The Eighth Appellate District Court of Ohio has affirmed the conviction of Daniel Rykena, who was found guilty of multiple counts related to child pornography. The court’s decision hinged on whether images Rykena uploaded to Snapchat could be used as evidence, and whether the platform and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) acted unlawfully in their handling of the content.
The Core of the Case
Rykena appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He argued that Snapchat and NCMEC acted as government agents, conducting illegal searches without warrants, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
How the Case Unfolded
The case began when Snapchat detected 12 images on Rykena’s account that appeared to be child pornography. Snapchat reported the activity to NCMEC, which then forwarded the information, including the images, to the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC) in Cuyahoga County. The ICAC used this information to obtain a subpoena and search warrants, ultimately leading to the seizure of additional child sexual abuse material from Rykena’s residence. Rykena was indicted on 33 felony counts.
The Trial Court’s Findings
The trial court denied Rykena’s motion to suppress, concluding that Snapchat was not a state actor and that Rykena did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the images he uploaded to the platform. The court also found that the search warrants were properly obtained.
The Appellate Court’s Reasoning
The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s decision, focusing on two key points:
Snapchat’s Role: Not a State Actor
The court examined whether Snapchat could be considered a “state actor.” The Fourth Amendment primarily restricts government actions, not those of private entities. To be considered a state actor, a private entity must act as an agent or instrument of the government. The court found that Snapchat was not acting as a state actor. They noted that Snapchat has its own community guidelines and proactively scans for illegal content, as well as reporting certain activity to NCMEC. The court cited previous cases that have established that social media platforms are not considered state actors.
Expectation of Privacy: Lost on Snapchat
The court determined that Rykena had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the images he uploaded to Snapchat. By sharing the images on the platform, he essentially gave up his expectation of privacy. The court referenced the case of *United States v. Jacobsen*, which explains that when an individual shares private information with a third party, they assume the risk that the third party might share that information with authorities.
NCMEC’s Actions: Within the Scope
Rykena also argued that NCMEC conducted an illegal warrantless search. The court found that NCMEC’s actions were within the scope of Snapchat’s search. NCMEC used hash-matching, a process that identifies images based on their digital fingerprints, to analyze the images. The court noted that NCMEC did not conduct an independent review of the images beyond what Snapchat had already done.
The Outcome
Because the appellate court agreed that Snapchat was not a state actor and that Rykena had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the uploaded images, it affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress. The court also found that the search warrants were valid, and thus, the evidence obtained was admissible. Rykena’s conviction and sentence of 8 to 12 years in prison were upheld.