Start with the statute’s specialized definitions

Section 609.352 uses definitions that are narrower and more technical than everyday conversation. For the principal solicitation, electronic, and grooming subdivisions, a “child” is a person age 15 or younger. The statute also applies when the recipient is actually an adult but the accused reasonably believes the person is a child.

That age definition is expanded by two provisions enacted in 2026. A position-of-authority case can involve a victim under age 18 when the accused is more than 36 months older and occupies the required current or recent authority role. A school case can involve a victim of any age when the accused is employed or contracted to provide services for the elementary, middle, or secondary school in which the victim is enrolled.

“Sexual conduct” does not include every mention of sex. The definition covers sexual contact of an individual’s primary genital area, sexual penetration as defined in section 609.341, or sexual performance as defined in section 617.246. The State must connect the alleged solicitation, communication, distribution, or grooming to one of those statutory categories.

“Solicit” means commanding, entreating, or attempting to persuade a specific person, whether in person, by telephone, by letter, or through computerized or other electronic means. A completed meeting or sexual act is unnecessary. The question is whether the accused made the kind of directed request or attempted persuasion the definition describes.

The word “specific” matters. A public statement posted to no identified recipient may present a different issue from a direct message sent to a particular account. Group messages, forwarded content, public comments, and algorithmic distribution require analysis of whom the communication targeted and what the accused intended.

For the new grooming subdivision, a “pattern” means two or more instances of conduct. Two contacts do not automatically prove grooming. The State must also prove the deliberate, methodical, false-trust, manipulation, and future-sexual-conduct requirements written into subdivision 2c.

The date matters because Minnesota’s 2026 amendments are not retroactive. 2026 Minnesota Laws chapter 108, sections 5–9, made the new grooming, authority, and school provisions effective August 1, 2026, for crimes committed on or after that date. Earlier alleged conduct must be evaluated under the statute then in force.

Subdivision 2: soliciting a child to engage in sexual conduct

Subdivision 2 applies to a person age 18 or older who solicits a child, or someone the person reasonably believes is a child, to engage in sexual conduct with intent to engage in sexual conduct. The prosecution must prove the accused’s age, the solicitation, the recipient’s actual age or the accused’s reasonable belief, the statutorily defined sexual conduct, and the required intent.

A solicitation can be completed through an attempt to persuade. The child need not agree. No meeting is required. No travel is required. No physical contact is required. An adult can be charged from messages alone if the messages and circumstances prove the statutory request and intent.

At the same time, not every sexual remark is a solicitation. A statement must command, entreat, or attempt to persuade a specific person to engage in defined sexual conduct. Crude humor, repetition of another person’s words, discussion of past events, an accusation, education, or an abstract fantasy may be offensive or unwise without satisfying that definition.

The actor must intend to engage in sexual conduct. Context can determine whether words express actual intent, role-play, sarcasm, fiction, anger, curiosity, or an effort to expose another person. The State may rely on repeated requests, proposed times or places, travel plans, photographs, purchases, location data, or admissions to prove intent. The defense should test each inference against the full record.

The phrase “someone the person reasonably believes is a child” supports undercover prosecutions. The supposed child need not exist. The focus becomes what age the undercover persona represented, what the accused actually understood, and whether that belief was reasonable. Transcripts should be reviewed for inconsistencies, adult cues, ambiguous age references, and selective editing.

Where an actual child is involved, section 609.352, subdivision 3, states that mistake as to age is not a defense. Minnesota caselaw recognizes a narrow constitutional exception for certain Internet-only cases, discussed below. That exception should not be overstated or assumed to apply outside its facts.

Solicitation may overlap with attempt, electronic solicitation, child sexual abuse material, sex trafficking, or criminal sexual conduct if other acts allegedly occurred. Each count requires its own elements. A single conversation should not be converted into multiple convictions or punishments without examining the charging statutes and Minnesota’s single-behavioral-incident rule.

Subdivision 2a creates three electronic offenses

Subdivision 2a applies when an adult uses the Internet, a computer or program, a network or system, an electronic communications system, a telecommunications, wire, or radio system, or another electronic device capable of storing or transmitting data. The technology definition is broad enough to cover phones, social-media platforms, messaging apps, email, gaming chat, and similar services.

For every subdivision 2a theory, the State must prove that the accused acted “with the intent to arouse the sexual desire of any person.” That is a specific-intent requirement. A communication can relate to sex without being sent for that purpose. Education, health advice, reporting abuse, parental discussion, art, news, and ordinary nonarousing contexts may involve sexual subjects but lack the required intent.

Clause (1): electronic solicitation. This clause prohibits using covered technology to solicit a child or someone reasonably believed to be a child to engage in sexual conduct. It overlaps substantially with subdivision 2, but adds the electronic method and uses the intent-to-arouse formulation.

Clause (2): sexual communication. This clause prohibits engaging in communication with a child or someone reasonably believed to be a child when the communication relates to or describes sexual conduct and is made with the required intent. It does not require a request to meet or engage in the conduct.

Clause (3): distributing material, language, or communication. This clause covers distribution to a child or supposed child of material, language, or communication—including a photograph or video—that relates to or describes sexual conduct, again with intent to arouse anyone’s sexual desire.

Clauses (2) and (3) can look similar, but the alleged act should be identified accurately. A two-way conversation may be charged as communication. Sending an image or item may be charged as distribution. A prosecutor must prove the particular act and the specific intent, not merely that sexual words or an image appeared in an account.

Minnesota has territorial jurisdiction under subdivision 2b when the transmission either originates in Minnesota or is received here. A person outside Minnesota may therefore face a Minnesota case if the message was received in the state. Metadata, account logs, IP information, travel records, and the recipient device can become important to jurisdiction.

The statute does not criminalize protected speech simply because a minor saw it. Direction to the child, the statutory sexual-conduct subject, the selected clause, and specific intent all matter. Courts must also apply the First Amendment principles addressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Muccio.

Subdivision 2c: Minnesota’s new grooming felony

Effective for conduct on or after August 1, 2026, subdivision 2c makes grooming a felony. The State must prove that a person age 18 or older expressed to a child the desire or intent to engage in sexual conduct with that child and engaged in a deliberate pattern designed to methodically develop a false trusting relationship intended to strategically manipulate the child into sexual conduct at a future time.

The statute expressly says no sexual conduct must occur. But that does not eliminate the detailed elements. The prosecution must prove the expression to the child, a pattern of at least two instances, deliberateness, a false trusting relationship, methodical development, strategic manipulation, and the future goal of sexual conduct.

Ordinary trust is not automatically false trust. Gifts, praise, mentorship, coaching, transportation, private messages, shared interests, favors, or emotional support may be presented as grooming evidence, but their meaning depends on context. The State must connect the conduct to the charged manipulation and sexual objective rather than relying on hindsight.

The expression element is also distinct. The adult must express to the child a desire or intent to engage in sexual conduct with that child. A rumor conveyed by someone else, an internal thought, an ambiguous compliment, or an adult-only conversation does not necessarily satisfy that text.

Because the provision is new, there is not yet a mature body of Minnesota appellate law defining phrases such as “methodically develop,” “false trusting relationship,” and “strategically manipulate.” Courts will need to apply the statutory words, constitutional notice principles, and the proof in each case. A defense should resist substituting general concerns about grooming for the exact enacted elements.

The pattern can span time and platforms. Investigators may combine in-person contact, messages, gifts, rides, school interactions, and social-media activity. The defense should build a reliable chronology and determine which acts occurred before the effective date, which acts the accused actually performed, and whether the two-or-more-instances requirement is satisfied by admissible evidence.

A charge based partly on pre-August 2026 events raises temporal questions. The statute cannot retroactively punish completed conduct that was not covered when it occurred. When the alleged pattern straddles the effective date, counsel should analyze ex post facto principles, the charged offense date, jury instructions, and whether the post-effective-date proof independently establishes every element.

Positions of authority and school-related violations

Subdivision 2d extends the acts described in subdivisions 2 through 2c to certain victims under age 18. The State must prove that the accused held a current or recent position of authority over the victim, was more than 36 months older, and that the victim was under 18.

Minn. Stat. § 609.341, subd. 10 (2026) defines a current or recent position of authority. The definition includes a parent or person acting in a parent’s place who is charged with or assumes a parent’s rights, duties, or responsibilities to a child, and a person charged with or assuming responsibility for a child’s health, welfare, or supervision at the time of or within 120 days immediately before the alleged act. The precise statutory language and relationship must be proved.

The provision does not turn every age-gap relationship involving a 16- or 17-year-old into a crime. The authority relationship, more-than-36-month difference, and conduct described in subdivisions 2, 2a, or 2c must all be established.

Subdivision 2e concerns schools. It applies when a person commits one of the acts described in subdivisions 2 through 2c, is employed or contracted to provide services for an elementary, middle, or secondary school, and the victim is enrolled as a student at that school.

The school provision states that the victim’s age does not matter. That can reach an 18-year-old student. The employment-or-contract relationship and enrollment at the same school are critical. A person who works for a different district, volunteers without a contract, provides unrelated services, or communicates with a person who is no longer enrolled may present different legal questions.

Teachers and licensed school personnel can face employment and licensing consequences apart from the criminal case. An internal school investigation, child-protection report, licensing-board proceeding, and police investigation may proceed on different schedules and standards. Statements made in one forum can affect another. Coordinated legal advice is important before participating in an interview.

These new provisions apply only to conduct on or after August 1, 2026. For earlier conduct involving a 16- or 17-year-old, the State must identify some other statute that applied at the time; the current authority and school expansions cannot simply be applied backward.

Undercover investigations, decoy accounts, and entrapment

Many section 609.352 cases begin with an undercover officer or task-force member posing as a child. Subdivision 3 expressly states that undercover involvement is not itself a defense. The statute also covers a person whom the accused reasonably believes is a child, so the State does not need an actual child recipient in a decoy prosecution.

That rule does not make police conduct irrelevant. The prosecution must still prove what age was represented, what the accused reasonably believed, what the accused said or sent, and the required intent. Full platform records may show that the officer introduced subjects, repeated requests, changed facts, or used language omitted from the report.

Entrapment is different from merely showing that police supplied an opportunity. Minnesota entrapment law focuses on government inducement and the accused’s predisposition. Persistent pressure, exploitation of vulnerability, extraordinary promises, threats, or manufactured escalation may matter. Ordinary opportunity, a decoy profile, or an officer’s participation generally does not establish the defense by itself.

The initial contact can be important. Who contacted whom? What did the profile say? When was age first disclosed? Did the accused stop after learning the represented age, or continue? Did the officer reinitiate contact? Were messages removed by the platform or by investigators? The complete chronology often matters more than the most incriminating screenshot.

Police may propose an in-person meeting and arrest the accused on arrival. Travel, location searches, cash, condoms, gifts, and statements may be offered as evidence of intent, but arrival is not itself an element of section 609.352. Conversely, failing to appear does not erase an earlier completed electronic offense if the messages already satisfy the statute.

Officers may seek consent to search a phone or ask for access codes. A person may decline consent and ask for counsel. Police can seek a warrant, but the warrant must be supported by probable cause and sufficiently particular. The defense should compare the affidavit, warrant, extraction scope, and actual search.

Digital evidence must be authenticated and read in context

A screenshot is a picture of what appeared on a screen. It may omit timestamps, preceding messages, account identifiers, edits, reactions, attachments, or deleted content. It may be genuine, altered, or attributed to the wrong person. The defense should seek native records, platform returns, device extractions, and collection documentation when those materials exist.

Account ownership does not always prove authorship. Families share devices. Accounts remain logged in. Credentials are compromised. Multiple people manage business or school accounts. Automated services generate content. The State may use subscriber records, IP logs, device artifacts, writing style, photos, admissions, and surrounding events to connect a person to messages. Each link can be examined.

Age evidence must also be precise. In an actual-child case, birth records or reliable testimony may establish age. In a decoy case, the represented age and the accused’s belief matter. A profile may display one age while a later message gives another. The phrase “reasonably believes” requires more than proving that an officer secretly intended the persona to be under 16.

Message order can change meaning. A statement that seems like a proposal may answer a hypothetical, reject a suggestion, quote a song, or refer to adults. Emojis, disappearing-message features, replies to particular content, and platform timestamps must be interpreted with the platform’s mechanics in mind.

Device forensic tools parse databases and present reports, but a report is not the device itself. Time-zone conversions, cloud synchronization, deleted records, carved fragments, notification previews, and linked devices can produce confusing results. A qualified examiner may be needed to evaluate acquisition, parsing, attribution, and completeness.

Search history, pornography, or unrelated adult conversations may be highly prejudicial without proving the charged communication. The prosecution must establish relevance and comply with rules governing other acts. The court should consider whether limited probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or needless cumulative evidence.

Statements during an interview can become central. Investigators may summarize rather than quote, characterize ambiguity as an admission, or confront the suspect with incomplete excerpts. Counsel should obtain the full recording and determine whether Miranda warnings were required, whether any waiver was valid, and whether the statement was voluntary.

Preservation is essential. Do not delete accounts, wipe a device, edit messages, or ask anyone to change evidence. Those actions can destroy favorable context and create new allegations. Counsel can help preserve devices, request platform or carrier records, identify witnesses, and protect privileged defense work.

Common defense issues in section 609.352 cases

The words were not a solicitation. Subdivision 2 requires commanding, entreating, or attempting to persuade a specific person to engage in defined sexual conduct. Description, discussion, joking, or a statement of past conduct is not necessarily a request or attempted persuasion.

The required intent was absent. Subdivision 2 requires intent to engage in sexual conduct. Subdivision 2a requires intent to arouse the sexual desire of any person. Grooming requires strategic intent to manipulate the child into future sexual conduct. The State cannot treat all sexual subject matter as proof of the same intent.

The content did not concern statutory sexual conduct. The law defines sexual conduct through specified contact, penetration, or performance. Dating, kissing, nonsexual affection, general anatomy, pregnancy, sexual orientation, health, or relationships may fall outside the charged definition depending on the words and context.

The accused did not send the communication. Identity and authorship can be contested through device access, account logs, IP records, passwords, location, style, and witness testimony. An account bearing a person’s name is evidence, not automatic proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

No reasonable belief that the recipient was a child was proved. In a decoy case, inconsistent profile information, adult photographs, contrary statements, or officer conduct may undermine the claimed belief. The analysis concerns what this accused reasonably believed, not what police hoped to portray.

The grooming elements are not met. Two communications may satisfy the numerical definition of pattern but still fail to show a deliberate and methodical creation of false trust, strategic manipulation, or a future goal of sexual conduct. Each phrase should be given independent effect.

The authority or school relationship is missing. A title alone does not prove a current or recent statutory position of authority. The age gap, timing, supervisory responsibility, employment or contract, school identity, and enrollment must be established under the correct subdivision.

Evidence was obtained unlawfully. An overbroad warrant, unsupported search, unlawful seizure, compelled statement, or search outside the warrant’s scope may support suppression. The legality of government access to accounts and devices should be reviewed from original applications and returns.

Government inducement supports entrapment. This defense is fact-specific and not established merely because an officer used a decoy. It requires careful review of inducement and predisposition, including communications before the government’s pressure.

A narrow mistake-of-age defense applies. Although the statute generally bars mistake as a defense, State v. Moser recognized an as-applied due-process exception where solicitation occurred only online, there was no face-to-face contact, and the actual child represented being 16 or older. The defense requires evidence and should not be assumed in decoy or in-person cases.

What Minnesota appellate courts have said

In State v. Muccio, 890 N.W.2d 914, 919–29 (Minn. 2017), the Minnesota Supreme Court considered a facial First Amendment challenge to subdivision 2a(2), the electronic-communication clause. The court construed the statute to require an adult-to-child transmission concerning anyone’s sexual conduct, directed at a child, with specific intent to arouse sexual desire.

The court recognized that the statute reaches some protected speech but held the reach was not substantial compared with its legitimate applications. Its conclusion was that subdivision 2a(2) “is not substantially overbroad.” The court therefore reversed the dismissal of the charge. Muccio remains important because it confirms both the clause’s constitutionality against that facial challenge and the central role of specific intent.

Muccio did not hold that every communication about sex is criminal. The opinion explained that the intent requirement excludes many discussions of safe sexual practices, art, library materials, and other communication absent the intent to arouse. An as-applied constitutional claim may remain available in an unusual case involving protected speech.

In State v. Moser, 884 N.W.2d 890, 901–05 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016), the Court of Appeals addressed subdivision 2 and the statutory ban on a mistake-of-age defense. The actual 14-year-old had said she was 16, the communications occurred only online, and the accused had no face-to-face contact with her.

The court held that due process required an opportunity to raise an affirmative mistake-of-age defense in that limited setting. The defendant must make a prima facie showing to receive the instruction and ultimately bears the burden applicable to an affirmative defense. The court did not make knowledge of age an element the State must prove in every case.

The distinction between the cases matters. Muccio addressed a facial First Amendment challenge to the electronic-communication clause. Moser addressed an as-applied due-process challenge to strict liability for age under the solicitation clause. Neither opinion eliminates the statute or creates a general mistake-of-age defense.

Both cases also show why counsel must identify the exact subdivision and theory. A constitutional argument developed for one clause may not control another. The new 2026 grooming, authority, and school provisions will generate their own interpretive issues as Minnesota appellate courts apply them.

Felony penalties, sentencing, registration, and collateral consequences

A conviction under subdivision 2, 2a, 2c, 2d, or 2e carries a statutory maximum of five years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. The maximum does not mean every person receives five years. The presumptive sentence depends on the governing Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, criminal-history score, custody status, offense date, and any lawful departure or mandatory rule.

The current Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines offense-severity reference table ranks each section 609.352 offense at severity level G on the Sex Offender Grid. The applicable grid cell and criminal-history score determine the presumptive disposition and duration. Counsel should calculate that result from the rules in effect on the offense date.

Predatory-offender registration is subdivision-specific. Minn. Stat. § 243.166 (2026) expressly lists solicitation under section 609.352, subdivision 2, and electronic solicitation under subdivision 2a(1), when the statutory charging and conviction requirements are met. Subdivision 2a(2) or (3) is not listed there merely because it appears in the same section. Other charged offenses may independently trigger registration.

Registration advice must match the actual count and disposition. It can affect addresses, employment, school attendance, vehicles, travel, verification, and supervision. A failure-to-register allegation is a separate felony. Public notification and registration are related but not identical systems.

A section 609.352 conviction by itself is not among the offenses listed for the special ten-year or lifetime conditional-release terms in Minn. Stat. § 609.3455 (2026). Another conviction in the same case may carry those terms. Standard supervised release, probation, treatment, monitoring, no-contact conditions, and restrictions on devices or Internet access may still be significant.

Consequences can extend to child custody, parenting time, housing, employment, education, professional licensing, immigration, and firearm possession. School employees may face mandatory reporting and license action. Noncitizens should obtain case-specific immigration advice before accepting any plea.

During a pending case, release conditions may prohibit contact with minors, use of particular apps, unsupervised Internet access, or return to a home or workplace. Violating a no-contact or release order can create new charges or lead to detention, even when the person disputes the original allegation.

Plea evaluation should compare more than incarceration. The exact subdivision, registration consequences, factual basis, treatment requirements, immigration classification, licensing effects, and any related count can matter for years. A resolution that appears similar on the sentencing worksheet may be very different in real life.

How these cases move through Minnesota courts

An investigation often begins with a parent, school, platform, child-protection agency, or undercover officer. Police may preserve accounts, obtain search warrants, seize devices, interview witnesses, and request forensic examinations. Contact from a detective usually means evidence is already being collected; it is not a neutral invitation to help.

After charging, the complaint should identify the exact subdivision and facts supporting each element. Defense counsel should examine probable cause, offense dates, age allegations, authorship, represented age, specific intent, and whether the State has improperly combined separate statutory theories.

Discovery may include platform returns, extraction reports, body-camera video, recorded interviews, warrant materials, photos, school records, child-protection records, and undercover logs. Missing native data or omitted message context should be requested early. A forensic expert may be needed before motion deadlines.

Pretrial litigation may concern suppression, statements, warrants, other-acts evidence, confidential records, expert testimony, entrapment, constitutional challenges, joinder, duplicative counts, and jury instructions. The new grooming provisions may also produce challenges about statutory interpretation and effective dates.

At trial, the State must prove the charged elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors should receive instructions tailored to the subdivision rather than a generic statement that the accused communicated inappropriately with a minor. The defense can test authorship, completeness, intent, age belief, inducement, credibility, and forensic interpretation.

After any conviction, the sentence and collateral consequences should be audited. That includes the correct grid, criminal history, custody credit, registration determination, probation or supervised-release terms, multiple-conviction issues, and preservation of appellate claims.

Frequently asked questions about Minnesota child-solicitation charges

1. Is it a crime to discuss sex with anyone under 16?

Not every discussion is a section 609.352 offense. The charged subdivision requires defined sexual conduct, a specified act such as solicitation, communication, or distribution, and the required intent. Educational, medical, parental, or other communication without intent to arouse does not become a felony merely because the subject is sexual.

2. Does the State have to prove an in-person meeting?

No. Solicitation can be completed through an attempt to persuade, and the electronic clauses criminalize specified communications or distributions. No meeting, travel, or physical contact is required. A meeting can be relevant evidence of intent but is not an element of every charge.

3. Can I be convicted if the “child” was an undercover officer?

Yes, if the State proves that you reasonably believed the person was a child and establishes the remaining elements. The statute expressly says undercover involvement is not itself a defense. The represented age, your actual understanding, the full exchange, specific intent, and police inducement can still be contested.

4. What is entrapment?

Entrapment concerns improper government inducement and the accused’s lack of predisposition, not simply an officer providing an opportunity. A decoy profile alone usually is not enough. The complete communication history, who initiated contact, pressure, promises, repeated requests, and conduct before inducement matter.

5. Is mistake about age ever a defense?

The statute says mistake as to age is not a defense. Moser recognized a narrow due-process exception for Internet-only solicitation, no face-to-face contact, and an actual child who represented being 16 or older. The person must produce evidence supporting the affirmative defense. The exception does not automatically apply to decoy or in-person cases.

6. What does “intent to arouse the sexual desire of any person” mean?

It is the specific intent required for electronic offenses under subdivision 2a. The State must prove that arousal was the purpose, whether the intended desire was the sender’s, recipient’s, or another person’s. Sexual subject matter alone does not conclusively prove that intent.

7. Can a deleted message still be recovered?

Sometimes. A device, linked device, cloud backup, recipient device, notification database, carrier record, or platform return may retain some information. Recovery is platform- and device-specific. Do not delete anything further; preservation can protect both inculpatory and exculpatory context.

8. What is Minnesota’s new grooming offense?

For conduct on or after August 1, 2026, an adult commits grooming by expressing to a child a desire or intent for sexual conduct with that child and engaging in a deliberate pattern that methodically builds false trust to strategically manipulate the child into future sexual conduct. No completed sexual act is required.

9. Does “pattern” require many communications?

The statute defines a pattern as two or more instances of conduct. But two instances alone do not prove every grooming element. The State must also establish deliberate method, false trust, strategic manipulation, and the intended future sexual conduct.

10. Can the law apply to a 16- or 17-year-old?

Yes, under the authority provision effective August 1, 2026, if the accused occupies the required current or recent position of authority, is more than 36 months older, and commits an act described in subdivisions 2 through 2c. Other statutes may also apply depending on the facts.

11. Can the school provision apply when a student is 18?

Yes. Subdivision 2e applies regardless of the student’s age if the accused is employed or contracted to provide services for the student’s elementary, middle, or secondary school and commits one of the described acts. The provision applies only to conduct on or after August 1, 2026.

12. What is the maximum penalty?

The statutory maximum is five years in prison, a $10,000 fine, or both. The presumptive sentence is calculated under the Sex Offender Grid and depends on criminal history and other rules. The maximum and the presumptive sentence are not the same thing.

13. Does every section 609.352 conviction require registration?

No. Section 243.166 expressly identifies subdivision 2 and subdivision 2a(1), subject to its charging and conviction requirements. It does not list every clause in section 609.352. Registration may also arise from another count, so the actual conviction and case history must be reviewed.

14. Should I meet with police to explain the messages?

Speak with a defense lawyer first. Investigators may show selected messages, conceal other evidence, or interpret an imprecise answer as an admission. You may decline an interview and request counsel. A lawyer can obtain information and advise whether any communication with police is appropriate.

15. What should I do after learning about an investigation?

Do not contact the child or family, delete content, reset devices, discuss the case online, or violate any order. Preserve phones, accounts, full conversations, location data, receipts, and witness information. Obtain prompt legal advice so evidence can be protected and the correct subdivision analyzed.

Precise statutory analysis is essential

Section 609.352 is no longer one narrow solicitation crime. It now contains multiple offenses with different acts, intents, age rules, relationships, and effective dates. A broad accusation that someone “groomed” or “sent sexual messages” does not establish the elements of a particular subdivision.

A defense should preserve the complete digital record, identify the speaker and recipient, reconstruct every age representation, test the specific intent, and separate ordinary solicitation, electronic communication, grooming, authority, and school theories. Constitutional caselaw, registration, sentencing, and licensing consequences must be matched to the actual count.

This guide describes Minnesota law in 2026 and provides general legal information, not advice for a specific case. The governing law may be the version in effect on the alleged offense date. Early review can prevent lost evidence and avoid decisions that cannot be undone.