United States v. Jeremy Stevenson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16904
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Stevenson pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing child pornography after a search of his home yielded images and videos.
- AOL's Image Detection and Filtering Process scans files and reports matches to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children when child pornography is detected.
- AOL reported a September 2010 finding of a user emailing child pornography to a Google account, linking to Stevenson’s accounts.
- Stevenson moved to suppress AOL's images, the home-search evidence, and his statements; the district court denied without an evidentiary hearing and quashed a subpoena to AOL.
- Stevenson argued AOL’s scanning violated the Fourth Amendment and that AOL acted as a government agent; the district court treated AOL as a private actor and rejected the need for a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AOL’s email scanning made it a government agent | Stevenson argues §2258A/B render AOL an agent. | Stevenson contends these provisions create compelled government action. | AOL not a government agent; no transformation by statute. |
| Whether evidentiary hearing was required | Stevenson asserts contested facts about agency and purpose. | Record shows AOL acted independently for private business reasons. | No hearing warranted; allegations are conclusory. |
| Whether the subpoena to AOL was properly quashed | Documents would prove government-private partnership in scanning. | Subpoena requests were insufficiently specific and not properly directed to government discovery. | Quash upheld; subpoena not sufficiently specific or admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (private-private-regulatory scheme can trigger state action)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (Fourth Amendment applicability to private searches)
- United States v. Cameron, 699 F.3d 621 (1st Cir. 2012) (SSP private action not automatically government action)
- United States v. Richardson, 607 F.3d 357 (4th Cir. 2010) (private actor not transformed to government agent)
- United States v. Smith, 383 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2004) (agency factors in private-party actions)
- United States v. Mims, 812 F.2d 1068 (8th Cir. 1987) (standard for entertaining evidentiary hearings)
- United States v. Allen, 573 F.3d 42 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review on hearing decisions)
- United States v. Hang, 75 F.3d 1275 (8th Cir. 1996) (Nixon standards for subpoenas to third parties)
- Nixon v. United States, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (Rule 17 subpoenas require relevance and specificity)