United States v. Lorenzo Mendez, 35 F.4th 1219

Mendez lived with his girlfriend and her 14-year-old daughter and hid Wi‑Fi cameras in the eye of a stuffed animal placed in the girl’s bedroom.
Police recovered months of video showing the girl partially undressed and masturbating; the girl testified she threw the stuffed animal away after discovering the camera.
Officers found additional Wi‑Fi cameras, similar “wiggle eyes,” batteries, and setup instructions in Mendez’s home and car.
A jury convicted Mendez of attempting to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e) for using a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct to produce visual depictions.
On appeal, Mendez argued the evidence was insufficient because he surreptitiously filmed the minor and did not cause her to engage in the sexual conduct; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether secret, surreptitious filming satisfies the § 2251(a) “use” element	Mendez: he did not employ, induce, persuade, or cause the minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct	Government: “use” covers putting a minor into service as the subject of a visual depiction; active conduct by perpetrator suffices	Court: Affirmed; under Laursen and sister circuits, “use” is satisfied when defendant makes minor the subject of photography, even without inducing conduct
Whether § 2251(a) requires proof that defendant caused the minor to engage in the conduct	Mendez: statute requires causing the minor to engage in the conduct	Government: no causal link required; focus is on defendant’s conduct in producing images	Court: Held no causation requirement; precedent forecloses a requiring‑cause reading
Standard of review for sufficiency claim	Mendez: challenged sufficiency; parties disputed de novo vs plain error	Government: argued applicable standard favored affirmance	Court: Did not resolve dispute because no reversible error under either standard
Interstate commerce element satisfied?	Mendez: (implicit challenge)	Government: evidence showed camera purchased online and shipped from another state, satisfying commerce nexus	Court: Held the commerce requirement was met by proof that materials were shipped in interstate commerce

United States v. Laursen, 847 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2017) (held active conduct by perpetrator suffices to satisfy § 2251(a) “use” element)
United States v. Smith, 795 F.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1986) (interpreted § 2251(a) to reach inducement of children to create visual depictions)
United States v. Sirois, 87 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1996) (held “use” satisfied when a minor is the subject of photography)
United States v. Wright, 774 F.3d 1085 (6th Cir. 2014) (concluded “use” element is met when a child is photographed to create pornography)
United States v. Fadl, 498 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2007) (same interpretation of “use”)
Ortiz-Graulau v. United States, 756 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2014) (held making a minor the subject of intentional photography meets “use”)
United States v. Theis, 853 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2017) (affirmed that secret filming meets “use” without requiring causal relationship)
United States v. Hillie, 14 F.4th 677 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (discussed hypothetical similar to secret filming and its sufficiency for “use,” though vacating on other grounds)
United States v. Howard, 968 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2020) (adopted narrower view requiring proof that defendant caused the minor’s sexual conduct)