Court Affirms Child Pornography Convictions Against Fourth Amendment, Instructional Challenges

US v. Sanders: In 2019, a foreign law enforcement agency tipped the FBI to an IP address that had been used to access child pornography. A second report assured that the information was “lawfully obtained” and had not involved the interference with any computer in  the United States by the foreign entity. The FBI investigated and eventually tracked the IP address to the home where Sanders lived with his parents. They executed a search warrant there, seizing numerous electronic devices. Sanders gave a statement during the search in which he admitted accessed child pornography using a TOR browser. In addition to videos of child pornography, further investigation of the devices showed that Sanders has messaged a half-dozen boys to send pictures and videos of themselves nude to him. Sanders was charged with a dozen charges relating to the production, receipt and possession of child pornography. He was convicted on all counts at trial and sentenced to 216 months in prison.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit rejected several challenges by Sanders and affirmed his convictions. One notable issue was Sanders argument that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the evidence seized at his home because the affidavit in support of the search warrant was insufficient. The court disagreed, holding that although evidence of one click on a website where child pornography was available would not sufficient to support probable cause, there was additional evidence here (particularly a “disclaimer” on the site’s homepage that made clear what kind of material was available on it) that demonstrated probable cause. Another notable issue, or collection of issues, were those related to whether Sanders either could present evidence about or have the jury instructed on whether the minors he was involved with were willing participants in the generation of the images related to them. The court rejected Sanders’ definition of “use” in the relevant statutes to require the Government to prove the defendant had “overcome the will” of the minor involved. Finally, the court found no error in the district court instructing the jury on “lascivious exhibition of the genitals” by reference to the Dost factors, concluding that the district court had not required their use, only laid them out as potentially helpful guideposts.

The same panel released a separate opinion in a related civil case on the same day, in which Sanders challenged the forfeiture of the electronic devices seized during the investigation. The court affirmed the district court’s rejection of Sanders’ argument that the forfeiture should be limited to contraband images on the various devices, rather than the complete devices themselves. The plain language of the relevant statute, the court ruled, does not permit such parsing of materials in a forfeiture context.