The photos would eventually show up in two places. According to court documents, hard copies were mailed to the parents of the girl who owned the iPod and digital versions were sent to Nicole's email account.

Nicole insisted she never opened the images or shared them, but it didn't matter. She was charged and convicted of distributing and possessing child pornography — felonies that come with a requirement to register as a sex offender.

Both of Nicole's child pornography convictions were later vacated by a state appeals court and ultimately dismissed, case records show. Even so, Nicole's mother says fighting the charges was “a nightmare” — one that lasted more than three years and cost her family at least $60,000 in attorneys fees. She says her daughter, once a strong student, fell into a depression. Nicole's grades dropped, and she was kicked off her softball team, her mother says.

“She went down to ground zero,” Nicole's mother says. “There was just nothing left of her.”

Crosscut is choosing not to name Nicole or her mother to protect the girl’s identity, as Nicole was a minor at the time of the incident and shares her mother’s last name.

Nicole's mother, who runs her own business, says she also lost clients amid the gossip, and had to move to a different town to keep her business afloat.

She says her family’s ordeal illustrates why Washington state needs to reconsider how it punishes teenagers who exchange intimate images via text and email.

Under the current statute, teens who exchange nude photos of themselves — even if they are sending them to an intimate partner — can be charged as severely as adults distributing child pornography. Similarly, teenagers who receive nude photos of another teen could be charged with possessing child pornography, even if they never sought copies of the images.

Nicole was initially convicted of dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, as well as possessing the explicit photos. If those convictions had not been vacated by the appeals court, she would have had to put her name on the state's sex offender registry.

A felony sex offense on a person's record can limit their ability to access housing and job opportunities, as well as attend college or university.

“We were just in disbelief,” Nicole's mother says of watching her daughter get convicted under the law. “I thought the judge would see there was just no way this child could be labeled a pornographer.”

A coalition of state lawmakers are concerned as well, claiming state law has not kept up with advances in cellphone technology or knowledge of teen brain development. They’re proposing to change the law to differentiate between teenagers and adults when it comes to the penalties for possessing and sending nude photos of minors.

The statute dates back to 1984. It has been updated several times since, but those updates have not addressed the concerns that are the focus of the current bill.

Nicole's mother says the case against her daughter cost her family at least $60,000 in attorneys fees. (Photo by Dorothy Edwards/Crosscut)

“When the law was written, our predecessors just could not have contemplated that every teenager would have a minicomputer in their hand with a video camera connected to the internet," says state Rep. Noel Frame, D-Seattle. "The law was intended for people who seek to do harm against children, but because of changes in technology, the law is harming children."

Frame is the prime sponsor of a bill that would create new misdemeanor charges that specifically apply to minors who send nude images of other teens. House Bill 1742 would also exempt teenagers from child pornography charges when they take or send photos of their own bodies.

“The problem I am trying to solve is we have had as many as 50 kids who have been prosecuted with Class B felony sex offenses for sharing intimate images of themselves or of their peers,” Frame says, adding, “Normally, it is shared in the context of an intimate relationship.”

The state Supreme Court recently had a chance to challenge the state's application of the law, in a case involving a 17-year-old who texted a photo of his penis.

Instead, the court affirmed that children who photograph their own genitals or other intimate body parts can indeed be convicted under Washington’s child pornography laws.

In its majority opinion, the court suggested that legislators should change the law if that wasn’t the outcome they intended.

“We understand the concern over teenagers being prosecuted for consensually sending sexually explicit pictures to each other. We also understand the worry caused by a well-meaning law failing to adapt to changing technology. But our duty is to interpret the law as written,” reads the opinion from September 2017. “If the legislature intended to exclude children, it could do so by amending the statute.”

Decriminalizing teenagers' nude photos of themselves is one goal of the current legislation. But police, school officials and prosecutors say even in cases where teens share compromising photos of other teens, the current penalties are too severe.

The severity of the penalty may actually be counterproductive in efforts to stop cyberbullying and harassment, several people testified during a hearing on Frame's bill last month.

For instance, if someone is distributing photos to humiliate a classmate, the current felony charge for possessing or sharing the images can deter teenagers from coming forward to report it, said Dierk Meierbachtol, chief legal officer of the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

“Children are reticent to tell their parents, trusted adults, their teachers, counselors, about harassment threats and other behavior that is happening in schools because of this threat of harsh criminal penalties,” Meierbachtol testified at the hearing.

Frame’s legislation addresses this concern as well. If passed, her bill would ensure that teenagers aren't committing a crime if they merely possess an explicit video or photo of someone else 13 or older. The measure would also ensure that in most cases, distributing nude photos of another teenager would be charged as a misdemeanor or a gross misdemeanor instead of a felony.

A first offense would be diverted from the courts; instead of charges, teenagers who share explicit photos would receive education and counseling. Felony charges would still apply if older teenagers possess or distribute explicit images of children 12 or younger, or if they sell explicit images of other teens.

“It’s not saying, ‘This is OK,’” testified Jimmy Hung, a King County deputy prosecutor who is chief of the county’s juvenile division. “It’s saying, it’s just different, and we need to treat it differently. And this gives us tools to do that.”