexual penetration or sexual conduct with any
        person or animal; or
            (ii) actually or by simulation engaged in any act
        of sexual penetration or sexual conduct involving the
        sex organs of the child or person with a severe or
        profound intellectual disability and the mouth, anus,
        or sex organs of another person or animal; or which
        involves the mouth, anus or sex organs of the child or
        person with a severe or profound intellectual
        disability and the sex organs of another person or
        animal; or
            (iii) actually or by simulation engaged in any act
        of masturbation; or
            (iv) actually or by simulation portrayed as being
        the object of, or otherwise engaged in, any act of lewd
        fondling, touching, or caressing involving another
        person or animal; or
            (v) actually or by simulation engaged in any act
        of excretion or urination within a sexual context; or
            (vi) actually or by simulation portrayed or
        depicted as bound, fettered, or subject to sadistic,
        masochistic, or sadomasochistic abuse in any sexual
        context; or
            (vii) depicted or portrayed in any pose, posture
        or setting involving a lewd exhibition of the
        unclothed or transparently clothed genitals, pubic
        area, buttocks, or, if such person is female, a fully
        or partially developed breast of the child or other
        person; or
        (2) with the knowledge of the nature or content
    thereof, reproduces, disseminates, offers to disseminate,
    exhibits or possesses with intent to disseminate any film,
    videotape, photograph or other similar visual reproduction
    or depiction by computer of any child or person with a
    severe or profound intellectual disability whom the person
    knows or reasonably should know to be under the age of 18
    or to be a person with a severe or profound intellectual
    disability, engaged in any activity described in
    subparagraphs (i) through (vii) of paragraph (1) of this
    subsection; or
        (3) with knowledge of the subject matter or theme
    thereof, produces any stage play, live performance, film,
    videotape or other similar visual portrayal or depiction
    by computer which includes a child whom the person knows
    or reasonably should know to be under the age of 18 or a
    person with a severe or profound intellectual disability
    engaged in any activity described in subparagraphs (i)
    through (vii) of paragraph (1) of this subsection; or
        (4) solicits, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or
    coerces any child whom he or she knows or reasonably
    should know to be under the age of 18 or a person with a
    severe or profound intellectual disability to appear in
    any stage play, live presentation, film, videotape,
    photograph or other similar visual reproduction or
    depiction by computer in which the child or person with a
    severe or profound intellectual disability is or will be
    depicted, actually or by simulation, in any act, pose or
    setting described in subparagraphs (i) through (vii) of
    paragraph (1) of this subsection; or
        (5) is a parent, step-parent, legal guardian or other
    person having care or custody of a child whom the person
    knows or reasonably should know to be under the age of 18
    or a person with a severe or profound intellectual
    disability and who knowingly permits, induces, promotes,
    or arranges for such child or person with a severe or
    profound intellectual disability to appear in any stage
    play, live performance, film, videotape, photograph or
    other similar visual presentation, portrayal or simulation
    or depiction by computer of any act or activity described
    in subparagraphs (i) through (vii) of paragraph (1) of
    this subsection; or
        (6) with knowledge of the nature or content thereof,
    possesses any film, videotape, photograph or other similar
    visual reproduction or depiction by computer of any child
    or person with a severe or profound intellectual
    disability whom the person knows or reasonably should know
    to be under the age of 18 or to be a person with a severe
    or profound intellectual disability, engaged in any
    activity described in subparagraphs (i) through (vii) of
    paragraph (1) of this subsection; or
        (7) solicits, or knowingly uses, persuades, induces,
    entices, or coerces, a person to provide a child under the
    age of 18 or a person with a severe or profound
    intellectual disability to appear in any videotape,
    photograph, film, stage play, live presentation, or other
    similar visual reproduction or depiction by computer in
    which the child or person with a severe or profound
    intellectual disability will be depicted, actually or by
    simulation, in any act, pose, or setting described in
    subparagraphs (i) through (vii) of paragraph (1) of this
    subsection.
    (a-5) The possession of each individual film, videotape,
photograph, or other similar visual reproduction or depiction
by computer in violation of this Section constitutes a single
and separate violation. This subsection (a-5) does not apply
to multiple copies of the same film, videotape, photograph, or
other similar visual reproduction or depiction by computer
that are identical to each other.
    (b)(1) It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of
child pornography that the defendant reasonably believed,
under all of the circumstances, that the child was 18 years of
age or older or that the person was not a person with a severe
or profound intellectual disability but only where, prior to
the act or acts giving rise to a prosecution under this
Section, he or she took some affirmative action or made a
bonafide inquiry designed to ascertain whether the child was
18 years of age or older or that the person was not a person
with a severe or profound intellectual disability and his or
her reliance upon the information so obtained was clearly
reasonable.
    (1.5) Telecommunications carriers, commercial mobile
service providers, and providers of information services,
including, but not limited to, Internet service providers and
hosting service providers, are not liable under this Section
by virtue of the transmission, storage, or caching of
electronic communications or messages of others or by virtue
of the provision of other related telecommunications,
commercial mobile services, or information services used by
others in violation of this Section.
    (2) (Blank).
    (3) The charge of child pornography shall not apply to the
performance of official duties by law enforcement or
prosecuting officers or persons employed by law enforcement or
prosecuting agencies, court personnel or attorneys, nor to
bonafide treatment or professional education programs
conducted by licensed physicians, psychologists or social
workers. In any criminal proceeding, any property or material
that constitutes child pornography shall remain in the care,
custody, and control of either the State or the court. A motion
to view the evidence shall comply with subsection (e-5) of
this Section.
    (4) If the defendant possessed more than one of the same
film, videotape or visual reproduction or depiction by
computer in which child pornography is depicted, then the
trier of fact may infer that the defendant possessed such
materials with the intent to disseminate them.
    (5) The charge of child pornography does not apply to a
person who does not voluntarily possess a film, videotape, or
visual reproduction or depiction by computer in which child
pornography is depicted. Possession is voluntary if the
defendant knowingly procures or receives a film, videotape, or
visual reproduction or depiction for a sufficient time to be
able to terminate his or her possession.
    (6) Any violation of paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or
(7) of subsection (a) that includes a child engaged in,
solicited for, depicted in, or posed in any act of sexual
penetration or bound, fettered, or subject to sadistic,
masochistic, or sadomasochistic abuse in a sexual context
shall be deemed a crime of violence.
    © If the violation does not involve a film, videotape,
or other moving depiction, a violation of paragraph (1), (4),
(5), or (7) of subsection (a) is a Class 1 felony with a
mandatory minimum fine of $2,000 and a maximum fine of
$100,000. If the violation involves a film, videotape, or
other moving depiction, a violation of paragraph (1), (4),
(5), or (7) of subsection (a) is a Class X felony with a
mandatory minimum fine of $2,000 and a maximum fine of
$100,000. If the violation does not involve a film, videotape,
or other moving depiction, a violation of paragraph (3) of
subsection (a) is a Class 1 felony with a mandatory minimum
fine of $1500 and a maximum fine of $100,000. If the violation
involves a film, videotape, or other moving depiction, a
violation of paragraph (3) of subsection (a) is a Class X
felony with a mandatory minimum fine of $1500 and a maximum
fine of $100,000. If the violation does not involve a film,
videotape, or other moving depiction, a violation of paragraph
(2) of subsection (a) is a Class 1 felony with a mandatory
minimum fine of $1000 and a maximum fine of $100,000. If the
violation involves a film, videotape, or other moving
depiction, a violation of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) is a
Class X felony with a mandatory minimum fine of $1000 and a
maximum fine of $100,000. If the violation does not involve a
film, videotape, or other moving depiction, a violation of
paragraph (6) of subsection (a) is a Class 3 felony with a
mandatory minimum fine of $1000 and a maximum fine of
$100,000. If the violation involves a film, videotape, or
other moving depiction, a violation of paragraph (6) of
subsection (a) is a Class 2 felony with a mandatory minimum
fine of $1000 and a maximum fine of $100,000.
    (c-5) Where the child depicted is under the age of 13, a
violation of paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (7) of
subsection (a) is a Class X felony with a mandatory minimum
fine of $2,000 and a maximum fine of $100,000. Where the child
depicted is under the age of 13, a violation of paragraph (6)
of subsection (a) is a Class 2 felony with a mandatory minimum
fine of $1,000 and a maximum fine of $100,000. Where the child
depicted is under the age of 13, a person who commits a
violation of paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (7) of
subsection (a) where the defendant has previously been
convicted under the laws of this State or any other state of
the offense of child pornography, aggravated child
pornography, aggravated criminal sexual abuse, aggravated
criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of
a child, or any of the offenses formerly known as rape, deviate
sexual assault, indecent liberties with a child, or aggravated
indecent liberties with a child where the victim was under the
age of 18 years or an offense that is substantially equivalent
to those offenses, is guilty of a Class X felony for which the
person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less
than 9 years with a mandatory minimum fine of $2,000 and a
maximum fine of $100,000. Where the child depicted is under
the age of 13, a person who commits a violation of paragraph
(6) of subsection (a) where the defendant has previously been
convicted under the laws of this State or any other state of
the offense of child pornography, aggravated child
pornography, aggravated criminal sexual abuse, aggravated
criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of
a child, or any of the offenses formerly known as rape, deviate
sexual assault, indecent liberties with a child, or aggravated
indecent liberties with a child where the victim was under the
age of 18 years or an offense that is substantially equivalent
to those offenses, is guilty of a Class 1 felony with a
mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 and a maximum fine of
$100,000. The issue of whether the child depicted is under the
age of 13 is an element of the offense to be resolved by the
trier of fact.
    (d) If a person is convicted of a second or subsequent
violation of this Section within 10 years of a prior
conviction, the court shall order a presentence psychiatric
examination of the person. The examiner shall report to the
court whether treatment of the person is necessary.
    (e) Any film, videotape, photograph or other similar
visual reproduction or depiction by computer which includes a
child under the age of 18 or a person with a severe or profound
intellectual disability engaged in any activity described in
subparagraphs (i) through (vii) or paragraph 1 of subsection
(a), and any material or equipment used or intended for use in
photographing, filming, printing, producing, reproducing,
manufacturing, projecting, exhibiting, depiction by computer,
or disseminating such material shall be seized and forfeited
in the manner, method and procedure provided by Section 36-1
of this Code for the seizure and forfeiture of vessels,
vehicles and aircraft.
    In addition, any person convicted under this Section is
subject to the property forfeiture provisions set forth in
Article 124B of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.
    (e-5) Upon the conclusion of a case brought under this
Section, the court shall seal all evidence depicting a victim
or witness that is sexually explicit. The evidence may be
unsealed and viewed, on a motion of the party seeking to unseal
and view the evidence, only for good cause shown and in the
discretion of the court. The motion must expressly set forth
the purpose for viewing the material. The State's attorney and
the victim, if possible, shall be provided reasonable notice
of the hearing on the motion to unseal the evidence. Any person
entitled to notice of a hearing under this subsection (e-5)
may object to the motion.
    (f) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section:
        (1) "Disseminate" means (i) to sell, distribute,
    exchange or transfer possession, whether with or without
    consideration or (ii) to make a depiction by computer
    available for distribution or downloading through the
    facilities of any telecommunications network or through
    any other means of transferring computer programs or data
    to a computer.
        (2) "Produce" means to direct, promote, advertise,
    publish, manufacture, issue, present or show.
        (3) "Reproduce" means to make a duplication or copy.
        (4) "Depict by computer" means to generate or create,
    or cause to be created or generated, a computer program or
    data that, after being processed by a computer either
    alone or in conjunction with one or more computer
    programs, results in a visual depiction on a computer
    monitor, screen, or display.
        (5) "Depiction by computer" means a computer program
    or data that, after being processed by a computer either
    alone or in conjunction with one or more computer
    programs, results in a visual depiction on a computer
    monitor, screen, or display.
        (6) "Computer", "computer program", and "data" have
    the meanings ascribed to them in Section 17.05 of this
    Code.
        (7) For the purposes of this Section, "child
    pornography" includes a film, videotape, photograph, or
    other similar visual medium or reproduction or depiction
    by computer that is, or appears to be, that of a person,
    either in part, or in total, under the age of 18 or a
    person with a severe or profound intellectual disability,
    regardless of the method by which the film, videotape,
    photograph, or other similar visual medium or reproduction
    or depiction by computer is created, adopted, or modified
    to appear as such. "Child pornography" also includes a
    film, videotape, photograph, or other similar visual
    medium or reproduction or depiction by computer that is
    advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed
    in such a manner that conveys the impression that the
    film, videotape, photograph, or other similar visual
    medium or reproduction or depiction by computer is of a
    person under the age of 18 or a person with a severe or
    profound intellectual disability. "Child pornography"
    includes the depiction of a part of an actual child under
    the age of 18 who, by manipulation, creation, or
    modification, appears to be engaged in any activity
    described in subparagraphs (i) through (vii) of paragraph
    (1) of subsection (a). "Child pornography" does not
    include images or materials in which the creator of the
    image or materials is the sole subject of the depiction.
    (g) Re-enactment; findings; purposes.
        (1) The General Assembly finds and declares that:
            (i) Section 50-5 of Public Act 88-680, effective
        January 1, 1995, contained provisions amending the
        child pornography statute, Section 11-20.1 of the
        Criminal Code of 1961. Section 50-5 also contained
        other provisions.
            (ii) In addition, Public Act 88-680 was entitled
        "AN ACT to create a Safe Neighborhoods Law". (A)
        Article 5 was entitled JUVENILE JUSTICE and amended
        the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. (B) Article 15 was
        entitled GANGS and amended various provisions of the
        Criminal Code of 1961 and the Unified Code of
        Corrections. © Article 20 was entitled ALCOHOL ABUSE
        and amended various provisions of the Illinois Vehicle
        Code. (D) Article 25 was entitled DRUG ABUSE and
        amended the Cannabis Control Act and the Illinois
        Controlled Substances Act. (E) Article 30 was entitled
        FIREARMS and amended the Criminal Code of 1961 and the
        Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. (F) Article 35
        amended the Criminal Code of 1961, the Rights of Crime
        Victims and Witnesses Act, and the Unified Code of
        Corrections. (G) Article 40 amended the Criminal Code
        of 1961 to increase the penalty for compelling
        organization membership of persons. (H) Article 45
        created the Secure Residential Youth Care Facility
        Licensing Act and amended the State Finance Act, the
        Juvenile Court Act of 1987, the Unified Code of
        Corrections, and the Private Correctional Facility
        Moratorium Act. (I) Article 50 amended the WIC Vendor
        Management Act, the Firearm Owners Identification Card
        Act, the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, the Criminal Code
        of 1961, the Wrongs to Children Act, and the Unified
        Code of Corrections.
            (iii) On September 22, 1998, the Third District
        Appellate Court in People v. Dainty, 701 N.E. 2d 118,
        ruled that Public Act 88-680 violates the single
        subject clause of the Illinois Constitution (Article
        IV, Section 8 (d)) and was unconstitutional in its
        entirety. As of the time this amendatory Act of 1999
        was prepared, People v. Dainty was still subject to
        appeal.
            (iv) Child pornography is a vital concern to the
        people of this State and the validity of future
        prosecutions under the child pornography statute of
        the Criminal Code of 1961 is in grave doubt.
        (2) It is the purpose of this amendatory Act of 1999 to
    prevent or minimize any problems relating to prosecutions
    for child pornography that may result from challenges to
    the constitutional validity of Public Act 88-680 by
    re-enacting the Section relating to child pornography that
    was included in Public Act 88-680.
        (3) This amendatory Act of 1999 re-enacts Section
    11-20.1 of the Criminal Code of 1961, as it has been
    amended. This re-enactment is intended to remove any
    question as to the validity or content of that Section; it
    is not intended to supersede any other Public Act that
    amends the text of the Section as set forth in this
    amendatory Act of 1999. The material is shown as existing
    text (i.e., without underscoring) because, as of the time
    this amendatory Act of 1999 was prepared, People v. Dainty
    was subject to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
        (4) The re-enactment by this amendatory Act of 1999 of
    Section 11-20.1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 relating to
    child pornography that was amended by Public Act 88-680 is
    not intended, and shall not be construed, to imply that
    Public Act 88-680 is invalid or to limit or impair any
    legal argument concerning whether those provisions were
    substantially re-enacted by other Public Acts.
(Source: P.A. 101-87, eff. 1-1-20; 102-567, eff. 1-1-22.)

    (720 ILCS 5/11-20.4 new)
    Sec. 11-20.4. Obscene depiction of a purported child.
    (a) In this Section:
        "Obscene depiction" means a visual representation of
    any kind, including an image, video, or computer-generated
    image or video, whether made, produced, or altered by
    electronic, mechanical, or other means, that:
            (i) the average person, applying contemporary
        adult community standards, would find that, taken as a
        whole, it appeals to the prurient interest;
            (ii) the average person, applying contemporary
        adult community standards, would find that it depicts
        or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual acts
        or sadomasochistic sexual acts, whether normal or
        perverted, actual or simulated, or masturbation,
        excretory functions, or lewd exhibition of the
        unclothed or transparently clothed genitals, pubic
        area, buttocks or, if such person is a female, the
        fully or partially developed breast of the child or
        other person; and
            (iii) taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary,
        artistic, political, or scientific value.
        "Purported child" means a visual representation that
    appears to depict a child under the age of 18 but may or
    may not depict an actual child under the age of 18.
    (b) A person commits obscene depiction of a purported
child when, with knowledge of the nature or content thereof,
the person:
        (1) receives, obtains, or accesses in any way with the
    intent to view, any obscene depiction of a purported
    child; or
        (2) reproduces, disseminates, offers to disseminate,
    exhibits, or possesses with intent to disseminate, any
    obscene depiction of a purported child.
    © A violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) is a
Class 3 felony, and a second or subsequent offense is a Class 2
felony. A violation of paragraph (2) of subsection (b) is a
Class 1 felony, and a second or subsequent offense is a Class X
felony.
    (d) If the age of the purported child depicted is under the
age of 13, a violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) is a
Class 2 felony, and a second or subsequent offense is a Class 1
felony. If the age of the purported child depicted is under the
age of 13, a violation of paragraph (2) of subsection (b) is a
Class X felony, and a second or subsequent offense is a Class X
felony for which the person shall be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not less than 9 years.
    (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to impose
liability upon the following entities solely as a result of
content or information provided by another person:
        (1) an interactive computer service, as defined in 47
    U.S.C. 230(f)(2);
        (2) a provider of public mobile services or private
    radio services, as defined in Section 13-214 of the Public
    Utilities Act; or
        (3) a telecommunications network or broadband
    provider.
    (f) A person convicted under this Section is subject to
the forfeiture provisions in Article 124B of the Code of
Criminal Procedure of 1963.

How is a search warrant for a computer obtained?

• A police officer or other official applies to a judge or magistrate for a search warrant 
  
• The applicant must establish probable cause that a crime was committed, and that the computer contains evidence of that crime 
  
• The applicant must swear to the truth of the facts that establish probable cause 
  
• The warrant must describe the specific items to be searched and seized 
  

• The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures 
  
• A search warrant protects the privacy of the person whose computer is being searched 
  

• Evidence is in plain view
  
• The owner of the computer consents to the search
  
• There are exigent circumstances, such as an emergency
  
• The search is at a U.S. border
  
• The person being searched is on probation, parole, or supervised release
  

ILLINOIS STATE POLICE MAKE ARREST FOR POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

SPRINGFIELD – Illinois State Police (ISP) Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) officials announce the arrest of Todd E. Daugherty, a 54-year-old male from Taylorville, Illinois for Possession of Child Pornography.

In August 2022, ISP DCI Zone 4 Agents became involved with an investigation after learning that a subject identified as Todd E. Daugherty was in possession of child pornography.  On September 14, 2022, the Christian County State’s Attorney’s Office filed a 1 count information, charging Daugherty with 1 count of Possession of Child Pornography (Class 2 Felony).  An arrest warrant was issued for Daugherty and bond was set at $250,000 (10% to apply).  Daugherty was located by agents from ISP DCI Zone 4, the Taylorville Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation at his residence.  Daugherty was placed under arrest and transported to the Christian County Jail.

Anonymous tips of child pornography can also be reported through the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's (NCMEC) cyber tip line at www.cybertipline.com.
###



WHAT THOSE FUCKING RETARDS DIDN'T MENTION IN THEIR LITTLE PRESS RELEASE WAS IT WAS FOUND WITH A GENERAL WARRANT, THAT WAS LATER QUASHED SOMETHING THAT VIOLATED THE US CONSITITUTION. ILLINOIS LIKE THAT, VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION. ALL THOSE FUCKERS NEED TO BE REMOVED. ANYONE THAT VIOLATES SOMEONE RIGHTS NEEDS TO BE REMOVE....PROBLEM IS ALL THE PEOPLE IN THIS STATE ARE ALL FUCKING RETARDED AND SEEM TO KEEP VOTING THE FUCKERS IN.