Background
Austin Smith was charged on February 18, 2026, with eight Class 2 felony counts of possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) under 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(6). The charges arose from a police investigation that began in November 2025 after law enforcement learned Smith had participated in a Discord group discussion in which he stated he possessed CSAM and made suicidal statements. A police synopsis indicated that officers, executing search warrants, reviewed photos on Smith’s phone and iPad — described as images of young, naked children at a beach, by a pool or splash pad, or in a bathtub — as well as an iCloud account reportedly containing hundreds of additional images. Smith’s internet search history included searches for “nude little boys,” “teens urinating,” and “pedophiles.”
The State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial release under 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1, and the trial court granted detention, finding the State had established that Smith committed a detainable offense, that he posed a real and present danger, and that no conditions could mitigate that danger. Smith — a 30-year-old under his mother’s legal guardianship, diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, OCD, ADHD, generalized anxiety disorder, and persistent depressive disorder — argued the images described in the complaint and synopsis did not meet the statutory definition of CSAM because they were not lewd. The trial court denied Smith’s subsequent motion for relief, and he appealed.
The case proceeded on proffer only — neither party introduced live testimony — triggering de novo review by the appellate court under People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District reversed and remanded with directions to impose conditions of pretrial release, holding that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or the presumption great that Smith committed a detainable offense. The court’s analysis turned entirely on the first statutory prong: whether the images described constituted CSAM as defined by Illinois law.
Applying People v. Lamborn, 185 Ill. 2d 585 (1999), the court explained that nude images of children are not CSAM unless they amount to a “lewd exhibition” of genitals or other enumerated body parts. Illinois courts assess lewdness through a multi-factor test examining, among other things, whether the focal point is the child’s genitals, whether the setting is sexually suggestive, whether the child is in an unnatural pose, and whether the depiction is designed to elicit a sexual response. The court found that the complaint and synopsis described only naked children in ordinary settings — a beach, pool, splash pad, bathtub — and that none of the Lamborn lewdness factors were present beyond mere nudity alone.
The court also rejected the State’s argument that Smith’s own admissions that he possessed “CSAM,” his mother’s text messages referencing his “CSAM,” and the sheer volume of recovered images supplied the required proof. As the court noted, citing Lamborn: referring to material as CSAM does not make it so, and there was no basis to conclude that Smith or his mother were using the term consistent with its statutory definition.
Key Takeaways
- Nude images of minors do not constitute CSAM under Illinois law unless the depictions are “lewd” under the multi-factor test from People v. Lamborn, 185 Ill. 2d 585 (1999); nakedness alone is insufficient.
- At a pretrial detention hearing under article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant committed a qualifying detainable offense — a defendant’s own characterization of the material, or that of a lay witness, does not substitute for proof that the material meets the statutory definition.
- Where both parties proceed solely by proffer at a detention hearing, appellate review is de novo, giving the appellate court full authority to assess the sufficiency of the State’s evidentiary showing without deference to the trial court.
- This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is non-precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).
Why It Matters
This decision is a practical reminder that CSAM charges at the pretrial detention stage require more than volume of images or a defendant’s own admissions. Prosecutors seeking detention must present enough detail about the actual content and character of the alleged material — evaluated against the statutory lewdness factors — to satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard. A police synopsis that describes children as naked in ordinary, non-sexual settings, without addressing focal point, pose, setting, or the other Lamborn indicia of lewdness, will not carry that burden even when paired with a defendant’s self-incriminating statements.
For defense practitioners, the case illustrates the importance of scrutinizing the charging documents and detention proffers in CSAM cases to ensure the State has actually demonstrated that the images fall within the statutory definition — and that a client’s own words, however damaging they may appear, do not establish an element of the offense as a matter of law.