United States v. Haymond
2012 WL 698376, 672 F.3d 948, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4652 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant knowingly possesses a digital file when they take the volitional act of selecting and downloading it from a peer-to-peer network, which establishes actual control at the moment of download, even if the file is subsequently deleted and found in the computer's unallocated space.
Facts:
- On October 1, 2007, FBI Special Agent Rich Whisman conducted an undercover investigation using LimeWire, a peer-to-peer file-sharing program.
- Agent Whisman searched for terms associated with child pornography and discovered a user in Tulsa, Oklahoma sharing approximately seventy files with names suggesting they contained child pornography.
- The IP address was traced to the residence where Andre Haymond, an 18-year-old computer programming student, lived with his mother.
- Following the execution of a search warrant, Haymond admitted he was addicted to child pornography and had been using peer-to-peer programs like LimeWire to purposefully search for and download it since 2006.
- Haymond described a pattern of downloading, viewing, and then deleting the images or reformatting his hard drive to 'remove the temptation,' admitting he had done so the day before the search.
- Haymond later called Agent Whisman and stated he knew the computer examiner would find files on his hard drive because he had not 'wiped it' as he previously claimed.
- The seven images forming the basis of the conviction were identified as part of a series known as the 'Brad and Bry' series, which was originally produced in Florida around the year 2000.
Procedural Posture:
- Andre Haymond was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma for knowing possession of child pornography.
- Before trial, Haymond filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his home, arguing the search warrant was issued without probable cause due to stale information.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress.
- At trial, Haymond moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case and again at the close of all evidence, arguing insufficient evidence.
- The district court denied both motions for acquittal.
- A jury found Haymond guilty.
- Haymond (appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with the United States (appellee) responding.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sufficient evidence exist to support a conviction for 'knowing possession' of child pornography when a defendant admits to intentionally searching for and downloading such material using a peer-to-peer program, even if the specific charged images are later found deleted in the computer's unallocated space without direct forensic evidence linking them to a particular download?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Seymour
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for knowing possession. Unlike cases involving the automatic caching of images from websites, downloading files from a peer-to-peer program like LimeWire requires a volitional act by the user to select and initiate the download. This affirmative act constitutes sufficient 'control' to establish actual possession at the moment of download. The court reasoned that Haymond’s admissions of intentionally using LimeWire with specific search terms to find and download child pornography, combined with his pattern of downloading and deleting files, provided ample circumstantial evidence for a jury to conclude he knowingly possessed the charged images. The evidence was sufficient to prove he knew the images depicted minors because he used search terms specifically associated with child pornography to find them. Finally, the interstate commerce element was satisfied because the government proved the 'substance of the image'—the original photographs taken in Florida—crossed state lines to be on his computer in Oklahoma.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal definition of 'knowing possession' in the context of digital files, drawing a crucial distinction between active, volitional acquisition (like a peer-to-peer download) and passive acquisition (like automatic browser caching). It establishes that the affirmative act of downloading is sufficient to prove control and possession, even if the files are later deleted and only recoverable from unallocated space. The case reinforces the principle that a defendant's admissions and patterns of behavior can serve as powerful circumstantial evidence to prove knowledge and intent, reducing the prosecution's reliance on direct forensic links between specific files and user actions. It also affirms a broad interpretation of the interstate commerce nexus for digital contraband, making it easier to establish federal jurisdiction.
