Michigan
Michigan Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 20, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 20, 2026. · 14 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Michigan has no dedicated sexting law, so prosecutors charge minors who send or receive explicit images under the child sexually abusive material statute, MCL 750.145c. Even consensual teen-to-teen sexting can result in felony charges under that law.
Overview of Michigan Sexting Laws
Michigan does not have a standalone sexting statute. Instead, prosecutors charge sexting offenses under the state's existing child sexually abusive material (CSAM) laws when the images involve anyone under 18. This means that teenagers who send, receive, or share nude images can face the same felony charges as adults convicted of child exploitation offenses.
For adults exchanging consensual images with other adults, sexting is generally legal. However, Michigan's revenge porn statute (MCL 750.145e) criminalizes the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. A separate law enacted in 2025 also prohibits AI-generated deepfake pornography.
This page covers the statutes that apply to sexting in Michigan, the penalties for each offense, available defenses, diversion programs, and long-term consequences of a conviction.
Michigan Teen Sexting and CSAM Laws
Michigan does not have a "Romeo and Juliet" exception for sexting, and Michigan has no close-in-age exception for sexual penetration either: MCL 750.520d (criminal sexual conduct in the third degree) sets a strict age floor for a victim who is 13 to 15 years old, with no exception based on the actor's age or the age gap between the parties. The fourth-degree offense for sexual contact is different: under MCL 750.520e(1)(a), it applies to a person 13 to 15 years old only where the actor is 5 or more years older.
This means that:
- A 17-year-old who takes and sends a nude selfie to a partner is technically "producing" and "distributing" child sexually abusive material.
- The partner who receives and keeps the image on a phone commits "possession" of child sexually abusive material.
- Anyone who forwards that image to a third party commits "dissemination" of child sexually abusive material.
Prosecutors often exercise discretion in teen sexting cases. Many opt for juvenile court proceedings or diversion programs rather than pursuing maximum felony charges. But the law on the books allows for severe penalties regardless of whether both parties consented.
Child Sexually Abusive Material: MCL 750.145c
The primary statute used to prosecute sexting involving minors is MCL 750.145c. This law prohibits the production, distribution, and possession of child sexually abusive material.
What Qualifies as "Sexually Abusive Material"
Under Michigan law, "child sexually abusive material" includes any visual depiction (photograph, video, or digital image) of a person under 18 engaged in "child sexually abusive activity." That activity includes:
- Sexual intercourse, actual or simulated
- Masturbation
- Passive sexual involvement
- Lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area
A nude selfie, even one that does not depict a specific sexual act, typically falls under "lewd exhibition." This broad definition is what makes teen sexting legally dangerous in Michigan.
Production and Inducement: MCL 750.145c(2)
This subsection makes it a felony to persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or cause a child to engage in child sexually abusive activity for the purpose of producing material. In a sexting context, this can apply to a teenager who asks another teen for a nude photo.
Distribution and Dissemination: MCL 750.145c(3)
Sending a sexually explicit image of a minor to another person, or posting it online, violates this subsection. This applies whether the sender created the image or received it from someone else.
Possession: MCL 750.145c(4)
Knowingly possessing any child sexually abusive material is a felony. This applies even if the recipient never asked for the photo but chose to keep it on a device rather than deleting it.
Penalties for Sexting Charges in Michigan
Because Michigan prosecutes sexting under its CSAM laws, the penalties are felony-level offenses with significant prison time.
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Possession | MCL 750.145c(4) | Felony | 4 years | $10,000 |
| Distribution | MCL 750.145c(3) | Felony | 7 years | $50,000 |
| Production / Inducement | MCL 750.145c(2) | Felony | 20 years | $100,000 |
Enhanced Penalties
Michigan law provides for harsher sentences in certain circumstances. Under MCL 750.145c, if the offense involves a prepubescent child, sadomasochistic abuse, bestiality, or a video or more than 100 images, the penalties increase:
- Production: Up to 25 years in prison and a fine of up to $125,000.
- Distribution: Up to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $75,000.
Additional Charges: Use of a Computer (MCL 750.145d)
If the offense involves the use of a computer, smartphone, or the internet, prosecutors can bring additional charges under MCL 750.145d. A court may order that a sentence imposed under this section be served consecutively to the sentence for the underlying offense, which increases the total time served.
Juvenile Court vs. Adult Court
How a teen sexting case is handled depends largely on the minor's age and the prosecutor's discretion.
Juvenile Court Proceedings
Minors under 18 are generally handled in juvenile court. Michigan's Raise the Age law, effective October 1, 2021, gives the family division exclusive original jurisdiction over a juvenile "under 18 years of age" who is accused of an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult (MCL 712A.2). In juvenile court, the minor receives an "adjudication" rather than a criminal conviction. A juvenile court judge has broader discretion in sentencing (called a "disposition") and may order:
- Counseling or educational programming
- Probation with a juvenile officer
- Community service
- Restrictions on phone or internet use
A juvenile adjudication is not automatically sealed when the minor turns 18. Clearing the record requires filing an application to set aside the adjudication under MCL 712A.18e, which cannot be filed until one year after the court's jurisdiction ends, requires submitting fingerprints to the Michigan State Police, and gives the prosecuting attorney and the attorney general an opportunity to contest it. The statute treats a set-aside as a privilege that is conditional rather than a right, and limits a person to one felony-level adjudication and two misdemeanor-level adjudications.
Transfer to Adult Court
Michigan law allows a judge to waive jurisdiction and send a juvenile who is 14 years of age or older to adult court for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult. Because the family division's jurisdiction now runs to age 18, that waiver route covers juveniles aged 14 through 17. If a juvenile sexting case is transferred to adult court, the minor faces adult penalties, including prison time and sex offender registration.
A 17-year-old is no longer charged as an adult automatically. Before October 1, 2021, Michigan treated 17-year-olds as adults, but the Raise the Age law moved them into the family division alongside younger juveniles, so a 17-year-old now reaches adult court only through waiver or designation.
Revenge Porn Laws: MCL 750.145e and MCL 750.145f
Michigan criminalizes the non-consensual sharing of intimate images under MCL 750.145e. This statute applies primarily to images of adults (18 and older), since images of minors trigger the more severe CSAM charges discussed above.
A person violates this law by intentionally disseminating sexually explicit visual material when all of the following conditions are met:
- The depicted person is at least 18 years old.
- The depicted person is identifiable from the material or accompanying information.
- The material was obtained under circumstances where the depicted person had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- The depicted person did not consent to the dissemination.
- The disseminator acted with the intent to threaten, coerce, or intimidate.
Revenge Porn Penalties
MCL 750.145e sets out the prohibition itself. The penalties below are set separately by MCL 750.145f.
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Jail | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| First offense | Misdemeanor | 93 days | $500 |
| Second or subsequent offense | Misdemeanor | 1 year | $1,000 |
If the images depict a minor, prosecutors will typically bypass this statute and file felony charges under MCL 750.145c instead.
Federal Law: The TAKE IT DOWN Act
Federal law also reaches this conduct, alongside Michigan's revenge porn and deepfake statutes. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) added 47 U.S.C. § 223(h), making it a federal crime to publish an intimate image of an identifiable person without consent, whether the image is authentic or an AI-generated digital forgery. Publishing an authentic image carries up to 2 years in prison, or 3 years if the victim is a minor. Threatening to publish a digital forgery carries a lower penalty, up to 18 months, or 30 months if the victim is a minor, but threatening to publish an authentic image is punished the same as actually publishing it. Covered platforms must also remove a reported image within 48 hours of a valid request, a duty that became enforceable in 2026. Separately, 15 U.S.C. § 6851 (enacted 2022) allows victims to sue for civil damages of at least $150,000 in liquidated damages or actual damages plus attorney fees; whether it reaches AI-generated forgeries remains legally unsettled.
AI Deepfake Pornography: Protection from Intimate Deep Fakes Act (2025)
On August 26, 2025, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed House Bills 4047 and 4048 into law, creating the Protection from Intimate Deep Fakes Act. This law took effect immediately upon signing.
Under this law, it is illegal to create or distribute an AI-generated deepfake that:
- Shows a person's intimate parts or depicts a sexual act
- Makes the person identifiable by face, likeness, or other personal information
- Was created or shared without the depicted person's consent
Deepfake Penalties
- First offense: Misdemeanor, up to 1 year in jail and/or $3,000 fine.
- Aggravated offense: Felony, up to 3 years in prison and/or $5,000 fine. Aggravating factors include intent to profit, posting online, causing financial loss to the victim, or using the material to harass or extort.
Victims can also pursue civil lawsuits for economic damages, emotional distress, and injunctive relief.
Defenses to Sexting Charges
Given the severity of Michigan's CSAM laws, defense strategies often focus on reducing the charges or qualifying for a diversion program.
Common Legal Defenses
- Lack of knowledge: The defendant did not know they possessed the material. For example, an image that was auto-downloaded to a device without the user ever viewing it.
- Unsolicited receipt and prompt deletion: The defendant received an image they did not request and deleted it immediately or reported it to law enforcement.
- Identity and device ownership: The defendant was not the person who sent the message or did not have exclusive control of the device.
- Age of the depicted person: If the prosecution cannot prove the person in the image was under 18, the CSAM charges may not apply.
Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA)
For defendants whose offense was committed on or after their 18th birthday but before their 26th birthday, Michigan offers a critical diversion program under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (MCL 762.11). (An earlier version of the law covered ages 17 to 24; current law, in effect since October 1, 2021, covers 18 to 26.)
How HYTA works:
- The defendant pleads guilty to the offense.
- The judge assigns "youthful trainee" status without entering a formal conviction.
- The defendant serves a period of probation, which may include counseling, community service, and compliance with court-ordered conditions.
- If probation is completed successfully, the charges are dismissed and no criminal conviction appears on the public record.
HYTA eligibility requirements:
- The offense must have been committed on or after the defendant's 18th birthday but before their 26th birthday.
- The defendant must not have a prior conviction or adjudication for a listed offense requiring sex offender registration (MCL 762.11(4)(a)).
- Because a charge under MCL 750.145c is itself a listed offense under the Sex Offenders Registration Act, MCL 762.11(4)(b) bars youthful trainee status unless the defendant proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is not likely to engage in further listed offenses. In a sexting case this is usually the provision that decides whether HYTA is available.
- Assignment is discretionary with the court, not automatic. The prosecuting attorney's consent is required only where the offense was committed on or after the defendant's 21st birthday, so a defendant who was 18, 19, or 20 at the time of the offense does not need the prosecutor to agree.
In teen sexting cases, HYTA can be the difference between a clean record and a lifetime felony conviction with sex offender registration.
Long-Term Consequences of a Conviction
A conviction under Michigan's CSAM laws carries consequences that extend well beyond prison time and fines.
Sex Offender Registration (SORA)
Convictions under MCL 750.145c generally require registration on the Michigan Sex Offender Registry. Registration periods depend on the offense tier:
- Tier I: 15 years of registration
- Tier II: 25 years of registration
- Tier III: Lifetime registration
Important note on SORA reform: In March 2025, a federal district court ruled significant portions of Michigan's Sex Offender Registration Act unconstitutional in the Does v. Whitmer (Does III) case. The court found that retroactive registration changes, vague reporting requirements, and lack of due process for out-of-state registrants violated constitutional rights. The state appealed, and on June 20, 2025 the Sixth Circuit granted the state's motion to stay the district court's judgment and ordered the case argued on an expedited basis (Nos. 25-1413 and 25-1414). Argument was held on July 21, 2026 and the appeal is still pending. Because the judgment is stayed, the district court's ruling is not in effect while the appeal is decided, so anyone with a registration obligation should assume current SORA requirements still apply and confirm them with counsel or the registering agency.
Other Consequences
- Education: Expulsion from school, loss of scholarships, and denial of college admission.
- Employment: Significant difficulty finding jobs, particularly in healthcare, education, childcare, and government.
- Housing: Many landlords refuse to rent to registered sex offenders.
- Professional licensing: Many professional licenses may be denied or revoked.
What to Do If Investigated or Charged
If you or your child faces an investigation or charges related to sexting in Michigan:
- Do not speak to police without an attorney. You have the right to remain silent. Politely state that you want a lawyer before answering any questions.
- Do not destroy evidence. Deleting images after an investigation has begun can result in additional charges for evidence tampering.
- Contact a criminal defense attorney immediately. An experienced attorney can evaluate HYTA eligibility, negotiate with prosecutors, and protect your rights throughout the process.
- Contact the State Bar of Michigan Lawyer Referral Service if you need help finding an attorney.
More Michigan Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Romeo and Juliet law for sexting in Michigan?
No. Michigan has no close-in-age provision for sexual penetration either: MCL 750.520d sets a strict age floor for a victim who is 13 to 15 years old, with no exception based on the actor's age or the age gap between the parties. (The fourth-degree sexual contact offense in MCL 750.520e applies to a person 13 to 15 years old only where the actor is 5 or more years older.) A teenager who sends a nude selfie to a same-age partner can technically be charged with producing and distributing child sexually abusive material, regardless of the age gap between the parties.
What happens if I am 18 and my partner is 17?
This is legally dangerous. As an adult, possessing a nude photo of a 17-year-old is a felony under MCL 750.145c(4), carrying up to 4 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The fact that the image was sent consensually by your partner is not a legal defense to the charge.
Can a minor be charged as an adult for sexting in Michigan?
Yes, but not automatically. Since Michigan's Raise the Age law took effect on October 1, 2021, every juvenile under 18 begins in the family division, including 17-year-olds. A juvenile who is 14 or older, which now means 14 through 17, can be moved to adult court if the judge waives jurisdiction over an act that would be a felony, including a CSAM charge. Juvenile dispositions are generally less severe, although a juvenile record is not automatically sealed at 18, while a transfer to adult court carries full adult penalties including potential prison time and sex offender registration.
Does deleting a nude photo protect me from criminal charges?
Not necessarily. Deleting a photo removes the evidence from your device, but it does not undo the crime of possession if it already occurred. Promptly deleting an unsolicited image is your best practical defense. However, once an investigation has begun, deleting images can result in additional charges for tampering with evidence. Forensic experts can often recover deleted files from electronic devices.
Does Michigan have laws against AI-generated or deepfake pornography?
Yes. Governor Whitmer signed the Protection from Intimate Deep Fakes Act into law on August 26, 2025. Creating or distributing AI-generated images that depict a real, identifiable person in a sexual context without their consent is a misdemeanor for a first offense (up to 1 year in jail, $3,000 fine) or a felony with aggravating factors (up to 3 years in prison, $5,000 fine). If the deepfake depicts a minor, prosecutors may also file charges under the CSAM statute, which carries much harsher penalties.
Updates
Corrected the statement that Michigan has no close-in-age provision for sexual contact: the fourth-degree offense for sexual contact with a 13- to 15-year-old (MCL 750.520e(1)(a)) applies only where the actor is 5 or more years older. The third-degree penetration offense has no age-gap exception.
Corrected the juvenile-court sections for Michigan's Raise the Age law, effective October 1, 2021, so 17-year-olds are no longer described as automatic adult defendants and the waiver band reads 14 through 17; corrected the HYTA eligibility rules, attributed the revenge-porn penalties to MCL 750.145f, replaced the claim that juvenile records seal automatically at 18, and noted that the Sixth Circuit stayed the Does III SORA judgment on June 20, 2025.
Added a new section explaining that nonconsensual intimate images and AI deepfakes are also covered by the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, alongside Michigan's own revenge porn and deepfake statutes, plus the civil remedy under 15 U.S.C. 6851.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the MCL 750.145c enhanced distribution penalty (was understated as 10 years/$50,000; the statute sets 15 years/$75,000), fixed 'concurrent' to 'consecutive' for MCL 750.145d sentencing, removed the claim that MCL 750.520d provides a close-in-age defense (its text has none), and corrected the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act eligibility window from 17-26 to the current 18-26.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 750.145cDefinitions; child sexually abusive activity or material; penalties; possession of child sexually abusive material; expert testimony; defenses; acts of commercial film or photographic print processor; report to law enforcement agency by computer technician; reasonable availability of evidence to defendant; applicability and uniformity of section; enactment or enforcement of ordinance, rule, or regulation prohibitedIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) As used in this section: (a) "Access" means to intentionally cause to be viewed by or transmitted to a person. (b) "Appears to include a child" means that the depiction appears to include, or conveys the impression that it includes, a person who is less than 18 years of age, and the depiction meets either of the following conditions: (i) It was created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18. (ii) It was not created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18, but all of the following apply to that depiction: (A) The average individual, applying contemporary community standards, would find the depiction, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. (B) The reasonable person would find the depiction, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (C) The depiction depicts or describes a listed sexual act in a patently offensive way. (c) "Child" means a person who is less than 18 years of age, subject to the affirmative defense created in subsection (7) regarding persons emancipated by operation of law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 195 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):People v. Flick (2010) held that "possesses" in MCL 750.145c(4) covers constructive as well as actual possession, so intentionally accessing and displaying images on screen sufficed. People v. Roberts (2011) rejected vagueness and overbreadth challenges, noting it reaches recording otherwise lawful sexual activity by 16- and 17-year-olds.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Peterson (Michigan Supreme Court 1995, 450 Mich. 349)“…(2). [2] MCL 750.520b(1)(a); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(a). [3] MCL 750.145c(2); MSA 28.342a(2). [4] MCL 769.12;…”
- People v. Flick; People v. Lazarus (Michigan Supreme Court 2010, 487 Mich. 1)✓Both defendants paid by credit card to reach child pornography sites and viewed images that survived only in temporary Internet files; the Michigan Supreme Court held that "possesses" in MCL 750.145c(4) covers constructive possession, so the bindovers for trial stood.
- People v. Wilkens (Michigan Court of Appeals 2005, 267 Mich. App. 728)✓Wilkens videotaped himself, a 14-year-old boy and a 16-year-old girl in sexual acts and was convicted under MCL 750.145c(2) of producing child sexually abusive material; the appeals court affirmed, treating consent as no defense and rejecting his double jeopardy claim.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Age of Consent Laws: Statutes, Penalties and Reporting, Michigan Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Michigan Pornography Laws (2026): Two Age-Verification Bills, Neither Enacted
§ 750.145eDissemination of sexually explicit visual material of another person; prohibition; exceptions; other violations of law; violation; penalty; definitionsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) A person shall not intentionally and with the intent to threaten, coerce, or intimidate disseminate any sexually explicit visual material of another person if all of the following conditions apply: (a) The other person is not less than 18 years of age. (b) The other person is identifiable from the sexually explicit visual material itself or information displayed in connection with the sexually explicit visual material. This subdivision does not apply if the identifying information is supplied by a person other than the disseminator. (c) The person obtains the sexually explicit visual material of the other person under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the sexually explicit visual material was to remain private. (d) The person knows or reasonably should know that the other person did not consent to the dissemination of the sexually explicit visual material.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Tombs (Michigan Court of Appeals 2004, 260 Mich. App. 201)“…hable as a misdemeanor, but that a violation of the current MCL 750.145e(4) is punishable as a felony.…”
- People of Michigan v. John Dereck Mahl (Michigan Court of Appeals 2025)“…ree counts of intentional dissemination of sexual material, MCL 750.145e. After sentencing,…”
- American Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Williams (District Court, E.D. Michigan 2024)“…because Bellestri accuses Williams of an act that violates MCL 750.145e – Dissemination of sexually explicitly…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: MCL 750.539j Penalties and Protections (2026), Revenge Porn Laws by State: All 50 States and DC (2026)
§ 750.520dCriminal sexual conduct in the third degree; felonyIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree if the person engages in sexual penetration with another person and if any of the following circumstances exist: (a) That other person is at least 13 years of age and under 16 years of age. (b) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the sexual penetration. Force or coercion includes but is not limited to any of the circumstances listed in section 520b(1)(f)(i) to (v). (c) The actor knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally incapable, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless. (d) That other person is related to the actor by blood or affinity to the third degree and the sexual penetration occurs under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by this chapter. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this subdivision that the other person was in a position of authority over the defendant and used this authority to coerce the defendant to violate this subdivision. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This subdivision does not apply if both persons are lawfully married to each other at the time of the alleged violation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 694 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Armstrong (Michigan Supreme Court 2011, 490 Mich. 281)“…ant of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520d(1)(a) (victim at least 13 but less than…”
- People v. Robideau (Michigan Supreme Court 1984, 419 Mich. 458)“…A 28.788(2)(lXc) is penetration, which is not a crime under MCL 750.520d; MSA 28.788(4). This analysis is cons…”
- People v. Gaines (Michigan Court of Appeals 2014, 306 Mich. App. 289)“…293 degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-III) involving AW, MCL 750.520d(1)(a) (sexual intercourse with a victim…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Age of Consent Laws by State: Statutes, Protections and Reporting, Michigan Expungement Laws: How Conviction Set-Aside Works Under MCL 780.621
§ 750.145dUse of internet or computer system; prohibited conduct; violation; penalty; jurisdiction; order to reimburse state or local governmental unit; definitionsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) A person shall not use the internet or a computer, computer program, computer network, or computer system to communicate with any person for the purpose of doing any of the following: (a) Committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or soliciting another person to commit conduct proscribed under section 145a, 145c, 157c, 349, 350, 520b, 520c, 520d, 520e, or 520g, or section 5 of 1978 PA 33, MCL 722.675, in which the victim or intended victim is a minor or is believed by that person to be a minor. (b) Committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or soliciting another person to commit conduct proscribed under section 411h or 411i. (c) Committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or soliciting another person to commit conduct proscribed under chapter XXXIII or section 327, 327a, 328, or 411a(2). (2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) If the underlying crime is a misdemeanor or a felony with a maximum term of imprisonment of less than 1 year, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 30 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Kowalski (Michigan Supreme Court 2011, 489 Mich. 488)“…nd using a computer or the Internet to accomplish the same, MCL 750.145d, should be overturned on the basis of…”
- People v. Tombs (Michigan Supreme Court 2005, 472 Mich. 446)“…ate with people for the purpose of possessing the material, MCL 750.145d. 2 In a published opinion, the Court o…”
- People v. Golba (Michigan Court of Appeals 2007, 273 Mich. App. 603)“…Id. at 638-639 . The defendant was charged with violating MCL 750.145d, which at the time of the alleged offen…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 762.11Criminal offense by individual between ages 17 and 24 before October 1, 2021 and 18 and 26 beginning October 1, 2021; assignment to status of youthful trainee; consent of prosecuting attorney; exceptions; employment or school attendance; electronic monitoring; definitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Until October 1, 2021 and except as provided in subsections (3) and (4), if an individual pleads guilty to a criminal offense, committed on or after the individual's seventeenth birthday but before his or her twenty-fourth birthday, the court of record having jurisdiction of the criminal offense may, without entering a judgment of conviction and with the consent of that individual, consider and assign that individual to the status of youthful trainee. If the offense was committed on or after the individual's twenty-first birthday but before his or her twenty- fourth birthday, the individual must not be assigned to youthful trainee status without the consent of the prosecuting attorney. (2) Beginning October 1, 2021, except as provided in subsections (3) and (4), if an individual pleads guilty to a criminal offense, committed on or after the individual's eighteenth birthday but before his or her twenty-sixth birthday, the court of record having jurisdiction of the criminal offense may, without entering a judgment of conviction and with the consent of that individual, consider and assign that individual to the status of youthful trainee.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cross-referenced in the statute itself: § 750.520d, § 750.520e
Cited in 129 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Giovannini (Michigan Court of Appeals 2006, 271 Mich. App. 409)“…sentencing defendant under the Youthful Trainee Act (YTA), MCL 762.11 et seq., on the basis that…”
- People v. Williams (Michigan Court of Appeals 2012, 298 Mich. App. 121)“…a term he had served under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, MCL 762.11 et seq. Twenty-five, points should be…”
- People v. DiPiazza (Michigan Court of Appeals 2009, 286 Mich. App. 137)“…s adjudicated under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA), MCL 762.11 et seq., for attempted thi…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 28.722DefinitionsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
As used in this act: (a) "Convicted" means 1 of the following: (i) Having a judgment of conviction or a probation order entered in any court having jurisdiction over criminal offenses, including, but not limited to, a tribal court or a military court. Convicted does not include a conviction that was subsequently set aside under 1965 PA 213, MCL 780.621 to 780.624, or otherwise expunged. (ii) Except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph, being assigned to youthful trainee status under sections 11 to 15 of chapter II of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 762.11 to 762.15, before October 1, 2004. An individual who is assigned to and successfully completes a term of supervision under sections 11 to 15 of chapter II of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 762.11 to 762.15, is not convicted for purposes of this act. This subparagraph does not apply if a petition was granted under section 8c at any time allowing the individual to discontinue registration under this act, including a reduced registration period that extends to or past July 1, 2011, regardless of the tier designation that would apply on and after that date.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cross-referenced in the statute itself: § 750.145d, § 750.520d, § 750.520e, § 750.539j
Cited in 210 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Watkins; People v. Pullen (Michigan Supreme Court 2012, 491 Mich. 450)“…ion 2 of the sex offenders registration act, 1994 PA 295 , MCL 28.722. (b) “Minor” means an individual less…”
- People v. Bosca (Michigan Court of Appeals 2015, 310 Mich. App. 1)“…amended version of SORA,11 a “listed offense” is defined by MCL 28.722(k) as comprising a “tier I, tier II, or…”
- People v. Mann (Michigan Court of Appeals 2010, 288 Mich. App. 114)“…ion 2 of the sex offenders registration act, 1994 PA 295 , MCL 28.722.” MCL 28.722(e)(x) states that a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Background Check Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 750.145fViolation of MCL 750.145e; penaltyIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A person who violates section 145e is guilty of a crime punishable as follows: (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both. (b) For a second or subsequent violation of section 145e, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 750.520eCriminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree; misdemeanorIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree if the person engages in sexual contact with another person and if any of the following circumstances exist: (a) That other person is at least 13 years of age but less than 16 years of age, and the actor is 5 or more years older than that other person. (b) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the sexual contact. Force or coercion includes, but is not limited to, any of the following circumstances: (i) When the actor overcomes the victim through the actual application of physical force or physical violence. (ii) When the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use force or violence on the victim, and the victim believes that the actor has the present ability to execute that threat. (iii) When the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim, or any other person, and the victim believes that the actor has the ability to execute that threat. As used in this subparagraph, "to retaliate" includes threats of physical punishment, kidnapping, or extortion.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 313 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Brantley (Michigan Court of Appeals 2012, 296 Mich. App. 546)“…a violation of this section or [MCL 750.520c, MCL 750.520d, MCL 750.520e, or MCL 750.520g] committed against an…”
- People v. Drohan (Michigan Supreme Court 2006, 475 Mich. 140)“…and one count of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520e(1)(b). Defendant also pleaded guilty to…”
- People of Michigan v. Lovell Charles Sharpe (Michigan Supreme Court 2018, 502 Mich. 313)“…C, MCL 750.520d, and one count of fourth-degree CSC, MCL 750.520e, based on allegations that he en…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539jSurveillance of or distribution, dissemination, or transmission of recording, photograph, or visual image of individual having reasonable expectation of privacy; prohibited conduct; violation as felony; penalty; exceptions; "surveil" definedIn forcecited in 20 of our articles
(1) A person shall not do any of the following: (a) Surveil another individual who is clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (b) Photograph, or otherwise capture or record, the visual image of the undergarments worn by another individual, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (c) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section. (2) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts have applied MCL 750.539j to hidden cameras. In People of Michigan v. Jeffrey Thomas Mazur (2015) the Court of Appeals held the statute does not require that a defendant view the recorded material, and that its residential security-monitoring exception does not cover a camera used for a lewd or lascivious purpose.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re L-S Morehead Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2026)“…e, was arrested for felony surveilling an unclothed person, MCL 750.539j(1)(a). The trial court authori…”
- In Re K N Klemkow Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2024)“…520g(2), and two counts of surveilling an unclothed person, MCL 750.539j. Respondent was arraigned on the crimin…”
- People of Michigan v. Cora Ladane Lymon (Michigan Supreme Court 2024)“…ither naked or clad in undergarments, MCL 28.722(r)(vi) and MCL 750.539j. These offenses all involve a sexual c…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), Michigan Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Michigan Recording Laws (2026): Consent Rules and Participant Exception
§ 780.621Application for order setting aside conviction; felony or misdemeanor conviction; setting aside of certain convictions prohibited; victim of human trafficking violation; definitionsIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a person who is convicted of 1 or more criminal offenses may file an application with the convicting court for the entry of an order setting aside 1 or more convictions as follows: (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), a person convicted of 1 or more criminal offenses, but not more than a total of 3 felony offenses, in this state, may apply to have all of the applicant's convictions from this state set aside. (b) An applicant may not have more than a total of 2 convictions for an assaultive crime set aside under this act during the applicant's lifetime. (c) An applicant may not have more than 1 felony conviction for the same offense set aside under this section if the offense is punishable by more than 10 years imprisonment. (d) A person who is convicted of a violation or an attempted violation of section 520e of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520e, before January 12, 2015 may petition the convicting court to set aside the conviction if the individual has not been convicted of another offense other than not more than 2 minor offenses.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cross-referenced in the statute itself: § 750.520e
Cited in 57 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):People v. Droog (2009) held the Vehicle Code bar on expunging reportable violations does not limit a court's authority to set aside a conviction under MCL 780.621. People v. Van Heck (2002) applied 780.621 eligibility to hold that a pardoned out-of-state conviction does not count against the applicant.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Droog (Michigan Court of Appeals 2009, 282 Mich. App. 68)✓A woman convicted of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud was refused a set aside because the Vehicle Code bars expunging violations reportable to the Secretary of State; the court held that bar does not limit MCL 780.621 and remanded for an order setting it aside.
- People v. Link (Michigan Court of Appeals 1997, 225 Mich. App. 211)✓A man convicted in 1989 of third degree criminal sexual conduct applied in 1994 to set that conviction aside; the court held the 1997 amendment excluding such convictions is remedial and applies retroactively, since setting aside a conviction is a privilege and not a right.
- People v. Van Heck (Michigan Court of Appeals 2002, 252 Mich. App. 207)✓A man with five absolutely pardoned Connecticut misdemeanors was told his 1979 Michigan felonious assault conviction could not be set aside because he had more than one offense; the court held the pardon left him innocent as a matter of law, so MCL 780.621(1) still covered him.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Expungement Laws by State: How to Clear Your Record (2026), DUI Expungement by State: Where You Can Clear Your Record
United States Code Title 47
§ 223Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communicationsIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
Whoever— in interstate or foreign communications— by means of a telecommunications device knowingly— makes, creates, or solicits, and initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person; by means of a telecommunications device knowingly— makes, creates, or solicits, and initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication; makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass any specific person; makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 208 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Sable Communications v. FCC (1989) upheld the 47 U.S.C. 223(b) ban on obscene commercial phone messages but struck its indecency ban as not narrowly tailored. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) held the CDA's 223(a) indecency and 223(d) display provisions violate the First Amendment, severing only the words "or indecent".
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (Supreme Court of the United States 1997, 521 U.S. 844)✓Online speakers challenged the Communications Decency Act's bans on indecent transmissions to minors and patently offensive displays. The Court held 47 U.S.C. 223(a) and 223(d) facially violate the First Amendment, severing only the words "or indecent" from section 223(a).
- United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 2000, 529 U.S. 803)“…suant to § 561 of the Act, 110 Stat. 142 , note following 47 U. S. C. § 223 (1994 ed., Supp. III). Playboy sought…”
- Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (Supreme Court of the United States 1978, 438 U.S. 726)“…ous, filthy, or indecent" telephone calls, 82 Stat. 112 , 47 U. S. C. § 223 , the FCC itself indicated that it thou…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State (2026), Connecticut Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Louisiana Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
United States Code Title 15
§ 6851Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate imagesIn forcecited in 27 of our articles
In this section: The term “commercial pornographic content” means any material that is subject to the record keeping requirements under section 2257 of title 18. The term “consent” means an affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization made by the individual free from force, fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion. The term “depicted individual” means an individual whose body appears in whole or in part in an intimate visual depiction and who is identifiable by virtue of the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature, or from information displayed in connection with the visual depiction. The term “disclose” means to transfer, publish, distribute, or make accessible.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 49 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):District courts have begun applying the 15 U.S.C. 6851 private action for nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images. Goodnight v. Hammons (2025) read its unwelcome conduct and public concern exceptions narrowly and let the claim proceed. Parkes v. Walker II (2025) dismissed a claim that did not plead interstate commerce.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- TILLE v. KAPLAN (District Court, D. New Jersey 2025)“…iolence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2022 (“VAWA”), 15 U.S.C. § 6851. Compl., D.E. 1, at 7-8. The allegati…”
- Turner v. Echols (District Court, W.D. Virginia 2025)✓A pretrial detainee sued an FBI agent under 15 U.S.C. 6851 over intimate images found in a warrantless phone search; the court dismissed, finding he never alleged he was depicted, never plausibly alleged disclosure, and that the law enforcement exception applied.
- Goodnight v. Hammons (District Court, W.D. Oklahoma 2025)✓A wife allegedly accessed her husband's devices, took his girlfriend's nude photos and sent them to a coworker; the court let the 15 U.S.C. 6851 claim proceed, rejecting the statute's unwelcome-conduct and public-concern exceptions as covering discovered infidelity.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: How to File a DMCA Takedown on Xvideos (2026 Guide), Mississippi Data Privacy Laws: Breach Notification & Consumer Rights (2026), Idaho Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
Explore the law
The laws cited above reference these related sections in their own text:
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 28.721 — Short title view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 722.4 — Emancipation by operation of law or according to petition filed by minor with family division of circuit court view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.448 — Soliciting, accosting, or inviting to commit prostitution or immoral act; crime view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520b — Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree; circumstances; felony; consecutive terms view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520c — Criminal sexual conduct in the second degree; felony view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520g — Assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct; felony view in our statute record · read at the official source
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Sources and References
- MCL 750.145c - Child Sexually Abusive Activity or Material(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.145e - Dissemination of Sexually Explicit Visual Material(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.145d - Use of Internet or Computer to Commit Crime(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 762.11 - Holmes Youthful Trainee Act(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.520d - Criminal Sexual Conduct Third Degree(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Governor Whitmer Signs Bills to Protect Michiganders from Sexual Exploitation (2025)(michigan.gov).gov
- Michigan Sex Offender Registry(michigan.gov).gov
- State Bar of Michigan Lawyer Referral Service(lrs.michbar.org)
- Michigan Courts - HYTA Benchbook(courts.michigan.gov).gov
- ACLU Michigan - Does III SORA Challenge(aclumich.org)
- Public Law 119-12 - TAKE IT DOWN Act (Congress.gov)(congress.gov).gov
- 47 U.S.C. § 223 - Obscene or harassing telephone calls (includes TAKE IT DOWN Act provisions) (Cornell LII)(law.cornell.edu)
- MCL 750.145f - Penalties for Dissemination of Sexually Explicit Visual Material(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 712A.2 - Family Division Jurisdiction Over Juveniles Under 18 (Raise the Age)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 712A.4 - Waiver of Jurisdiction to Adult Court (Juvenile 14 or Older)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 712A.18e - Setting Aside Juvenile Adjudications(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 28.722 - Sex Offenders Registration Act Definitions (Listed Offenses and Tiers)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Doe v. Whitmer, Nos. 25-1413 / 25-1414 (6th Cir.) - docket showing June 20, 2025 stay of the district court judgment(courtlistener.com)