Background
On November 16, 2022, a 15-year-old girl (E.R.) discovered a cell phone positioned above the bathroom transom window while she was bathing at a friend’s home. The phone belonged to the friend’s uncle, Rayford Evans, who was also living in the residence. E.R. immediately reported what she had seen to her friend, and after contacting the girl’s father (a sheriff’s deputy), police were notified within hours.
Officer Brandon Smith responded to the home and confronted Evans about recording a minor in the bathroom. When Evans initially refused to surrender his phones without a warrant, Officer Smith warned him he could be arrested for obstruction of justice. Evans then consented to provide his primary phone. Officer Smith obtained a signed consent-to-search form and later discovered videos in the phone’s trash folder showing E.R. nude, with the camera zoomed in on her breasts and genital area. A search warrant was subsequently obtained for other devices in the home.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed Evans’s conviction for attempted sexual exploitation of a minor, rejecting his Fourth Amendment challenge to the warrantless seizure of his phone. The court held that exigent circumstances justified the seizure under the Fourth Amendment’s exceptions to the warrant requirement. Officer Smith had probable cause to believe evidence of the crime was on the phone and an objectively reasonable belief that Evans would destroy the evidence, given that Evans was aware of the accusation and could easily delete digital files. The court emphasized that no other officer was available to secure the residence or guard Evans, creating an urgent need to act without delay.
On the sufficiency of the evidence, the court found overwhelming proof of attempted sexual exploitation. The forensic expert’s testimony established that Evans intentionally moved equipment to position the phone at the transom window, returned multiple times to record E.R.’s genital area (stating “I’ve got an opportunity again”), and took actions clearly undertaken with the design to commit the offense. The court rejected Evans’s argument that mere nudity was insufficient, noting that on an attempt theory, the government need only prove his intent to capture a lascivious exhibition, not his success in doing so.
Key Takeaways
- Warrantless seizure of a cell phone may be justified by exigent circumstances when police have probable cause to believe evidence is on the device and reasonable grounds to fear imminent destruction of that evidence.
- A defendant’s awareness that he has been accused of a crime, combined with the ease of deleting digital evidence, can support a reasonable officer’s belief that destruction is imminent.
- For attempted child sexual exploitation, the government need only prove the defendant intended to create a lascivious exhibition—actual success in capturing such material is not required.
- Deliberate positioning of a recording device to capture minors’ genitals, combined with repeated positioning attempts and explicit statements of intent, constitutes a substantial step toward the crime.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Eighth Circuit’s approach to balancing Fourth Amendment protections with law enforcement’s need to prevent destruction of evidence in child exploitation cases. The court’s holding that exigent circumstances can justify warrantless cell phone seizures provides clear guidance to officers investigating such crimes, where digital evidence is particularly vulnerable to rapid deletion. The opinion also clarifies that attempt liability does not require proof of a completed, high-quality recording—the defendant’s intent to capture sexually explicit material of a minor, combined with deliberate preparatory actions, suffices for conviction.
The decision is significant for prosecutors handling child sexual exploitation cases because it addresses the evidentiary standard for “lascivious exhibition” in the attempt context and confirms that repeat attempts to capture specific body parts, even if filmed from an overhead angle, can establish the requisite intent when viewed in context with the defendant’s statements and actions.