A recent news report described an arrest in which authorities said a person used AI to create nude images of two adults and posted them on social media next to the real names and photos of the people shown. The reported charges came from several categories of law, including laws on fake or “deceptive” images, invasion of privacy, and harassment. Anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

Attorney Ron Frey is not commenting on any particular case or person. This post explains, in general terms, when AI-made intimate images of adults, often called deepfakes, can lead to criminal charges, and why one set of posts can lead to more than one kind of charge. Our post on AI image generators and the law covers the broader landscape, and our page on AI-generated images and deepfakes explains how these investigations tend to unfold.

Don’t make or share images of real people without their consent

Attorney Ron Frey cautions against creating, altering, or sharing intimate or sexual images of any real person without that person’s consent, whether the image is real or made with AI. It can seriously harm the person shown, and it can lead to a criminal investigation, criminal charges, and civil lawsuits.

At the time of this writing, federal law and the laws of many states address intimate images that were created or altered with AI, even when no camera ever captured the scene. These laws are new, they differ from one jurisdiction to the next, and they keep changing. Depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances, making an image, posting or sending it, threatening to post it, or asking someone else to make it may each raise legal problems, and a label saying an image is fake may not change that. When an image appears to show anyone under 18, very different and far more serious laws generally apply.

A single set of posts can also lead to more than one kind of charge. Our post on TAKE IT DOWN Act charges covers the federal side, and our pages on revenge porn and sexual cyberharassment and sextortion cover related charges.

This post is not a guide to what is or isn’t allowed. Please don’t rely on this post, the internet, or AI tools to decide whether something is legal. If you have questions about a specific situation, speak with an attorney.

How these investigations often start

These investigations often start when someone finds an image of themselves online and goes to the police, or when a platform reports an account. Investigators may then ask social media companies, AI services, and internet providers for account records, sign-in records, and IP addresses, and may seek a search warrant for a home, phone, or computer (see how police connect an online account to a person and how police get AI chats, images, and account records). Prompts typed into an AI tool can also become evidence (see AI chatbot prompts as evidence).

Every situation is evaluated case by case under current law, and each needs a tailored response. Laws change, and what applies depends on the facts, the state, and the court. Please don’t rely on what the internet or AI tools say about your specific situation.

Talk to an attorney first

If police or federal agents have contacted you about an image or a social media account, asked to search your phone or computer, asked for a passcode, or asked you to come in and talk, Attorney Ron Frey generally advises speaking with an attorney before answering questions or agreeing to a search. Whether a person may be required to provide a passcode or unlock a device by fingerprint or face depends on the circumstances, the jurisdiction, and any search warrant or court order involved, so that decision should be made with an attorney’s advice (see what to do if the police or FBI search your home). You have the right to remain silent. Every case is different, and contacting an attorney is a priority to get tailored advice.

Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC has been practicing law for over two decades and represents people nationally in internet and computer crime investigations and charges. He is a conference speaker and published author.

Attorney Ron Frey Is Available for a Free Initial Confidential Consultation: Call or Text (844) 766-3739. In Florida, call (813) 775-2276. You can also reach the firm through the contact page.

Journalists covering AI-generated images and the law can reach Attorney Ron Frey through the Media Inquiries page.

Glasses with built-in cameras and microphones can take photos, record video, and capture audio with a tap, a spoken command, or sometimes without the people nearby noticing at all. As these devices become more common, more people are asking a simple question: when is it legal to record someone with camera glasses, and when can it lead to criminal charges?

A recent lawsuit against a major tech company has also raised privacy questions about camera glasses. It alleges that the company’s AI glasses recorded private conversations without being activated. That case is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case, and the claims in it have not been proven. Attorney Ron Frey is not commenting on any particular case, company, or person. This post explains, in general terms, how recording laws, privacy, and digital evidence can come into play when smart glasses record people or conversations.

Consent rules for recording conversations vary by state

Recording laws are often called wiretap or eavesdropping laws. In general, they focus on recording a conversation without the consent of the people in it. Who has to agree depends on where the recording happens:

• One-party consent. Federal law and a majority of states generally allow a person who is part of a conversation to record it, or a person to record with the consent of one participant.
• All-party consent. Some states, including Florida, generally require that everyone in a private conversation agree before it is recorded. In those states, one person agreeing is often not enough, even if that person is the one wearing the glasses.
• Mixed rules. A few states treat phone calls and in-person conversations differently, and some laws have narrow exceptions.

When people in different states are on the same call or video chat, which state’s law applies can be unclear. Justia’s 50-state survey of recording laws gives a general overview. For Florida specifically, see Recording Conversations in Florida: Smart Glasses, Phones and Criminal Charges on FreyLegal.com.

Private conversations, public places, and video

Many recording laws are mainly concerned with private conversations, meaning ones where the people talking reasonably expect that no one is recording them. A conversation in a home, a private office, a doctor’s exam room, or a closed meeting is very different from people talking loudly on a crowded street. Where the conversation happened, who was nearby, and whether anyone took steps to keep it private can all matter.

Video raises its own questions. Some states, including Florida, have separate laws about secretly viewing or recording people who are dressing, undressing, or exposed in places where they expect privacy, such as bathrooms, changing rooms, and homes, or secretly recording under or through someone’s clothing. Those charges are treated very seriously, and glasses with cameras can fall within them just as phones or hidden cameras can. Our posts on video evidence in criminal cases and surveillance, crime, and evidence cover how video is used in investigations more broadly.

When a device records more than anyone intended

Some smart glasses listen for a spoken command, often called a wake word, before they start recording or sending audio to an AI assistant. Published reports have described glasses recording audio without the wake word, and the company involved said at the time that the issue had been resolved. Whatever the cause in a given situation, these reports show that a device can capture more than its owner meant it to.

In a criminal investigation involving smart glasses, questions like these may matter:

• Did the person mean to record anything? Intent can be an important question, and a device that records on its own may raise different issues than a person who pressed record.
• How does the device work, and how was it set up? Settings, software updates, and the recording light or other indicators may all be part of the review.
• Where was the device used? A workplace, a medical office, a home, and a public sidewalk can lead to very different analyses.
• Where did the recording end up? Glasses often sync with a phone app and an online account, so audio, video, and activity logs may exist in more than one place. Our post on how police get AI chats and records explains how investigators may seek records from tech companies.

Hidden recording devices can also come up in federal cases. Our post on AI chatbot prompts as evidence discusses a federal charge involving a device used to intercept conversations.

Sharing or using a recording is a separate issue

Making a recording is only part of the picture. Under federal law and in some states, including Florida, knowingly sharing or using a recording that was made unlawfully can lead to its own charge. Posting it online, sending it to friends, or using it in a dispute can add to the problem, even if the person believes the recording helps them.

Recording questions come up in workplace disagreements, family and custody conflicts, relationships, business meetings, landlord and tenant disputes, and private appointments. In each of these situations, the people involved, the setting, and how the recording was made and used all matter.

Every situation is evaluated case by case under current law, and each needs a tailored response. Laws change, and what applies depends on the facts and the state or court involved. Please don’t rely on what the internet or AI tools say about your specific situation.

Talk to an attorney first

If police have contacted you about a recording, asked to look at your glasses, phone, or online account, or asked you to come in and talk, Attorney Ron Frey generally advises speaking with an attorney before answering questions or agreeing to a search. Whether a person may be required to provide a password or unlock a device depends on the circumstances, the jurisdiction, and any search warrant or court order involved, so that decision should be made with an attorney’s advice (see should I provide my password to the police or FBI?). Even if you believe a recording helps you, talk with an attorney before you share it with anyone. You have the right to remain silent. Every case is different, and contacting an attorney is a priority to get tailored advice.

Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC has been practicing law for over two decades and represents people nationally in internet and computer crime investigations and charges. He is a conference speaker and published author.

Attorney Ron Frey Is Available for a Free Initial Confidential Consultation: Call or Text (844) 766-3739. In Florida, call (813) 775-2276. You can also reach the firm through the contact page.

Journalists covering smart glasses, recording laws, and digital privacy can reach Attorney Ron Frey through the Media Inquiries page.

A recent news report described a person who was arrested after investigators completed a forensic examination of a phone and the micro-SD card inside it. It reflects a path that comes up in many internet crime investigations: an investigation may start with one allegation, and then what examiners say they found on a seized device can become the basis for more charges. Anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

Attorney Ron Frey is not commenting on any particular case or person. This post explains, in general terms, how a phone forensic exam, which can reach the phone, its memory card, and the accounts connected to it, can lead to charges beyond the allegation that started the investigation. Our post on what happens after police seize your computer or phone covers the seizure itself.

What a phone forensic exam can reach

After a phone is seized, it is usually sent to a forensic examiner. Depending on the device, its condition, and the legal authority investigators have, the exam may try to make a copy, called an extraction, and then review it with forensic software. In general terms, an exam may look at:

• The phone’s internal storage, including photos, videos, downloads, and files saved by apps.
• A removable memory card, such as a micro-SD card, which can hold its own photos, videos, and backups, sometimes going back years and sometimes moved from another device.
• App data, such as messages, chats, contact lists, call logs, browser history, and the data that messaging, social media, and file-sharing apps keep.
• Cloud-synced data, such as photo libraries, backups, and notes that copy between a phone and an online account. Some of this may be on the phone itself, and some may only be in the account (see our post on cloud storage evidence).
• File details and system records, such as dates, locations, thumbnails, cached images, and records of which accounts were signed in, along with data the software reports it recovered.

A forensic report is an interpretation of data, not the last word on it. Our post on questioning the biography of a digital file explains why where a file came from and how it got onto a device can matter.

How additional charges can come out of an exam

A search warrant for a phone generally describes what investigators are allowed to look for. What happens when an exam turns up something outside that description depends on the facts, the warrant, and the law where the case is. In general terms, added charges may come up in a few ways:

• More of the same alleged conduct. If an investigation began with one alleged file or message, an exam that reports many more may lead to more counts.
• A different kind of allegation. For example, an exam in a case about one type of conduct may turn up messages, images, or records that investigators say support a separate allegation, such as possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), formerly called child pornography (see our possession page).
• A second warrant. Investigators who see something outside the first warrant may apply for another one to search for it.
• New accounts and new devices. Usernames, email addresses, and sign-in records found on a phone can lead to requests for account records and searches of other devices (see how police connect an online account to a person and how investigators trace a cloud account to a person).

Our post on how one cloud photo upload can lead to charges follows a similar path that starts with an account instead of a device. Whether added charges are brought in state court, federal court, or both also depends on the facts (see computer and internet crimes in state and federal court).

Memory cards and cloud data raise their own questions

A memory card or a cloud account can look like part of the phone, but it may have a different history. A card may have been bought used, shared, or moved between devices. Cloud data may have synced from a tablet, a computer, or another person’s phone signed in to the same account. Files can also arrive on a device through automatic downloads, group chats, or backups without anyone opening them.

Because of that, who put a file on a card or in an account, when, and whether anyone knew it was there can be central questions. Those questions are evaluated case by case, based on the forensic data and everything else in the case.

Questions that may matter

In Attorney Ron Frey’s view, questions that may matter after a phone exam include:

• What did the warrant allow, and did the exam stay within it? The scope of a warrant, and whether investigators went beyond it, can be important.
• Was there consent, and what did it cover? Whether a person agreed to a search, gave a passcode, or unlocked a device, and whether a warrant or court order required it, can affect what happened next (see should I provide my password to the police or FBI? and a federal court order to unlock an iPhone with a finger).
• Which device or account did each item come from? The phone, the memory card, and a cloud account may need to be looked at separately.
• Is each count really a separate item? Duplicates, thumbnails, cached copies, and backups can make one file look like many.
• Who had access? Shared phones, shared accounts, and used or borrowed memory cards raise questions about knowledge and control.
• How was the data handled? How the extraction was made, what software was used, and how the evidence was stored and documented can matter.

Every situation is evaluated case by case under current law, and each needs a tailored response. Laws change, and what applies depends on the facts and the court. Please don’t rely on what the internet or AI tools say about your specific situation.

If your case is in Florida: our post on when you see the evidence against you in a Florida criminal case on FreyLegal.com explains when the defense generally gets to review the evidence, including phone and computer extractions.

Talk to an attorney first

If police have seized your phone, asked for your passcode, asked you to unlock a device, or asked you to come in and talk, Attorney Ron Frey generally advises speaking with an attorney before answering questions or agreeing to a search. Whether a person may be required to provide a passcode or unlock a device by fingerprint or face depends on the circumstances, the jurisdiction, and any search warrant or court order involved, so that decision should be made with an attorney’s advice. You have the right to remain silent. Every situation is unique, and contacting an attorney is a priority to get tailored advice.

Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC has over 20 years of experience and represents people nationally in internet and computer crime investigations and charges. He is a conference speaker and published author.

Attorney Ron Frey Is Available for a Free, Confidential Initial Consultation: Call or Text (844) 766-3739. In Florida, call (813) 775-2276. You can also reach the firm through the contact page.

Journalists covering phone forensics and digital evidence can reach Attorney Ron Frey through the Media Inquiries page.

A recent news report in Florida described a CyberTip about files in a cloud storage account that investigators said they traced through IP addresses, records from the cloud company and a linked email account, and photo metadata used to date the uploads. It reflects a common path: a tip starts with an account, and investigators then work to connect it to a real person. Anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

Attorney Ron Frey is not commenting on any particular case or person. This post is a follow-up to our post on how one cloud photo upload can lead to charges, and it explains, in general terms, how investigators may try to tie a cloud account, such as a Dropbox or Google account, to the person they believe used it. Our post on how police connect an online account to a person looks at the same question across social media and messaging apps.

What a tip from a cloud provider may contain

Many cloud storage and photo services use automated tools to check uploaded files. When a provider believes a file may involve child sexual abuse material (CSAM), formerly called child pornography, it may send a report to the CyberTipline run by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Our post on what happens after a CyberTipline report walks through that process. In general terms, a tip from a cloud provider may include:

• The flagged files, or information about them, such as file names and hash values, a kind of digital fingerprint.
• Account details the provider had on file, such as a username, an email address, and a phone number.
• IP addresses tied to the upload or to recent sign-ins, with dates and times.
• Linked services, such as an email or Google account used to sign up or sign in.

None of those details identifies a person on its own. They are a starting point for more records requests, not an answer.

Following the IP address and the linked accounts

An IP address is the internet address a device was using when it connected. Investigators may ask the internet provider or phone carrier which customer account was assigned a given address at a given time. That often produces a subscriber name and a service address, such as a home. An IP address generally points to an internet connection, not to a specific person, and a home connection may be shared by family members, roommates, guests, and anyone else on the Wi-Fi.

Investigators may also use subpoenas, court orders, or search warrants to get records from the cloud company and from any account linked to it. In general terms, those records may include:

• Subscriber records from a linked email or Google account, which may list a name, a recovery phone number, or a recovery email.
• Sign-in history, showing IP addresses, dates, and sometimes the type of device used.
• Stored content, such as the files and folders in the account, which can reach well beyond the files in the original tip (see our post on cloud storage evidence).

Once records point to an address, investigators often seek a search warrant for the home and the devices inside it, looking for the same account signed in, matching files, or other links between the account and a device (see what happens after police seize your computer or phone).

What photo metadata and upload dates may show

Photos and videos often carry metadata, information stored inside the file or kept by the service. Depending on the device and settings, it may include the date and time a file was created, the make and model of the camera or phone, and sometimes location data. A cloud service may also keep its own record of when each file was uploaded.

Investigators may compare those dates to build a timeline, for example to argue that a file was made on one day and uploaded soon after, or that uploads line up with sign-ins from a particular home. Metadata can be useful, but it can also be wrong, missing, or changed. Device clocks can be off, apps can strip or rewrite file details, and a file saved from someone else may carry another person’s data. Our post on questioning the biography of a digital file explains why where a file came from and how it got into an account can matter.

Questions that may matter

Attribution can look convincing on paper, but records show connections, not necessarily who was using an account at a given moment. In Attorney Ron Frey’s view, questions that may matter include:

• Who else used the connection? Shared Wi-Fi and guests can put many people behind one IP address.
• Who else had access to the account? Accounts stay signed in on shared devices, passwords get borrowed or stolen.
• Do the times really line up? IP address assignments change, records may use different time zones, and older records may not reflect who lived at an address.
• What does the metadata actually show? A creation date or upload date is a piece of data that has to be tested, not a conclusion.
• How did the files get into the account? Automatic syncing, shared folders, and files saved from other sources raise questions about knowledge and control.
• Was the legal process proper? What each subpoena, order, or warrant allowed, and whether investigators stayed within it, can be important.

Whether a case is brought in state court, federal court, or both also depends on the facts (see computer and internet crimes in state and federal court). Every situation is evaluated case by case under current law, and each needs a tailored response. Laws change, and what applies depends on the facts and the court. Please don’t rely on what the internet or AI tools say about your specific situation.

If your case is in Florida: our post on how Florida device cases often begin, from an online report to a search warrant on FreyLegal.com covers that step.

Talk to an attorney first

If a cloud account has been disabled, investigators have contacted you about an account, or police arrive with a search warrant, Attorney Ron Frey generally advises speaking with an attorney before answering questions or agreeing to a search. Whether a person may be required to unlock a device or provide a password depends on the circumstances, the jurisdiction, and any search warrant or court order involved. Statements made during a search or an interview, including saying that an account or email address is yours, may become part of the evidence. You have the right to remain silent. Every situation is unique, and contacting an attorney is a priority to get tailored advice.

Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC has over 20 years of experience and represents people nationally in internet and computer crime investigations and charges, including possession allegations. He is a conference speaker and published author.

Attorney Ron Frey Is Available for a Free, Confidential Initial Consultation: Call or Text (844) 766-3739. In Florida, call (813) 775-2276. You can also reach the firm through the contact page.

Journalists covering cloud storage and digital evidence can reach Attorney Ron Frey through the Media Inquiries page.

Many people search phrases like “Google closed my account,” “Dropbox closed my account,” or “my AI account was banned” and find little explanation. Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC explains what these notices can mean, why some may connect to a criminal investigation, and why it matters to understand your rights.

Why Accounts Get Closed

Online services close or suspend accounts for many reasons. Sometimes it is simply a mistake by the company. Automated systems scan huge amounts of content and activity, and they can flag something innocent. A shared device, a hacked login, or a file someone else sent you can also trigger a flag. Other times, the company believes the account holder actually violated its terms of service.

A closure notice usually says little about what the company saw or why it acted. That can leave you unsure whether it was an error, a policy dispute, or something more serious.

When a Terms of Service Violation May Also Be a Crime

Most terms of service violations are only a business matter between you and the company. But if the alleged conduct or activity would also be a crime, the company may pass the information to law enforcement as a tip.

That’s true of financial companies, including payment apps like Cash App and Venmo. It’s true of social media companies like Facebook, Instagram, X, and Snapchat. And it’s true of artificial intelligence and superintelligence companies, including those behind ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Claude. Many of these companies say in their policies that they may share account information with authorities, and some are legally required to report certain kinds of content.

An account closure doesn’t mean a criminal case is coming. But in some situations, the closure and a report to police can come from the same flagged activity.

What Can Happen After a Tip

When a company sends a tip, law enforcement may start an investigation. Investigators might ask the company for more account records, seek a search warrant for the account or for devices, or contact the account holder directly. Sometimes the first sign of an investigation is a phone call from a detective or officers at the door.

Each case moves differently. Some tips go nowhere, and others lead to charges. Every situation must be evaluated case by case under current laws and regulations, with a response tailored to the facts.

Protecting Your Rights

If you got a notice that your account was suspended or closed for an alleged terms of service violation, and you think you might be under a criminal investigation because of it, it’s important to understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent, including if police call or come to your door. Every situation is unique, and contacting an attorney is a priority to get tailored advice.

Don’t rely on what the internet or AI tells you about your situation. The laws and facts that matter are specific to you, and a general article, including this one, can’t replace advice from an attorney who knows your case.

Talk to an Attorney First

Attorney Ron Frey has practiced law for over two decades and focuses on internet and computer crime defense nationally. If your account was closed or suspended and you’re worried it could lead to a criminal investigation, call before you talk to investigators or the company about it.

Attorney Ron Frey Is Available for a Free Initial Consultation: Call or Text (844) 766-3739. In Florida, call (813) 775-2276.

In a recent case in another state, according to news reports, a major tech company reported a single alleged upload of suspected child sexual abuse material (CSAM), formerly called child pornography, to its cloud photo service by one of its subscribers. The report went through the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) to a police unit that investigates internet crimes against children. Investigators said a search warrant for the account identified the account holder, and that the account held other material they cited. Months later, police searched the person’s home and car under a warrant, and investigators said a tablet found there held hundreds more files. The person now faces 20 felony counts of possession and distribution. These are allegations, and anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

Attorney Ron Frey is not commenting on that case or on anyone involved in it. It is mentioned only because it shows a path that comes up in many internet crime investigations: one flag on one file can open an account, then a home, then every device inside it. Our post on cloud storage evidence covers how cloud accounts work in general. This post follows how a single upload can snowball into a case with many counts.

How a cloud provider flags a file, and where the report goes

Many cloud photo and storage services use automated tools to check uploaded files. In general terms, these tools may compare a file’s hash value, a kind of digital fingerprint, against lists of previously identified material, and some services also use software that looks for images that may be new. Depending on the company and the file, a person at the company may or may not look at the file before a report is sent.

When a provider believes a file may involve the exploitation of a child, it may send a report to NCMEC’s CyberTipline. That report is then routed to a law enforcement agency in the area where the account appears to be, such as a local department, a state agency, a federal agency, or an Internet Crimes Against Children task force. Our post on what happens after a CyberTipline report walks through that process. A few points matter for this path:

• The report often centers on one file or a few files. It usually describes what was flagged, when, and the account details the provider had, not everything in the account.
• The account may be disabled with little explanation. Some people first notice something is wrong when they lose access to their photos or email.
• Months can pass. Reports are reviewed, routed, and investigated before anyone is contacted, and a long quiet period does not by itself mean an investigation has ended.

The account warrant: what investigators may look at beyond the one file

The report gives investigators an account, not a full picture. To see more, they may seek a search warrant or other legal process for the account itself. A cloud photo service is often part of a larger account, such as a Google account, so the records returned can reach well beyond the one flagged upload. In general terms, they may include:

• Other stored photos and videos, including older uploads and items synced automatically from a phone or tablet.
• Account and subscriber details, such as the name, phone number, recovery email, and login and IP address history used to tie the account to a person (see how police connect an online account to a person).
• Search history, bookmarks, and browsing activity, where the account keeps them.
• Sharing activity, such as shared albums, links, or messages, which may be used to support allegations of distribution on top of possession.
• Device information, showing which phones, tablets, or computers were signed in to the account.

What turns up in the account review often shapes the next step: an application for a warrant to search a home, a vehicle, and the devices there.

The home and device search

Once records point to a person and an address, investigators may seek a search warrant for the home, a car, and phones, tablets, computers, and storage devices. Our posts on what to do if police or the FBI search your home and what happens after police seize your computer or phone cover those steps in more detail.

Devices are usually taken for a forensic examination, which can look at stored files, recovered data, app data, cached images, thumbnails, and connected accounts. A home search is also often when investigators try to talk with the person. Statements made at the door or during an interview can become part of the case, and questions about phone passcodes and passwords can come up as well (see should I provide my password to the police or FBI?). At this stage, a case that began with one flagged file may now involve every device in the home.

How one file can become many counts, and questions to ask

In general terms, the law in many places can allow each image or video to be charged as a separate count, and possession and distribution can be charged separately. A forensic report that lists many files can therefore turn into a long charging document. Whether a case is brought in state court, federal court, or both also depends on the facts (see computer and internet crimes in state and federal court).

In Attorney Ron Frey’s view, questions that may matter include:

• Who actually reviewed the flagged file, and when? Whether the file was matched only by software, or viewed by a person at the company, at NCMEC, or by police, and what legal process came before each step, can be important.
• Did each warrant stay within its limits? Whether the account and home warrants were supported and whether the search stayed within their scope is evaluated case by case.
• Is each count really a separate file? Duplicates, the same image saved in several places, thumbnails, cached copies, and automatic backups can make one item look like many.
• Who put the files there, and did anyone know? Automatic syncing, shared devices, shared accounts, and files that arrived without being opened all raise questions about knowledge and control (see questioning the biography of a digital file).
• What does “distribution” rest on? Sharing settings, links, and app behavior can be read in more than one way.
• What do the files actually show? Descriptions in a report and the contents of a file do not necessarily match.

Every situation is evaluated case by case under current law, and each needs a tailored response. Laws change, and what applies depends on the facts and the court. Please don’t rely on what the internet or AI tools say about your specific situation.

Talking to an attorney

If a cloud account has been disabled, a provider report has come up, or police have asked to talk or served a search warrant, Attorney Ron Frey generally advises people to remain silent and speak with an attorney. Every situation is unique, and contacting an attorney is a priority to get tailored advice.

Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC, a conference speaker and published author, represents people facing internet and computer crime investigations and charges. For a free, confidential initial consultation, call (844) 766-3739 nationally or (813) 775-2276 in Florida. You can also reach the firm through the contact page.

Journalists covering digital evidence and online investigations can reach Attorney Ron Frey through the Media Inquiries page.

In a recent Florida case, according to news reports, a major social media company flagged a file uploaded through its messaging service and sent a tip to law enforcement. Police said internet, cellphone, and email records helped them connect the account to a person, and a search warrant for that person’s electronic devices followed. The arrest came more than two years after the upload. In a separate recent federal case, investigators said they used records from a messaging app, a phone carrier, an internet provider, a dating site, and Google to link several online accounts and their contact information to one person. The charges in both cases are allegations, and anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

Attorney Ron Frey is not commenting on either case or on anyone involved in them. They are mentioned only because they show a question at the center of many internet crime investigations: who is actually behind an account? A username, a display name, or a profile photo does not identify anyone on its own. Social media, messaging apps such as Telegram, Kik, and Messenger, email, and cloud storage accounts may be traced back through records, and investigators often spend months building that link before anyone is contacted.

Where an investigation usually starts, and why it can take so long

Many investigations begin with a report from the company that runs the platform. Social media, messaging, email, and cloud services may scan for or receive reports of suspected illegal content, and when they believe it may involve the exploitation of a child, they may send a report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Our post on what happens after a CyberTipline report explains that process in more detail. Other investigations start with an undercover officer chatting online, a complaint from another user, or information that comes up in a separate case.

A tip usually identifies an account, not a person. It may include a username, an email address or phone number, an IP address, and the date and time of the activity. In general terms, delays between the activity and any contact from law enforcement can happen because:

• Reports can be numerous, and each one has to be reviewed and routed to the agency that covers the area where the account appears to be.
• Records requests take time. Investigators may need to go to several companies, one after another, and wait for each response.
• Device examinations can back up. Forensic review of phones and computers can take months.
• Charging decisions come later. Even after a search, prosecutors may take time to decide whether to file charges.

A long gap between the activity and any contact does not by itself mean an investigation has ended.

What records can point to a person

Every platform works differently, and what is kept depends on the company, its policies, and the account’s settings. In general terms, records investigators look for include:

• Subscriber information: the name, email address, phone number, and other details given when the account was created, along with the date it was opened. Names are often made up, but phone numbers and email addresses can lead somewhere.
• IP addresses: the internet address used to create the account or log in, with dates and times. An IP address generally points to an internet connection, such as a home Wi-Fi network or a cell phone account, not to a specific person.
• Internet provider and carrier records: once investigators have an IP address and time, they may ask the internet provider or phone carrier which customer account was assigned that address at that moment. That often produces a name and a service address.
• Phone numbers and email addresses used to register: a recovery email or a verification phone number can tie one account to others, such as a Google account or an email account that holds more identifying information.
• Linked accounts across services: the same phone number, email, username, profile photo, or payment method showing up on social media, messaging apps, dating sites, payment apps, and cloud storage.
• Device identifiers: some services record information about the phone or computer used, such as device models, app installation details, or other identifiers that can match a device later found in a search.
• Timing: activity on one account that lines up with logins, messages, or location data from another account or device.

Platforms differ in what they keep. Our posts on Facebook and Messenger evidence and Telegram evidence look at two of them.

How investigators get the records, and the device search

Law enforcement can go to platforms, internet providers, and phone carriers directly. In general terms, the tools investigators use include:

• Preservation requests, which ask a company to hold on to an account’s records while investigators seek formal legal process.
• Subpoenas, which may be used to request certain subscriber and connection information.
• Search warrants and court orders, which may be sought for more detailed records, such as message content or stored files.

Which process is required depends on the type of record, the court, and the law that applies, and that is evaluated case by case.

Once records point to a home or a person, investigators often seek a search warrant for phones, computers, and other devices (see what to do if police seized your computer). A device search may be used to look for the same app or account logged in, saved passwords, matching files, messages, or browser history, all aimed at connecting the account to the device and the device to its user. In cases involving child sexual abuse material (CSAM), formerly called child pornography, the device search is often a central part of the case.

Why a link to an account is not the same as proof

Attribution can look convincing on paper, but records show connections, not necessarily who was typing. In Attorney Ron Frey’s view, questions that may matter include:

• Who else used the connection? Shared Wi-Fi, roommates, family members, guests, open or poorly secured networks, and public hotspots can all put many people behind one IP address.
• Who else used the device or account? Phones and computers get shared, accounts stay logged in, and passwords get borrowed or stolen. The name on an account does not by itself prove who used it.
• Was the address or identity disguised? VPNs, proxies, and other services can hide where activity came from, and phone numbers, email addresses, and profiles can be spoofed or set up in someone else’s name.
• Do the times really line up? Records can be in different time zones, IP address assignments change, and data that is months or years old may no longer reflect who lived at an address or used a connection.
• Are the records authentic and complete? Records produced by a company, screenshots, and forensic reports are different things, and gaps or missing context can change how they read (see questioning the biography of a digital file).
• How were the records obtained and kept? Whether the legal process was proper, whether a warrant’s scope was followed, and whether records were preserved can all be important (see what if the government fails to preserve digital evidence).

Every situation is evaluated case by case under current law, and each needs a tailored response. Laws change, and what applies depends on the facts and the court. Please don’t rely on what the internet or AI tools say about your specific situation.

Talking to an attorney

If a platform tip, a records request, or a search warrant has come up in an investigation, Attorney Ron Frey generally advises people to remain silent and speak with an attorney. Every situation is unique, and contacting an attorney is a priority to get tailored advice.

Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC, a conference speaker and published author, represents people facing internet and computer crime investigations and charges. For a free, confidential initial consultation, call (844) 766-3739 nationally or (813) 775-2276 in Florida. You can also reach the firm through the contact page.

Journalists covering digital evidence and online investigations can reach Attorney Ron Frey through the Media Inquiries page.

A recent federal case in Michigan began with a tip from a payment app’s parent company. According to news reports, the company flagged a pattern of peer-to-peer transfers, the tip was passed along to law enforcement through the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), and investigators then gathered other evidence, including messages and a search of a home and phone. The charges in that case are allegations, and anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

Attorney Ron Frey is not commenting on that case or on anyone involved in it. It is mentioned only because it shows something many people don’t think about: the app they use to split a dinner bill or pay a friend back keeps a detailed record of every payment. Venmo, Cash App, PayPal, Zelle, Apple Pay and Apple Cash, Google Pay, and card processors such as Stripe and Square all keep that kind of information, and in some internet crime cases those records become the starting point of an investigation or a key piece of evidence later on.

What payment apps record

Payment apps and processors include peer-to-peer services such as Venmo, Cash App, PayPal, and Zelle, phone wallets such as Apple Pay, Apple Cash, and Google Pay, and card processors such as Stripe and Square that handle payments for businesses and online sellers. Every one works differently, and what is kept depends on the company, its policies, and the account’s settings. In general terms, payment app records can include:

• Transaction history: who sent money, who received it, how much, and when, often down to the minute.
• Notes and memos: the short description, emoji, or message typed with a payment.
• Account details: usernames or handles, phone numbers, email addresses, and identity information provided to open or verify the account.
• Linked accounts: bank accounts, debit or credit cards, and other accounts connected to the app.
• Device and connection data: the phone or computer used to log in, IP addresses, login history, and in some cases location information.
• Social features: on some apps, a friends list or a feed showing who paid whom.

Payment records come up in many kinds of cases, including financial crimes such as fraud and identity theft, not only cases involving messages or images.

How records reach law enforcement

Payment apps and processors are part of a heavily regulated financial industry. Speaking generally, these companies must monitor their platforms and report suspicious and unusual activity, and they also watch for fraud and other misuse. When a company believes activity may involve the exploitation of a child, it may send a report to NCMEC’s CyberTipline, which can then pass the information to law enforcement. Our post on what happens after a CyberTipline report explains that process in more detail.

Transactions on these platforms are subject to investigation, and law enforcement can go to a payment company directly. Payment records can be obtained through a subpoena or a search warrant. In general terms, the tools investigators use include:

• Preservation requests, which ask a company to hold on to an account’s records while investigators seek formal legal process.
• Subpoenas, which may be used to request certain account and transaction information.
• Search warrants and court orders, which may be sought for more detailed records.

Which process is required depends on the type of record, the court, and the law that applies, and that is evaluated case by case. The approach is similar to how investigators seek other online accounts, such as AI chat records.

How payment records get tied to other evidence

A payment record on its own shows that money moved from one account to another. Investigators usually try to connect it to other evidence to build a fuller picture, such as:

• Messages on social media or messaging apps that appear to discuss the payments, like the messaging app records that often come up in these cases.
• Phones and computers seized and examined under a search warrant (see what to do if police seized your computer). Payment records are not stored only by the company. During a device search, investigators may also find them on the device itself: in the payment app, in notifications, in payment emails and text messages, in screenshots, and in browser data such as history or saved pages.
• Phone numbers, email addresses, and devices shared between the payment account and other accounts.
• Timing, such as payments that line up with messages, logins, or locations.
• Statements a person makes to investigators, and other digital records, including AI chatbot prompts.

In online solicitation cases, for example, prosecutors may point to payment records alongside chats, and a separate charge for unlawful use of a two-way communications device can come up as well. In cases involving child sexual abuse material (CSAM), formerly called child pornography, payment notes and transfers may be offered to argue what a payment was for.

Questions a defense attorney may look at

Payment records can look precise, but they do not explain themselves. In Attorney Ron Frey’s view, questions that may matter include:

• Who actually controlled the account? Phones get shared, accounts get borrowed, logins get stolen, and family members sometimes use the same device. The name on an account does not by itself prove who sent a payment.
• What do the payment notes really mean? Memos are often jokes, emojis, inside references, or autocorrect mistakes. A note does not necessarily show what a payment was for.
• Are the records authentic and complete? A screenshot is different from records produced by the company, and gaps, time zone differences, or missing context can change how records read.
• How were the records obtained? Whether the legal process was proper, whether a warrant’s scope was followed, and whether records were preserved can all be important (see what if the government fails to preserve digital evidence).

Every situation is evaluated case by case under current law, and each needs a tailored response. Laws change, and what applies depends on the facts and the court. Please don’t rely on what the internet or AI tools say about your specific situation.

Talking to an attorney

If a payment app account, a company tip, or a records request has come up in an investigation, Attorney Ron Frey generally advises people to remain silent and speak with an attorney. Every situation is unique, and contacting an attorney is a priority to get tailored advice.

Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC, a conference speaker and published author, represents people facing internet and computer crime investigations and charges. For a free, confidential initial consultation, call (844) 766-3739 nationally or (813) 775-2276 in Florida. You can also reach the firm through the contact page.

Journalists covering payment apps and digital evidence can reach Attorney Ron Frey through the Media Inquiries page.

Almost everything people do in public is now captured on camera. Home doorbell and security systems such as Ring and Nest, business security cameras, publicly owned cameras, Flock license-plate readers, and store cameras, including those inside grocery stores like Publix, record daily life. Police body cameras add more footage, and drones are expected to bring more aerial video from law enforcement. On top of that, nearly everyone carries a phone that can record high-quality 4K video.

At the same time, artificial intelligence can now produce video and photos that are nearly indistinguishable from the real thing. In Attorney Ron Frey’s view, that combination is changing how people react to what they see. For years, many people believed whatever appeared on video. Now skepticism is rising, and it is often hard to tell whether an image or clip is real, has been altered by AI, or was fabricated entirely.

The Boston hearing: AI companies warn federal judges

On October 15, 2026, representatives from OpenAI and Meta spoke to the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules at a meeting in Boston. According to Investing.com, Shira Anderson, policy counsel at OpenAI, told the committee she does not believe a scientific method will exist in the future to detect AI images. Devin Norder, director of product management at Meta, said that media created by recent AI models cannot be distinguished by humans from authentic content, and that making it now takes minimal cost and time.

Watermarking is one proposed safeguard, and new laws in California and the European Union require it. But Anderson told the committee that each company uses its own system, so no universal method exists to reliably detect every watermark or verify every image or video.

So far, deepfake disputes appear to be rare in court. A March survey by the Federal Judicial Center found that only 15 of 931 responding judges had encountered a case where a party challenged evidence as a deepfake. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of Manhattan, who chairs the committee, noted that the issue has not yet appeared frequently in actual cases.

What proposed Rule 901(c) would do

The committee has been studying deepfakes since 2023. According to its October 2026 agenda book, it has prepared, but not finally approved, a proposed new Federal Rule of Evidence 901(c). The draft works in two steps. First, the party challenging an item as fabricated would have to present evidence sufficient to support that finding. If that showing is made, the burden would shift to the party offering the item to show that it is more likely than not authentic. The draft also calls for reasonable pretrial notice of the intent to make such a challenge, unless the court orders otherwise.

The proposal is not settled. The agenda book records that the Department of Justice’s representative said the rule is not ready for publication, and at least one committee member suggested it was premature.

Two hurdles: authentication and the weight a jury gives evidence

As Attorney Ron Frey sees it, these developments challenge courts at two levels. The first is authentication, which is foundational to introducing any evidence. Before a video or photo can be used, the party offering it generally has to show it is what they claim it is.

The second comes after authentication. Even when evidence is admitted, a question remains about how much weight a jury will give a video or photo. Jurors who know how convincing AI fakes can be may view footage differently than jurors did a few years ago. Attorney Ron Frey expects these challenges to grow as AI capability increases.

What this means for people accused of internet and computer crimes

Internet and computer crime cases often depend on digital evidence: screenshots, chat logs, images, recordings, and files pulled from phones and computers. Questions about where a file came from and whether it was altered may become more important in both Florida state courts and federal court. In practice, that can mean:

• Authentication: Metadata, device records, and the chain of custody can matter when deciding whether evidence is what it claims to be.
• Forensic review: An independent forensic examination of devices and files may help show how an item was created, edited, or shared.
• Defense challenges: If proposed Rule 901(c) is adopted, a person challenging federal evidence as AI-generated may need to come forward with supporting evidence and give pretrial notice. Florida courts follow their own evidence rules, and how they will address deepfake claims is still developing. Learn more about AI-generated images and deepfakes.

The agenda book also notes that, according to the committee’s reporter, Rule 901(c) would not cover AI-generated images offered to prove an element of a child exploitation offense when the government concedes the images are fabricated, because that would not involve a fake being offered as something it is not.

Talking to an attorney

If you are under investigation or have been charged with an internet or computer crime, the evidence against you deserves careful review. Attorney Ron Frey generally advises people to remain silent and speak with an attorney. Every situation is unique, and contacting an attorney is a priority to get tailored advice.

Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC, a conference speaker and published author, represents people facing internet crime charges in Florida and in federal court. Contact us or call (844) 766-3739 nationally or (813) 775-2276 in Florida.

According to reports and a U.S. Department of Justice announcement, an engineer at an AI company in San Francisco was arrested in October 2026 and charged with using or attempting to use a device to intercept oral communications. The complaint alleges that a recording device was found hidden in an executive conference room. It also alleges that a chatbot account associated with the engineer’s spouse, which reportedly shared identifiers with the engineer’s own account, submitted prompts about building a continuous audio recorder, encrypting its storage, and accessing it remotely. These are allegations only. The engineer is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

Why AI Chatbot Evidence Is Showing Up in Criminal Cases

AI chatbots, superintelligence tools, and large language models keep records. Many services store a history of prompts and responses tied to an account, and that history can be obtained by investigators through a search warrant, subpoena, or a device seizure. To a prosecutor, a prompt can look like a window into what someone was thinking or planning.

But a prompt is not always a confession. It is an alleged input into a computer system, and the same questions that apply to any other digital evidence apply here too.

Attribution: Who Was Behind the Keyboard?

The first question is often the most important one. Who actually typed or spoke the prompt at that moment?

An account name is not a person. Accounts are shared between spouses, family members, roommates, and coworkers. Devices are left unlocked. Passwords are saved in browsers. In the case described above, the government itself alleges the account was associated with the defendant’s spouse, not the defendant. Linking a person to a specific prompt at a specific time requires more than pointing to a login. The defense may examine device logs, IP addresses, location data, and who had physical access to the device.

What Exactly Was Prompted?

Context matters. A single line pulled out of a long conversation can look very different from the full exchange. Questions worth asking include:

• What were the exact words of the prompt?
• What came before and after it in the conversation?
• Was the prompt edited, regenerated, or deleted?
• Did the chatbot’s own responses steer the conversation?

Curiosity, research, fiction writing, and work tasks can all produce prompts that sound alarming when read in isolation.

Was the Evidence Preserved, and Who Has Had Access?

Digital evidence is only as reliable as the way it was collected and handled. The defense may ask whether the full chat history was preserved or only selected portions, how the records were extracted from the provider or from a device, and who has had access to the data since. Gaps in the chain of custody can raise questions about whether the evidence is complete and accurate.

Malware, Interference, and Unauthorized Access

As with any computer evidence, there is the possibility that someone else was using the account or that the device was compromised. Malware, remote access tools, stolen credentials, and shared sessions can all put words on a screen that the account holder never wrote. A careful review looks for any sign of interference.

Spoken or Typed? The Speech-to-Text Problem

Many people now talk to their AI assistants instead of typing. That creates a problem that nearly everyone has experienced. You say one thing, and your device writes down something completely different.

Imagine telling your phone something in a noisy room, and the transcription comes out wrong. Now imagine that misinterpreted text being read to a jury as though you had typed it word for word. The question of whether a prompt was spoken or typed, and how accurately the device converted speech to text, can make a real difference in what the evidence actually shows.

“When it comes to AI chatbot prompts, all of the standard questions regarding any alleged input into a computer system apply. Who was behind the device at that moment? What exactly was prompted? Was it typed or spoken? Everyone has had a device misinterpret what they said, and that misinterpreted information can be used against you. In many ways it is like hearsay, not necessarily in the legal sense, but it carries the same problems as any misunderstanding or miscommunication,” said Attorney Ron Frey.

Like Hearsay, in a Practical Sense

A chatbot prompt may not be hearsay in the strict legal sense, and how courts treat it will depend on the facts and the rules of evidence. But in a practical sense, it shares many of the same weaknesses. It is a statement taken out of its original setting, passed through a machine, and later interpreted by someone else. Any of those steps can introduce misunderstanding or miscommunication. An experienced lawyer needs to consider all of these issues when AI chatbot evidence is part of a case.

How This Connects to Other Digital Evidence Issues

AI prompts are part of a larger trend. We have previously written about how phones and computers are seized and searched, how responsibility is assigned when an AI agent takes action on someone’s behalf, and how vehicle camera footage such as Tesla Sentry Mode recordings can be used in court. Each of these raises the same core issues: attribution, accuracy, preservation, and context. Chatbot prompts are simply the newest form of the same problem.

The Federal Law Involved

The charge described in the case above is reportedly brought under a federal wiretap law that generally addresses intentionally intercepting, or attempting to intercept, certain communications without authorization. As always, laws are subject to change and revision, so contact Attorney Ron Frey to discuss the details of your case and the current status of the law.

What to Do If Your AI Chats Are Part of an Investigation

If law enforcement contacts you about your online activity, your devices, or your AI chatbot history, Attorney Ron Frey generally advises that you exercise the right to remain silent and speak with an attorney before making any statements. Statements made to investigators can be used alongside digital records, and explaining a prompt without legal advice can make things worse.

At the time of this writing, courts are still working through how AI chatbot records should be handled as evidence. The law in this area is developing quickly.

Talk With Attorney Ron Frey

If you are under investigation or have been charged in a case involving AI chatbot records, digital evidence, or seized devices, contact The Frey Law Firm, LLC. Initial consultations are free and confidential and are available by phone, video, or in person. Call or text (844) 766-3739.

To understand where the law may be headed, it helps to look at where it has been.

Where It Started: The Search Term

When Attorney Ron Frey began handling internet and computer crime cases in the early 2000s, many cases turned on what a person received in response to a search query. At the time, that often meant a search on Yahoo.

The pattern was fairly straightforward. A person typed a search term, the search engine returned a list of sites, and the person clicked through to one of them. If illegal material was later found on the computer, that search term became central to the case.

A single search term could be strong evidence for the government, used to argue that the person intended to find what they found. It could also be strong evidence for the defense, showing that where the person ended up was not where they meant to go, and that what ended up on the computer was not something they were looking for.

Then Came Peer-to-Peer Networks

Cases then evolved into peer-to-peer (P2P) cases. Search terms were still involved, but instead of returning links, the search returned files that were downloaded or shared.

P2P networks were generally far riskier than a search engine. Instead of being directed to corporate or trusted websites, users were pulling files directly from strangers who could be anywhere in the world, some of whom were engaged in criminal activity. File names often did not match their contents, and the same questions about intent became even more complicated.

Then Chatbots, Images and Video

Chatbots became widely known and used after ChatGPT was released in late 2022. Now, instead of being directed to content on a website or a P2P network, a person’s prompt is answered by a large language model that generates new content using predictive technology.

The technology quickly moved beyond text. AI systems can now generate images and video as well. As we have discussed in our page on AI chats and prompts as evidence, prompts can play the same role search terms once did, as evidence of intent or as evidence of its absence.

Now: AI Agents That Act

At the time of this writing, in 2026, AI companies are deploying agentic AI systems. A person gives one or more AI agents goals and information, and the agents take steps on their own to accomplish them.

Given access, these agents can handle finances, log into accounts, go through email, and do nearly anything a typical user can do on a computer or cell phone. That raises the question of who is responsible when an agent does something the person did not specifically tell it to do.

Next: Robots in the Physical World

The next step appears clear. It will not just be digital bots, but physical ones. A number of companies are competing to deliver humanoid robots run by artificial intelligence.

Tesla’s Optimus is one of the primary examples. At the time of this writing, Tesla has said its first Optimus production line is designed for an eventual capacity of one million robots a year, and company leaders have spoken of a later factory aimed at far higher volumes. It is apparent that the amount of funding, resources and energy being put into the development of these robots is substantial, and on a long enough timeline it seems apparent that there will be wide release and adoption in some form.

Now imagine directing not one digital agent, but several humanoid robots that do not get tired, are highly capable, and act in the real world at your direction. The legal questions will be voluminous.

In some ways, agentic AI can already be seen in the real world. Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) vehicles, and the unsupervised self-driving vehicles now operating in some cities, take a goal, such as a destination, and make their own driving decisions to reach it. (Attorney Ron Frey has written about Tesla Autopilot, autonomous vehicles and the law on FreyLegal.com.)

A World Full of Robots

Consider how people once looked out a window and saw no cars. Decades later, it is hard to look outside and not see countless cars.

If the predictions about robots come even remotely true, the same may happen again. People could see robots working in stores, shopping for people, accompanying people, and walking down the street.

“When I started, a single search term could decide a case. Then it was a file name, then a prompt. If robots are acting on someone’s instructions, those instructions are likely going to be the evidence. The question is whether the law will understand what the person actually intended and what the machine decided on its own.”

Who Is Responsible When a Robot Does Wrong?

The core questions are simple to ask and hard to answer:

• Civil responsibility. If a robot causes property damage or injury, who pays: the owner, the person who gave the instruction, the manufacturer, or the software developer?
• Criminal responsibility. If a robot does something that would be a crime if a person did it, who, if anyone, can be charged?
• Intent. Criminal law generally requires a guilty mind. A robot that interprets a goal in an unexpected way raises the same problems we discussed with AI agents, now with physical consequences.

Just as search terms and prompts are used against people today, the instructions given to a robot would likely be used the same way, assuming the same laws are applied. Robot logs, app commands, voice instructions and sensor data could all become evidence, much like the records discussed in our post on how police get AI records. Cars already raise similar questions today, as discussed in our post on Tesla Sentry Mode recordings as evidence.

As part of a defense strategy, it is generally important to review what the person actually instructed, what the system did on its own, what the person could have known or foreseen, and whether the records are complete and accurately interpreted.

Insurance, Safety Rules and the Law Ahead

Attorney Ron Frey expects that a complex web of insurance requirements, safety standards, and other measures will be put in place as robots spread. At the time of this writing, the law has generally not caught up, and existing criminal and civil laws were written with human actors in mind.

As always, laws are subject to change and revision, so contact Attorney Ron Frey to discuss the details of your case and the current status of the law.

Talk With Attorney Ron Frey About Your Case

If you are being investigated or have been charged in a case involving AI, an AI agent, or other technology, contact The Frey Law Firm for a free and confidential initial consultation. We can meet by phone, by video, or at our Tampa office, and we can come to you when the situation calls for it.

Call or text (844) 766-3739. Rapid response, 24/7.

This post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Laws change frequently, and the information in this post may not reflect the current status of the law at the time you read it.

Many people expect self-driving and driver-assistance features to make roads safer, but Attorney Ron Frey, who has followed vehicle technology for years, also sees a new kind of witness entering criminal cases: the car itself.

What Sentry Mode Does

According to Tesla’s owner’s manual and support materials, Sentry Mode uses the car’s external cameras and sensors to monitor a parked, locked vehicle. If it detects a possible threat, it can sound an alarm, flash the lights, alert the owner’s phone app, and save video clips. Saved footage generally goes to a USB drive in the car, and the separate Dashcam feature can record while driving.

That means a parked Tesla may capture people walking by, cars driving past, an argument in a parking lot, or a break-in. Sentry Mode was designed for security, but Tesla Sentry Mode evidence can end up in a criminal case for reasons that have nothing to do with the car.

The Data Beyond Video

Video is only part of it. Depending on the vehicle and settings, a car may record:

• Location history and navigation destinations,
• Speed, braking, and acceleration around a crash,
• Whether driver-assistance features such as Autopilot or Full Self-Driving (Supervised) were engaged,
• Phone connections, contacts and call logs synced through Bluetooth, and
• App activity linked to the owner’s account.

Some of that is stored in the car. Some is sent to the manufacturer. Some sits in the owner’s phone app or cloud account. Each location has different rules for how police can get it. (We cover cloud and account data in Cloud Storage Evidence and Google Account Evidence.)

How Tesla Sentry Mode Evidence Gets Into a Case

Tesla Sentry Mode evidence and other vehicle data can reach investigators in several ways:

• The owner shares it. A car owner who is a victim of vandalism may hand clips to police voluntarily.
• Police ask a neighbor. Officers canvassing a street may ask Tesla owners for footage the way they ask for doorbell video.
• A warrant for the car or the USB drive. If the car is seized, investigators may image its storage just as they would a computer. (See Police Seized My Computer.)
• A request to the manufacturer. Data sent to the company’s servers may be sought with legal process.

Each path raises different legal questions about consent, privacy, and the scope of a warrant.

Two Sides of the Same Footage

Vehicle evidence can help the defense as much as the prosecution. Car video may show who really started a fight, that a person wasn’t where a witness said, or that another driver ran the light. Driving data can show whether a driver-assistance feature was engaged, which may matter in a crash investigation.

But that footage doesn’t keep forever. USB drives get overwritten, and clips are often saved only when an event triggers them. If car data might help, preserving it early can be critical. Our post on video evidence in criminal cases discusses how quickly footage disappears.

Questions the Defense Asks

As part of a defense strategy, it is generally important to review questions like:

• Is the clip complete, or was it cut down?
• Are the timestamps accurate?
• Who had access to the car and the account?
• Did police exceed the scope of a warrant or consent?
• Does the data show what the government says it shows, or does it need a qualified analyst to interpret?

These are the same kinds of questions that came up in the early computer cases. The technology changed. The principles didn’t.

Self-Driving Raises Even More Questions

As self-driving features spread, vehicle data will matter more, not less. At the time of this writing, Tesla reports that owners have driven more than 15 billion miles on Full Self-Driving (Supervised), according to a tracker of Tesla’s published counter. Robotaxis with no one in the driver’s seat are now operating in several cities.

If police want to talk to you about video or data from your car, Attorney Ron Frey generally advises that you exercise your right to remain silent and contact an attorney before answering questions. Whether a person may be required to hand over or unlock a device depends on the circumstances, the jurisdiction, and any search warrant or court order involved. (More on digital evidence is on our Internet Crimes page.)

“Your car may be the most honest witness in the case, or the most misunderstood one. Either way, someone has to look closely at what it actually recorded.”

As always, laws are subject to change and revision, so contact Attorney Ron Frey to discuss the details of your case and the current status of the law.

Questions About Vehicle Data in Your Case? Let’s Talk.

If you would like to speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer about vehicle video, Sentry Mode or dashcam footage, or car data in a criminal investigation, or you have further questions, don’t hesitate to contact Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC, wherever you are. Your initial consultation is free and confidential. You can talk with us by phone, by video, or at our Tampa office, and when the situation calls for it, we can come to you.

Call or text (844) 766-3739. Rapid response, 24/7.

This post is for general information only. It is not legal advice, and reading it or contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Laws involving vehicle data and digital evidence are changing quickly and vary from state to state, and how they apply depends on the facts of each case and on how courts interpret them. Please don’t rely on this post, or on any other information online, to make decisions about your situation. Talk with a lawyer.

The First Case

According to a U.S. Department of Justice press release from the Southern District of Ohio, a Columbus man was sentenced in September to 15 years in federal prison after pleading guilty to several federal charges, including producing obscene visual representations involving minors (which can include what is often called child pornography, now commonly referred to as child sexual abuse material, or CSAM), and publication of digital forgeries. Prosecutors described the digital-forgery count as the first conviction in the nation under the Take It Down Act.

According to the release, the case involved a months-long harassment campaign using both real and AI-generated images. (Our Ohio internet crime defense page has more on cases there.)

That case involved many serious allegations beyond the new law. But it shows that federal prosecutors are ready to use the Take It Down Act, and that they will pair it with other charges.

What the Take It Down Act Covers

The criminal part of the Take It Down Act is generally addressed under 47 U.S.C. § 223(h), which deals with the intentional disclosure of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. In general terms, it makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish, through an online service:

• real intimate images of an identifiable person without consent, in certain circumstances, and
• “digital forgeries,” meaning intimate images of an identifiable person created or altered with AI or other software so that they look authentic.

The law treats depictions of minors more seriously than depictions of adults, and it also addresses threats to publish such images. There are exceptions, such as certain disclosures to law enforcement, and the law includes elements about consent, intent and harm that prosecutors have to prove.

The law also requires covered online platforms to set up a process for victims to request removal and to take images down quickly after a valid request. That is the “take it down” part of the name.

How These Cases Often Overlap With Other Charges

Take It Down Act cases rarely stand alone. Depending on the facts, prosecutors may add:

• Extortion or threats, when images are used to demand something.
• Child-related charges, when the images involve minors, which carry far more serious consequences.
• State charges, because many states have their own deepfake and nonconsensual image laws. (Our post on AI image generation and the law covers the broader landscape.)

Questions the Defense Looks At

Because the law is new, many questions are still open:

• Who created the image, and who published it? Creating and publishing are different acts, and devices and accounts can be shared.
• Was the person identifiable? The statute focuses on identifiable individuals.
• Was it actually AI-generated, or altered, or real? That can affect which part of the law applies. Forensic analysis of the file and the device matters. (See Police Seized My Computer.)
• What about intent and harm? The statute includes mental-state and harm elements that must be proven.
• Where was it posted? Our social media page discusses how platforms preserve and report content.

Our page on AI-generated images and deepfakes covers related state and federal issues.

If You Are Contacted About an Image

Investigations under this law often begin with a report to a platform or to police, followed by records requests and, sometimes, a search warrant for devices. If agents or officers reach out, Attorney Ron Frey generally advises that the person exercise the right to remain silent and speak with an attorney before making any statements. These cases are technical, and early statements are easy to misunderstand.

“AI has made it easy to create images that never existed, and the law is moving fast to catch up. When a case turns on how an image was made and who posted it, the technical details matter a great deal.”

As always, laws are subject to change and revision, so contact Attorney Ron Frey to discuss the details of your case and the current status of the law.

Questions About a Deepfake or Image Investigation? Let’s Talk.

If you would like to speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer about a Take It Down Act, deepfake, or nonconsensual image investigation, or you have further questions, don’t hesitate to contact Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC, wherever you are. Your initial consultation is free and confidential. You can talk with us by phone, by video, or at our Tampa office, and when the situation calls for it, we can come to you.

Call or text (844) 766-3739. Rapid response, 24/7.

This post is for general information only. It is not legal advice, and reading it or contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Laws on deepfakes, AI images and online publication are changing quickly and vary from state to state, and how they apply depends on the facts of each case and on how courts interpret them. Please don’t rely on this post, or on any other information online, to make decisions about your situation. Talk with a lawyer.

At the time of this writing, according to WUNC, via BPR, a man from Cornelius, North Carolina, was sentenced on October 6 in Manhattan federal court to 18 months in prison in what prosecutors called the first federal criminal case of music streaming fraud. He had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Prosecutors said that over several years he used AI to generate hundreds of thousands of songs, then used thousands of fake streaming accounts and automated “bots” to stream them billions of times, collecting more than $8 million in royalties.

He was also ordered to pay back roughly that amount.

The case is over, but the questions it raises about AI streaming fraud are just beginning.

How Prosecutors Described the Scheme

According to the reporting, prosecutors alleged that the scheme had three parts:

• AI-generated music. Rather than writing songs, he allegedly worked with an AI music company to produce a massive catalog.
• Fake accounts. Thousands of streaming accounts were allegedly created under false names, paid for with debit cards obtained under false pretenses.
• Automation. Bots allegedly streamed the songs, and the plays were spread across thousands of tracks to avoid the platforms’ fraud detection.

The original indictment also included wire fraud and money laundering charges. Under the plea agreement, he pleaded guilty only to the conspiracy count.

The Federal Laws Involved

AI streaming fraud cases like this one generally rely on long-standing federal fraud statutes:

• Wire fraud is generally addressed under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, which covers schemes to obtain money by false pretenses using interstate wires, which includes the internet.
• Conspiracy to commit wire fraud is generally addressed under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, which covers attempts and conspiracies to commit federal fraud offenses.
• Money laundering is generally addressed under 18 U.S.C. § 1956, and it is often charged when proceeds of an alleged fraud are moved or spent.

None of these laws mention artificial intelligence. They don’t need to. Prosecutors are applying old statutes to new technology, which is exactly the pattern Attorney Ron Frey saw in the early internet cases.

Where Does AI Streaming Fraud Begin?

Using AI to create music is not, by itself, generally a crime. But AI-generated music can still raise legal problems, such as copyright infringement or violations of other laws, depending on how it was made and used. The government’s theory in this case was about deception: fake listeners, fake accounts, and false information used to collect money that would otherwise go to others.

That raises fair questions about where AI streaming fraud begins for anyone working in this space:

• When does heavy promotion become fraud?
• Is using automation to boost plays a breach of a platform’s terms, a civil dispute, or a federal crime?
• Who is responsible when an AI tool, a promotion service, or a contractor creates the fake activity?
• How do investigators prove which streams were fake?

The answers often turn on intent and on what the person knew. Those are the issues a defense lawyer focuses on.

Financial Records Tell the Story

Fraud cases like this are built on data: platform logs, payment records, bank transfers, emails, and messages. Attorney Ron Frey earned a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, with a major in finance, and a Bachelor of Science in Economics from John Carroll University. That background is useful when a case comes down to following the money and testing how the government reads financial records. (More about his background is on his attorney profile.)

Our financial crimes page and our page on AI fraud and voice cloning cover related charges.

A North Carolina Case With National Reach

The defendant lived in North Carolina, but the case was prosecuted in New York. That is common in internet fraud cases, where the platforms, payments, and victims can be spread across the country. (See our North Carolina internet crime page.)

Federal fraud investigations often begin quietly, with subpoenas to platforms and banks, and the first notice a person gets may be a target letter or a visit from agents. (See Received a Federal Target Letter in an Internet Crime Investigation.) When agents reach out, Attorney Ron Frey generally advises exercising the right to remain silent and contacting an attorney before making any statements.

“The statutes are old, but the technology is new. In these cases, the question is often what the person actually knew and intended.”

As always, laws are subject to change and revision, so contact Attorney Ron Frey to discuss the details of your case and the current status of the law.

Questions About an AI or Online Fraud Investigation? Let’s Talk.

If you would like to speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer about a streaming, AI, or online fraud investigation, or you have further questions, don’t hesitate to contact Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC, wherever you are. Your initial consultation is free and confidential. You can talk with us by phone, by video, or at our Tampa office, and when the situation calls for it, we can come to you.

Call or text (844) 766-3739. Rapid response, 24/7.

This post is for general information only. It is not legal advice, and reading it or contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Laws on online fraud and artificial intelligence are changing quickly and vary from state to state, and how they apply depends on the facts of each case and on how courts interpret them. Please don’t rely on this post, or on any other information online, to make decisions about your situation. Talk with a lawyer.

Everyone charged is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

Operations like this happen across Ohio, from the Toledo area to Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati, and they often produce a wave of arrests at once. For the people charged and their families, the experience is usually sudden and disorienting. Attorney Ron Frey has defended internet crime cases in Ohio for many years, and this post explains in general terms how an Ohio online sting case usually unfolds. (See our Ohio internet crime page.)

How an Ohio Online Sting Usually Works

Officers create profiles on dating apps, social media, or chat platforms. Sometimes the profile starts out presenting as an adult. At some point in the conversation, the officer says the person is a minor. The chat continues, and if a meeting is arranged, officers are often waiting at the location.

Every message is saved. By the time of the arrest, investigators usually have a complete transcript, and they often seize the person’s phone. We describe the general pattern of sting cases in Arrested in an Online Sting.

The Charges Involved

Ohio sting cases commonly involve:

• Importuning, generally addressed under Ohio Revised Code Section 2907.07, which covers soliciting a minor, including by means of a telecommunications device, and specifically reaches situations where the other person is a law enforcement officer posing as a minor.
• Attempt, generally addressed under Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.02, Attempt to commit an offense, which is often paired with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor under Section 2907.04.
• Illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, generally addressed under Section 2907.323, when the chats include requests for images. This can include what is often called child pornography, now commonly referred to as child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

Some cases are also brought federally, most often under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), the federal enticement statute. (See our page on federal enticement charges.) Whether a case stays in state court or goes federal can change the stakes considerably.

Questions the Defense Looks At

Even when the chat transcript looks bad, there are real questions in many Ohio online sting cases:

• Who introduced the topic? If the officer steered the conversation, that matters.
• Was the age representation clear and consistent? Some profiles are on adult-only sites, and the “age” appears late or ambiguously.
• Was the transcript complete? Missing messages, deleted threads, or summaries instead of full logs can change the picture.
• Was there inducement? Entrapment is a narrow defense, but it is a real question when officers push someone who wasn’t inclined to commit the offense.
• What does the phone actually show? Forensic examination may show more, or less, than the police report suggests.

These are fact-specific questions, and they require careful review of every message. (Our solicitation page covers related charges.)

After the Arrest

People charged in a sting often face strict bond conditions, which can include restrictions on internet use and contact with minors. Many have never been arrested before. (Our post on first-offense internet crimes discusses what that can mean.) Families often learn about the arrest from news coverage, sometimes before the person has spoken with a lawyer.

When investigators want to interview someone after a sting, Attorney Ron Frey generally advises that the person decline to answer questions and speak with an attorney first. Statements made right after an arrest, under stress, are often the most damaging evidence in the case.

“In a sting case, I want every message, in order, from the very first contact. The full conversation often tells a different story than the excerpts in a police report.”

As always, laws are subject to change and revision, so contact Attorney Ron Frey to discuss the details of your case and the current status of the law.

Charged After an Ohio Sting? Let’s Talk.

If you would like to speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer about an online sting, importuning, or solicitation charge in Ohio or anywhere else, or you have further questions, don’t hesitate to contact Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC, wherever you are. Your initial consultation is free and confidential. You can talk with us by phone, by video, or at our Tampa office, and when the situation calls for it, we can come to you.

Call or text (844) 766-3739. Rapid response, 24/7.

This post is for general information only. It is not legal advice, and reading it or contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Laws on online solicitation and sting operations are changing quickly and vary from state to state, and how they apply depends on the facts of each case and on how courts interpret them. Please don’t rely on this post, or on any other information online, to make decisions about your situation. Talk with a lawyer.

When an AI system produces something no one asked for, or takes an action no one told it to take, who is responsible? That is the question at the heart of AI agent responsibility.

That question stopped being theoretical this month.

The False Tip

At the time of this writing, according to 6abc Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Police Department announced that an AI model made by Anthropic submitted a false tip about an unsolved homicide through a public police tip website in July. Police said the tip was flagged as spam and never forwarded for investigation, and that there was no sign of unauthorized access to police systems.

According to the police statement, the company said its model was running a test that involved interacting with randomly selected websites. Police said the company discovered the incident in late September, notified the department on October 7, and ended the testing process. The department called the roughly two-month delay “unacceptable.”

Days later, the White House said AI companies must immediately disclose incidents involving their models, cooperate with law enforcement, and prevent recurrence, Axios reported. Early coverage noted that the statement did not cite a published rule, a reporting form, or penalties (AI Affairs).

No one has been charged with anything. We use this example because it shows exactly the kind of situation that AI agent responsibility questions will grow out of.

What Makes an “Agent” Different

A chatbot answers questions. An AI agent does things. It can browse websites, fill out forms, send emails, make purchases, and move files, often without a person approving each step. We cover the basics on our agentic AI page.

When an agent takes an action, there may be several people in the chain: the person who gave the instruction, the company that built the model, the company that deployed it, and sometimes a third party whose tool the agent used. This is where AI agent responsibility gets complicated.

If the action would be a crime if a human did it, such as a false report to police, unauthorized access to a computer, or a fraudulent purchase, the law has to decide where responsibility lands.

AI Agent Responsibility and the Guilty Mind

Most serious crimes require more than an act. They require a mental state, such as intent, knowledge or recklessness. Filing a false police report, for example, generally requires that the person knew the report was false. A person who gives an AI agent an ordinary instruction, and then the agent invents something on its own, is in a very different position from a person who tells an agent to lie.

That is the heart of the “sixth finger” problem, and of AI agent responsibility generally. If the person didn’t ask for it, didn’t expect it, and couldn’t reasonably have known it would happen, it is hard to see how that person had the guilty mind most crimes require. But prosecutors may argue that a person who turns an agent loose on the internet without guardrails was reckless. Companies may face civil lawsuits and regulatory action even where no individual faces charges.

When AI Generates Something Illegal

The sixth-finger problem raises a much more serious question when the output is illegal. Many AI companies say they monitor for child pornography, now commonly referred to as child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2258A (reporting requirements of providers), generally requires online service providers that become aware of apparent CSAM to report it to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s CyberTipline. According to NCMEC, the CyberTipline received more than 400,000 reports with a generative AI connection in 2025. In a federal court filing this summer, one AI company said it had made 73,604 reports to NCMEC so far in 2026. At the time of this writing, AI-generated material can also be illegal on its own. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1466A (obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children), generally reaches obscene visual depictions of minors, including drawings, cartoons, and computer-generated images, and Florida Statutes § 827.072 (generated child sexual abuse material) generally makes it a crime to knowingly possess, intentionally view, transmit, or intentionally create computer-generated sexual images of a fictitious person who appears to be a minor.

So what happens when a person asks an AI tool for something lawful and it produces something illegal the person never asked for? Under these laws, knowledge and intent generally matter a great deal. Florida’s statute, for example, generally requires that a person knowingly possess the material or intentionally create it. But the company’s report can still start an investigation, and the prompts, the outputs, and what the person did next generally become the evidence. As part of a defense strategy, and in reviewing the evidence received from the government, it is important to review the specific prompts that were used, the actions taken by the AI, and what that shows about the user’s intent and knowledge. Unfortunately, this review generally occurs only after a criminal prosecution has begun.

The Prompt Becomes Evidence

In any investigation like this, the first thing investigators will want is the record of what the person actually asked the AI to do. Prompts, logs, and settings can show whether a result was requested, encouraged, or completely unexpected. That makes prompt history central evidence in AI cases. We explore how police obtain those records in How Police Get AI Records, and why prompts matter on our AI chats and prompts as evidence page.

Prompt history can cut both ways. It can show intent, or it can show that the person asked for something perfectly ordinary and the AI went somewhere no one expected.

Courts Are Still Learning

Attorney Ron Frey has seen this pattern before. In the early days of internet cases, many lawyers didn’t use the technology, the public didn’t understand it, and judges were often unfamiliar with how it worked. Prosecutions were built around technology that the courtroom hadn’t yet learned. AI is following the same path. (See our post on AI evidence in court.)

“With the advent of AI, we’re experiencing this all over again. It’s a new technology that many lawyers don’t use and the general public doesn’t understand yet. Courts generally aren’t familiar with what it can do, and prosecutions are now being built around it.”

In a case involving an AI agent, the defense often has to explain to a judge or jury how the system actually works: what it was told, what it decided on its own, and what the person could have known. That is technical work, and it often requires qualified forensic analysts.

What People Using AI Agents Should Keep in Mind

We aren’t going to tell anyone how to use AI tools. But if investigators contact you about something an AI agent did on your account, take it seriously. Attorney Ron Frey generally advises that a person contacted by law enforcement exercise the right to remain silent and talk with an attorney before making any statements, especially when the facts involve technology that is easy to misunderstand.

(For more on where AI is heading, see Attorney Ron Frey’s commentary in AI or Superintelligence? and our AI crimes hub.)

As always, laws are subject to change and revision, so contact Attorney Ron Frey to discuss the details of your case and the current status of the law.

Questions About AI and Criminal Liability? Let’s Talk.

If you would like to speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer about an investigation involving an AI agent, AI-generated content, or other AI-related conduct, or you have further questions, don’t hesitate to contact Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC, wherever you are. Your initial consultation is free and confidential. You can talk with us by phone, by video, or at our Tampa office, and when the situation calls for it, we can come to you.

Call or text (844) 766-3739. Rapid response, 24/7.

This post is for general information only. It is not legal advice, and reading it or contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Laws on artificial intelligence and criminal responsibility are changing quickly and vary from state to state, and how they apply depends on the facts of each case and on how courts interpret them. Please don’t rely on this post, or on any other information online, to make decisions about your situation. Talk with a lawyer.

If state or federal law enforcement takes your phone or computers as part of an investigation, contact a criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible.

Often there’s no immediate arrest. Instead, devices are taken as part of an investigation, either with consent or under a court order. Then there can be a period of time while law enforcement runs forensic examinations on those devices.

Many people in this situation choose to wait and see what happens instead of getting a lawyer. I don’t recommend that, because a lot can be done during this period. If you have never been charged with a crime before, our post on first offense internet crime cases explains what generally happens next.

When a client contacts me after a search and seizure, I start by learning their background, history, and personal circumstances, along with exactly what happened during the search. Then I reach out to the agents and investigators to let them know my client has representation and to open a line of communication.

At this stage, the goal is to learn as much as possible. It’s also a chance to see whether the matter can be resolved, to clear up any misunderstanding, and to identify any Fourth Amendment issues. If a prosecutor has already been assigned, it’s an opportunity to reach out to that office too.

Clients always have a long list of questions and concerns at this stage. We go over the process and what it could look like if criminal charges are filed. This window gives us the time to prepare, answer questions, and give advice. (See our post, Police Seized My Computer or Phone: What Happens Next.)

2. I deleted files or messages. Are they really gone, and could deleting them make things worse?

The answer depends on a number of factors. When law enforcement runs a forensic examination of a computer, phone, or other storage device, the forensic software can often recover deleted files and data that even the device’s regular user can’t access. Deleting something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s gone from the device.

Deleting things can also create problems of its own. Depending on the circumstances, certain conduct could even be treated as obstruction of justice. As always, if law enforcement has contacted you, get an attorney right away.

3. How do investigators actually find people online?

Law enforcement uses a number of techniques to identify people accused of committing crimes online. They may track IP addresses, device identifiers, and usernames, or get information from third-party companies such as Google, AI companies, or internet service providers. There’s often a trail of digital evidence they can follow. (See also how police get AI records.)

Every case is different. Law enforcement’s goal is to figure out who was using a particular device at the time of the alleged conduct. Depending on the software, the devices, the way they connected, and the people involved, investigators follow that trail and issue subpoenas and search warrants.

Many third-party companies also monitor their networks and systems for illegal activity. They send tips, along with information about specific accounts, to law enforcement or to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Law enforcement then decides whether to investigate further. (See our post, How a CyberTipline Report Can Lead to a Police Investigation.)

If you believe you’re under investigation, contact an attorney for a consultation.

4. Someone else used my Wi-Fi or devices. Does that matter?

If someone else uses your devices or Wi-Fi, there’s always a risk they could commit a crime while doing so. It’s a lot like lending someone your car. If your car were caught on camera leaving a crime scene, law enforcement would likely show up at your door with a lot of questions. The same is true when illegal activity is traced back to your account or your devices.

In many internet crime cases, the real question isn’t whether a crime was committed, but who committed it. The conduct has to be linked to a specific person, and that connection has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

That’s why the question of whether someone else was using a device, or a particular network or Wi-Fi connection, comes up so often. The defense will generally look closely at the circumstances surrounding the alleged conduct to build reasonable doubt about who was actually behind the device at the time. Every case is different, and the evidence is always different.

5. What should I do if I receive a federal target letter or a call from the FBI or Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)?

Getting a target letter, or any letter from an investigative agency, can be very alarming. The best way to handle it, and to figure out the right next step, is to contact experienced counsel. (See our post, Received a Federal Target Letter in an Internet Crime Investigation.)

The same is true if an FBI or HSI agent calls you or shows up at your door. Anything you say can be used against you, so I generally advise anyone contacted by federal agents to exercise the right to remain silent and speak with an attorney before making any statements or agreeing to a search. Once I’m retained, I contact the agents to let them know my client has representation, learn as much as I can about the investigation, and handle communication on my client’s behalf.

6. Why are so many internet crime cases prosecuted federally?

A great deal of online conduct can be a crime under federal, state, or local law, and often under both. Many of these cases end up in federal court because, traditionally, federal agencies have had the most resources and technical know-how for online investigations.

Online investigations are also usually multijurisdictional. The evidence can be spread across the country or around the world. Federal laws often apply because the internet crosses state and national lines, which ties the conduct to interstate commerce.

More and more cases are now being investigated and prosecuted at the state level, though. State law enforcement and state governments have better resources than they used to and much more experience with these cases. There are also joint task forces where federal and state agencies work together, so it isn’t always clear whether a case will be prosecuted federally or by the state. That’s always something that needs to be explored early. (See our post on computer and internet crimes in both state and federal court.)

7. How does your background teaching computer forensics help clients?

Early in my career, I practiced in a jurisdiction with internet crime task forces made up of federal and state authorities. In the early 2000s, that meant I represented countless clients facing allegations of illegal online activity.

Because of that experience, I was asked to teach continuing legal education seminars to other attorneys and legal professionals. I’ve taught courses around the country and online. My work has been published in criminal defense lawyer association magazines at the state and national level, as well as in legal publications and a book.

I also taught for many years as an adjunct professor at Ursuline College. My courses covered criminal procedure, criminal law, and constitutional law, with a primary focus on computer crimes and computer evidence.

That background brings real value when I’m reviewing and defending allegations of criminal conduct online, because I can put that experience to work for each client. (Read more about Attorney Ron Frey.)

8. Can my AI chats, searches, or prompts be used as evidence?

Google searches are used as evidence all the time, in both criminal and civil cases. AI prompts are no different. They’re being used as evidence, and in some situations they’re increasingly treated as potential criminal conduct in their own right. If someone asks an AI tool to help with illegal activity or to create illegal files, the government may try to use those prompts as evidence.

This is a developing area of law, and it raises many issues. Most people who have used AI or superintelligence tools know that a prompt doesn’t always produce what you asked for. AI image generators, for example, have been known to produce people with six fingers. There can be a real disconnect between what a user was looking for and what the software actually generated.

That disconnect can lead to all sorts of problems. If someone enters an otherwise innocent prompt and the AI returns something criminal or contraband, it raises serious questions about criminal and civil liability, and about who is responsible for what was produced. In a developing area of law like this, there are many issues that need to be raised during the representation. (See our pages on AI Chats and Prompts as Evidence and AI-Generated Images and Deepfakes.)

9. What’s different about defending an online sting or chat-based case?

Law enforcement often goes undercover online to set up investigations and stings. Many of these involve officers posing as someone underage and chatting with people to catch alleged criminal activity. These operations often lead to a large number of arrests at once or within a short period, and they’re frequently publicized in media reports.

No two cases are the same, but the evidence is usually built around the communications between law enforcement and the suspect, plus anything the suspect did afterward, such as traveling to meet someone.

In the online communications, every word matters. Law enforcement generally preserves the chats, but the evidence isn’t always as clear-cut as it seems. Officers are often chatting with multiple people over a period of time, and what’s actually being discussed isn’t always clear.

The law requires specific elements, including a person’s intent or understanding, to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These cases often turn on the meaning and understanding of language. Entrapment and identity are also issues that have to be explored. (See our post, Arrested in an Online Sting: What Happens Next, and our page on federal enticement charges.)

10. Why hire a lawyer who focuses on internet and computer crime?

When I started representing people charged with computer and internet crimes in the early 2000s, and advising companies on these issues, most lawyers didn’t handle these cases. As I explain on my bio page, most lawyers back then didn’t even have a firm website, and the ones with email usually had a Yahoo or AOL address. Few were familiar with the internet, let alone internet-based investigations involving forensics and the latest technology.

Today, most criminal defense websites include a section on internet and computer crime. As with anything, when you talk to potential attorneys, ask about their actual experience representing clients in these cases.

An attorney with deep experience defending these cases in jurisdictions around the country can make a real difference. I don’t have to reinvent the wheel. I know what questions to ask, how to evaluate a case, how to prepare a client for the process, and how to get creative with arguments.

Under Investigation for an Internet or Computer Crime? Let’s Talk.

If your devices have been seized, you’ve received a target letter, or you’ve been contacted by investigators about online activity, contact Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC. Attorney Frey is licensed in Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina and defends internet and computer crime cases in state and federal court. Your initial consultation is free and confidential, by phone, by video, or at our Tampa office.

Call or text (844) 766-3739. Rapid response, 24/7.

This post is for general information only. It is not legal advice, and reading it or contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. How the law applies depends on the facts of each case. Please don’t rely on this post, or any other information online, to make decisions about your situation. Talk with a lawyer.

The truth is that you are being recorded almost everywhere you go. For anyone facing a criminal charge, that reality cuts both ways.

A Web of Public and Private Cameras

Walk down almost any residential street and count the Ring and Nest doorbells. It seems like every other house has one, and many homes have additional cameras covering driveways, yards, and side doors.

That is just the private side. Add to it:

• Flock and other automated license plate readers
• Cameras owned and operated by cities, counties, and the state
• Toll booth and toll gantry cameras
• Traffic and intersection cameras
• Dash cams and body-worn cameras on law enforcement officers and vehicles
• Business security systems at gas stations, stores, restaurants, and parking lots

Then there are the cars themselves. Teslas and many other newer vehicles are packed with cameras recording from every angle.

The line between public and private surveillance keeps blurring. Police routinely ask homeowners and businesses for their footage, and many private systems can be shared with law enforcement with a few clicks. The network grows every year, and most people never notice it.

When Evidence Came on Grainy Tape

When Attorney Ron Frey started practicing criminal defense, there was almost no camera footage in the average case. When footage did exist, it was literally on tape, and it was grainy, dark, and often impossible to interpret.

Making sense of that footage was a project in itself. Attorney Ron Frey often had to hire video experts, including people who had worked with NASA, to try to enhance recordings. Too often the footage was so poor that no one could say for certain what it showed.

Audio was just as rare. One of the first cases he handled involved a legendary police officer who recorded his own conversations with defendants. That officer was the exception. In the typical case, there was no audio recording and no video recording at all. The evidence was the officer’s word, the witnesses’ words, and whatever the physical evidence showed.

From Micro-Cassettes to Body Cameras

The shift happened gradually, one department and one technology at a time:

1. Micro-cassette recorders. Detectives often carried small tape recorders to capture interviews.
2. Interrogation room video. Many stations recorded interviews, but the quality looked like something from an old home camcorder.
3. Dash cams. Patrol cars began recording, but the cameras only pointed forward and the picture was low quality. Much of what mattered happened outside the frame.
4. Body-worn cameras. More departments, cities, and jurisdictions adopted body cameras, putting a recorder on the officer instead of the car.

Today the expectation has flipped completely. Judges, juries, prosecutors, and the public now expect footage from every angle, from every officer and every agent, in crystal-clear video and audio. When that footage is missing, people want to know why.

Today’s Avalanche of Digital Evidence

Having this much evidence brings real advantages. Footage can confirm a client’s account, contradict a police report, or show exactly how an encounter unfolded. In many cases, video is the most powerful defense tool available.

But the volume is enormous. Even a basic traffic stop can generate an avalanche of digital evidence: body camera footage from multiple officers, dash cam video, radio traffic, and 911 recordings.

Private sources add even more. Prosecutors and defense attorneys now deal with footage from Ring doorbells, business security systems, and vehicle cameras. And because nearly everyone carries a cell phone, any bystander can record an incident and post it online within minutes. Phones and computers themselves often become evidence too; our post on what to do if police seized your computer or phone explains how that generally works.

Every one of those recordings has to be gathered, reviewed, and understood in context. That takes time, the right tools, and an attorney who knows what to look for.

What Wasn’t Captured Can Matter Most

Attorney Ron Frey reviews every piece of video and audio evidence in a case. But more and more often, the most important question is not what the recordings show. It is what is missing.

• What was not captured? Was a body camera turned off, turned on late, or pointed away at a key moment?
• What was not investigated? Did officers canvass the neighborhood for doorbell cameras or business footage that could have supported the defense?
• What was not secured? Was available footage requested before it was automatically overwritten?
• What was not preserved? Many private systems and some public ones delete footage within days or weeks. Once it is gone, it is usually gone for good.

In a world where cameras are everywhere, a gap in the recording can tell its own story. Missing footage can raise questions about an officer’s version of events, the thoroughness of an investigation, or whether evidence helpful to the accused was lost.

Act Quickly to Protect the Evidence

If you are under investigation or have been charged with a crime, time matters. Footage that could help your defense may be erased in a matter of days. An experienced defense attorney can move quickly to identify and preserve recordings before they disappear.

Attorney Ron Frey has practiced since 2004, with experience in complex criminal litigation and investigations involving digital evidence. Contact Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC in Tampa to discuss your case, or learn more about Florida internet, computer, and AI crime defense.

A letter like this is serious, but it is also a moment with options that can disappear once charges are filed. This guide explains what a target letter generally means and why it helps to involve a lawyer in any response. Attorney Ron Frey has handled many cases where federal investigations and digital evidence are at issue. (See our overview of internet crime defense and FreyLegal.com’s page on federal offenses.)

What “Target” Means in Federal Cases

The Department of Justice’s own guidance for prosecutors describes a “target” as a person the prosecutor or grand jury has substantial evidence linking to a crime, and whom the prosecutor considers a likely defendant. A “subject” is different: someone whose conduct falls within the scope of a grand jury investigation.

The same guidance encourages prosecutors, in appropriate cases, to notify a target a reasonable time before seeking an indictment, giving the person an opportunity to testify before the grand jury. It also says notice isn’t appropriate in every case. So many people are charged without ever receiving a letter, and a federal target letter is not something everyone gets.

Why Internet Cases End Up Federal

Online activity rarely stays inside one state. Servers, platforms, payment systems, and the people on the other end of a conversation can be anywhere, which is one reason many computer and internet cases can be charged federally. Federal investigators also have broad tools for obtaining records from tech companies, including email accounts and Google accounts. By the time a letter goes out, much of that gathering may already be done. For how the two court systems differ, see Computer / Internet Crimes in Both State and Federal Court.

See our pages on Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) Charges Under 18 U.S.C. § 1030, Explained and Online Wire Fraud, Cryptocurrency Fraud, and Money Laundering Charges, Explained.

The Window Before an Indictment

A target letter often means an indictment is being considered but hasn’t happened yet. That window matters. Depending on the case, a lawyer may be able to:

• Find out more about the investigation and what the government believes.
• Handle all communication with the prosecutor and agents.
• Weigh carefully whether any grand jury testimony or meeting makes sense, which is a decision with real risks.
• Prepare for what may come next, rather than reacting after charges are filed.

None of those steps can assure a particular result, and every case is different. But waiting rarely improves a person’s position.

Letters Often Follow Earlier Steps

A federal target letter is rarely the first thing that happened. In internet cases, it may follow a search warrant, a device seizure, a records request to a tech company, or an investigation that started with a report from an online platform. Sometimes the recipient knows about those earlier steps; sometimes they don’t. Either way, the letter usually means the government has been working for a while.

That’s why a lawyer will often want to start by asking questions like these:

• Has anyone already been contacted, interviewed, or served with a subpoena?
• Were any devices or accounts searched, and when?
• Which agency is involved, and in which federal district?
• What, if anything, has already been said to investigators?

Attorney Ron Frey is licensed in Florida, Ohio and North Carolina; see internet crime defense in Charlotte and across North Carolina.

Getting Guidance Before Responding

People who receive a federal target letter often feel an urge to call the number on it and explain. Speaking from his experience with many investigations like these, Attorney Ron Frey generally advises anyone who receives a letter to exercise the right to remain silent and to contact an attorney before making statements to prosecutors or agents. Requests for passwords or devices are worth discussing with counsel as well; see Should I Provide My Password to the Police or FBI?

It also helps to remember that third parties are potential “false friends.” Coworkers, friends, social media, and AI chatbots are not confidential sounding boards. Anything said to Google, a cloud provider, or an AI company can end up in the government’s hands. A confidential conversation with your own lawyer is the place to talk it through.

Quick Answers About Target Letters

Does a target letter mean I will be indicted?

Not necessarily, but it signals that prosecutors believe they have substantial evidence. That makes it worth acting on promptly.

What’s the difference between a target and a subject?

Under DOJ guidance, a target is a likely defendant; a subject is someone whose conduct is within the scope of the investigation. Either status calls for a lawyer.

Should I call the prosecutor myself?

Attorney Ron Frey’s general advice is to contact an attorney first and let counsel handle any contact with the prosecutor.

Does the letter have a deadline?

Letters vary. If yours mentions a date, treat that date as important and contact a lawyer right away.

Related Guides

If devices have been seized: Police Seized My Computer or Phone: What Happens Next. How online investigations often begin: How a CyberTipline Report Can Lead to a Police Investigation. If you’ve never been charged with anything: Charged With an Internet Crime for the First Time: What First Offenders Should Know.

For answers to other common questions, see Internet and Computer Crime Investigations: A Defense Lawyer Answers Common Questions.

See our pages on Federal Sentencing in Internet and Computer Crime Cases, Explained and Federal Pretrial Release and Detention in Internet Crime Cases, Explained.

Received a Target Letter? Let’s Talk.

If you would like to speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer about a federal target letter or a federal computer or internet crime investigation, or you have further questions, don’t hesitate to contact Attorney Ron Frey of The Frey Law Firm, LLC, wherever you are. Your initial consultation is free and confidential. You can talk with us by phone, by video, or at our Tampa office, and when the situation calls for it, we can come to you.

Call or text (844) 766-3739. Rapid response, 24/7.

This post is for general information only. It is not legal advice, and reading it or contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Laws and federal procedures involving internet crime investigations are changing and vary by jurisdiction, and how they apply depends on the facts of each case and on how courts interpret them. Please don’t rely on this post, or on any other information online, to make decisions about your situation. Talk with a lawyer.