How often do prosecutors decline to pursue charges after alleged accidental downloads?
Executive summary
There is no reliable, published dataset that isolates “alleged accidental downloads” as a category for prosecutorial declination, so any precise rate for that specific scenario cannot be produced from available sources; instead, the evidence paints a broader picture that declination rates vary widely by offense type, jurisdiction, and office policy and—taken together—suggest that prosecutors often charge cases rather than decline them, with notable exceptions in certain contexts (e.g., some misdemeanors and specific local practices) [1] [2] [3].
1. What the data actually measure and what they do not: the limits of the record
Most empirical work and government studies examine declinations by offense class or jurisdictional cohort, not by subjective defenses such as “accidental” conduct; academic reviews stress that declination statements and datasets are rising but fragmented, and scholars note a persistent absence of standardized, public reporting that would allow isolating accidental-download scenarios from other reasons for non‑filing [4] [5] [6].
2. Typical declination magnitudes across offense classes
Where measurable, declination rates are often modest: a Vera Institute study of the Manhattan District Attorney’s office found roughly 6% of felonies, 4% of misdemeanors, and 11% of violations were declined at initial presentation by police—figures that illustrate how a minority of cases are immediately screened out in at least one urban office [7]. Federal-level and multi-district research likewise shows wide variation—one classic study estimated that across 94 U.S. Attorney districts the estimated prosecution (i.e., filing) rate could be as low as 24% overall, implying substantial immediate non‑filings in some federal contexts, but these figures mix offense types and referral sources [8].
3. Misdemeanors, dismissals, and the “front line” of declination
Policy-oriented reviews highlight that misdemeanors are both the “front line of inequality” and an area where declination policy matters most; the limited data suggest misdemeanor declination rates can be very low in some places—reported as low as about 5%—even though ultimate dismissal downstream (after filing) can reach 30–50% depending on jurisdiction, underlining that many cases are charged and only later dropped rather than declined at intake [2].
4. Why rates vary: caseloads, guidance, and office politics
Multilevel studies show that both legal and extra‑legal factors drive declination decisions—districts with heavier caseloads had lower odds of declination and charge reduction, and many U.S. Attorneys’ offices employ written declination guidelines (83 offices reported using them) to steer resources away from low‑priority matters—factors that would influence whether a prosecutor declines a borderline or plausibly accidental download allegation [3] [9] [10].
5. Recent empirical skepticism about rising declinations
Newer national analyses argue prosecutors still “almost always” charge when given the opportunity, suggesting that declines have not grown to the extent some reform narratives assume; this research cautions against interpreting isolated declination statements as evidence of broad, systemic non‑prosecution trends [1] [11].
6. Practical inference for alleged accidental downloads
Because accidental-download claims cut across offense categories (copyright, child‑pornography inquiries, unauthorized access, etc.) and because existing datasets do not tag subjective defenses, one must infer cautiously: in many jurisdictions prosecutors tend to file rather than immediately decline, especially where statutory penalties or public‑safety narratives apply, but office policies, caseload pressure, evidence quality, and written declination rules can and do produce meaningful pockets of non‑prosecution [7] [3] [9]. The literature therefore supports a conditional conclusion: accidental‑download allegations are not guaranteed declinations and are likely treated like other borderline cases—outcomes will vary substantially by office and offense, and often the decision to drop a case may occur later rather than at intake [2] [8].
7. What remains unknown and how to get closer to an answer
The most important gap is the absence of standardized coding that would label cases as “accidental download” at intake; scholars and reformers call for improved data collection and transparency to measure how declination decisions affect incarceration and disparate outcomes—without that, precise rates for accidental downloads remain unknowable from the public record [11] [4].