United States v. Stephen, No. 19-1966 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Ellison, remodeling Stephen’s house, noticed a USB drive on the toilet tank. Ellison had researched hidden recording devices following a break-in and recognized it as a hidden camera. Ellison took the USB home but did not view its contents. The next morning, Ellison returned to Stephen’s home and discovered a young boy asleep. Stephen, a youth basketball coach, arrived with another boy. Returning home, Ellison viewed the USB’s contents, finding multiple videos depicting children secretly recorded in various stages of undress. Ellison delivered the USB to the Monticello Police. The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation took possession of the USB, obtained a warrant, and viewed its contents. A warranted search of Stephen’s homes uncovered more secret recording devices and a hard drive containing approximately 400 visual depictions of nude minor boys, including images of Stephen molesting unconscious victims. Indicted for sexually exploiting a child, 18 U.S.C. 2251(a), possessing child pornography, section 2252(a)(4)(B), and transporting child pornography, section 2252(a)(1), Stephen unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion and Stephen’s 2,160-month sentence. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to private-citizen searches unless that private citizen acted as a government agent. Ellison was acting out of civic duty; even if Ellison intended to assist law enforcement, it would not be enough to establish he was a government agent. The police chief had probable cause to take the USB from Ellison.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Colloton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. A private party who discovered a hidden camera while performing repair work on defendant's home was not a government agent when he took the device, and his seizure and search of the device were not subject to the Fourth Amendment; by taking the device from the private party, the police chief did not meaningfully interfere with defendant's possessory interest in it because the private party had already taken it from him; in any event, the chief had probable cause to believe that the device contained child pornography and that exigent circumstances justified seizing it without obtaining a warrant; the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigations did not exceed the scope of the search warrant when it viewed the device's content; defendant's 180-year sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.