"Sec. 1   RCW 9.68A.001 and 2010 c 227 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:
     The legislature finds that the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of children constitutes a government objective of surpassing importance. The care of children is a sacred trust and should not be abused by those who seek commercial gain or personal gratification based on the exploitation of children.
     The legislature further finds that the protection of children from sexual exploitation can be accomplished without infringing on a constitutionally protected activity. The definition of "sexually explicit conduct" and other operative definitions demarcate a line between protected and prohibited conduct and should not inhibit legitimate scientific, medical, or educational activities.
     The legislature further finds that children engaged in sexual conduct for financial compensation are frequently the victims of sexual abuse. Approximately eighty to ninety percent of children engaged in sexual activity for financial compensation have a history of sexual abuse victimization. It is the intent of the legislature to encourage these children to engage in prevention and intervention services and to hold those who pay to engage in the sexual abuse of children accountable for the trauma they inflict on children.
     The legislature further finds that due to the changing nature of technology, offenders are now able to access child pornography in different ways and in increasing quantities. By amending current statutes governing depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, it is the intent of the legislature to ensure that intentional viewing of and dealing in child pornography over the internet is subject to a criminal penalty without limiting the scope of existing prohibitions on the possession of or dealing in child pornography, including the possession of electronic depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. It is also the intent of the legislature to clarify, in response to State v. Sutherby, 204 P.3d 916 (2009), the unit of prosecution for the statutes governing possession of and dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. It is the intent of the legislature that the first degree offenses under RCW 9.68A.050, 9.68A.060, and 9.68A.070 have a per depiction or image unit of prosecution, while the second degree offenses under RCW 9.68A.050, 9.68A.060, and 9.68A.070 have a per incident unit of prosecution as established in State v. Sutherby, 204 P.3d 916 (2009). Furthermore, it is the intent of the legislature to set a different unit of prosecution for the new offense of viewing of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct such that each separate session of intentionally viewing over the internet of visual depictions or images of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct constitutes a separate offense.
     The decisions of the Washington supreme court in State v. Boyd, 160 W.2d 424, 158 P.3d 54 (2007), and State v. Grenning, 169 Wn.2d 47, 234 P.3d 169 (2010), require prosecutors to duplicate and distribute depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct ("child pornography") as part of the discovery process in a criminal prosecution. The legislature finds that the importance of protecting children from repeat exploitation in child pornography is not being given sufficient weight under these decisions. The importance of protecting children from repeat exploitation in child pornography is based upon the following findings:
     (1) Child pornography is not entitled to protection under the First Amendment and thus may be prohibited;
     (2) The state has a compelling interest in protecting children from those who sexually exploit them, and this interest extends to stamping out the vice of child pornography at all levels in the distribution chain;
     (3) Every instance of viewing images of child pornography represents a renewed violation of the privacy of the victims and a repetition of their abuse;
     (4) Child pornography constitutes prima facie contraband, and as such should not be distributed to, or copied by, child pornography defendants or their attorneys;
     (5) It is imperative to prohibit the reproduction of child pornography in criminal cases so as to avoid repeated violation and abuse of victims, so long as the government makes reasonable accommodations for the inspection, viewing, and examination of such material for the purposes of mounting a criminal defense. The legislature is also aware that the Adam Walsh child protection and safety act, P.L. 109–248, 120 Stat. 587 (2006), codified at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3509(m), prohibits the duplication and distribution of child pornography as part of the discovery process in federal prosecutions. This federal law has been in effect since 2006, and upheld repeatedly as constitutional. Courts interpreting the Walsh act have found that such limitations can be employed while still providing the defendant due process. The legislature joins congress, and the legislatures of other states that have passed similar provisions, in protecting these child victims so that our justice system does not cause repeat exploitation, while still providing due process to criminal defendants.

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 2   A new section is added to chapter 9.68A RCW to read as follows:
     (1) In any criminal proceeding, any property or material that constitutes a depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct shall remain in the care, custody, and control of either a law enforcement agency or the court.
     (2) Despite any request by the defendant or prosecution, any property or material that constitutes a depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct shall not be copied, photographed, duplicated, or otherwise reproduced, so long as the property or material is made reasonably available to the parties. Such property or material shall be deemed to be reasonably available to the parties if the prosecution, defense counsel, or any individual sought to be qualified to furnish expert testimony at trial has ample opportunity for inspection, viewing, and examination of the property or material at a law enforcement facility or a neutral facility approved by the court upon petition by the defense.
     (3) The defendant may view and examine the property and materials only while in the presence of his or her attorney. If the defendant is proceeding pro se, the court will appoint an individual to supervise the defendant while he or she examines the materials.
     (4) The court may direct that a mirror image of a computer hard drive containing such depictions be produced for use by an expert only upon a showing that an expert has been retained and is prepared to conduct a forensic examination while the mirror imaged hard drive remains in the care, custody, and control of a law enforcement agency or the court. Upon a substantial showing that the expert's analysis cannot be accomplished while the mirror imaged hard drive is kept within the care, custody, and control of a law enforcement agency or the court, the court may order its release to the expert for analysis for a limited time. If release is granted, the court shall issue a protective order setting forth such terms and conditions as are necessary to protect the rights of the victims, to document the chain of custody, and to protect physical evidence.

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 3   A new section is added to chapter 9.68A RCW to read as follows:
     (1) Whenever a depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, regardless of its format, is marked as an exhibit in a criminal proceeding, the prosecutor shall seek an order sealing the exhibit at the close of the trial. Any exhibits sealed under this section shall be sealed with evidence tape in a manner that prevents access to, or viewing of, the depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct and shall be labeled so as to identify its contents. Anyone seeking to view such an exhibit must obtain permission from the superior court after providing at least ten days notice to the prosecuting attorney. Appellate attorneys for the defendant and the state shall be given access to the exhibit, which must remain in the care and custody of either a law enforcement agency or the court. Any other person moving to view such an exhibit must demonstrate to the court that his or her reason for viewing the exhibit is of sufficient importance to justify another violation of the victim's privacy.
     (2) Whenever the clerk of the court receives an exhibit of a depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, he or she shall store the exhibit in a secure location, such as a safe. The clerk may arrange for the transfer of such exhibits to a law enforcement agency evidence room for safekeeping provided the agency agrees not to destroy or dispose of the exhibits without an order of the court.
     (3) If the criminal proceeding ends in a conviction, the clerk of the court shall destroy any exhibit containing a depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct five years after the judgment is final, as determined by the provisions of RCW 10.73.090(3). Before any destruction, the clerk shall contact the prosecuting attorney and verify that there is no collateral attack on the judgment pending in any court. If the criminal proceeding ends in a mistrial, the clerk shall either maintain the exhibit or return it to the law enforcement agency that investigated the criminal charges for safekeeping until the matter is set for retrial. If the criminal proceeding ends in an acquittal, the clerk shall return the exhibit to the law enforcement agency that investigated the criminal charges for either safekeeping or destruction.

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 4   A new section is added to chapter 9.68A RCW to read as follows:
     Any depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in any format, distributed as discovery to defense counsel or an expert witness prior to the effective date of this section shall either be returned to the law enforcement agency that investigated the criminal charges or destroyed, if the case is no longer pending in superior court. If the case is still pending, the depiction shall be returned to the superior court judge assigned to the case or the presiding judge. The court shall order either the destruction of the depiction or the safekeeping of the depiction if it will be used at trial. It is not a defense to violations of this chapter for crimes committed after December 31, 2012, that the initial receipt of the depictions was done under the color of law through the discovery process."