Phone First, Warrant Second? The Eighth Circuit Upholds Emergency Seizure of Digital Evidence

United States v. Evans, No. 25-1926 (8th Cir. June 9, 2026)

TL;DR

The Eighth Circuit upheld the conviction of a man who secretly recorded a 15-year-old girl bathing through a bathroom transom window. The court held that even if the suspect's initial consent to surrender his phone was questionable because an officer mentioned obstruction charges, the seizure was nevertheless lawful under the exigent-circumstances exception because officers had probable cause and a reasonable belief that digital evidence could be destroyed before a warrant could be obtained. The court also found sufficient evidence to support a conviction for attempted sexual exploitation of a minor because the defendant repeatedly positioned his phone to capture images of the victim's genital area and took substantial steps toward producing child pornography.

Facts

On November 16, 2022, a 15-year-old girl identified as E.R. spent the night at the home of her friend G.T. During the morning hours, E.R. entered the bathroom to take a bath. While rinsing her hair, she noticed a cell phone appear through a transom window above the bathroom door. The phone was quickly pulled away, and she immediately heard footsteps and a door closing. E.R. believed the person holding the phone was Rayford Evans, G.T.'s uncle, who also lived in the residence.

After returning to G.T.'s bedroom, E.R. typed messages on her phone stating that someone had been recording her while she was bathing and that she believed Evans was responsible. The girls contacted G.T.'s father, who returned home and arranged for E.R. to meet her parents. Law enforcement was then notified.

Officer Brandon Smith learned that Evans had been accused of recording E.R. with a black phone matching a specific description and that Evans was already aware of the accusation. Smith went to the residence that evening and confronted Evans. When Smith informed him that he needed to take the phones, Evans initially responded that officers would need a warrant. Smith replied that Evans could be arrested for obstruction if he refused. Evans eventually surrendered one phone and later signed a written consent form authorizing a search of the device.

When officers examined the phone, they discovered videos of E.R. nude in the bathroom. A subsequent search warrant led to the seizure of additional devices, including a second phone that had been factory reset.

At trial, forensic evidence showed Evans moving a stepladder to the bathroom door, positioning his phone at the transom window, zooming in on E.R.'s breasts and genital area, and commenting that he had "an opportunity again." The recordings captured E.R. fully nude while bathing.

Issues

1. Did the warrantless seizure of Evans's phone violate the Fourth Amendment?

2. Did exigent circumstances justify the seizure even if consent was questionable?

Holding

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction. The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure of the phone because officers had probable cause to believe it contained evidence and reasonably feared that the evidence could be deleted before a warrant could be obtained. The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the attempted sexual exploitation conviction.

Court's Reasoning

1. Probable Cause Existed to Believe the Phone Contained Evidence

The court found that Officer Smith had received timely and consistent information from multiple sources. The victim personally reported seeing a phone recording her in the bathroom. Her description matched Evans's phone. Family members identified Evans as the likely person holding the device, and officers learned Evans already knew he had been accused. Taken together, these facts established a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found on the phone.

The court emphasized that probable cause is not a high bar and was clearly satisfied under these circumstances.

2. Exigent Circumstances Justified Immediate Seizure

The court acknowledged that the voluntariness of Evans's initial consent was a close question because Officer Smith referenced a possible obstruction charge. Rather than deciding the case solely on consent, the court focused on exigent circumstances.

The court noted several critical facts:

• Evans knew he had been accused.

• Digital evidence can be deleted almost instantly.

• Officer Smith was the only officer on duty.

• Delaying action while obtaining a warrant created a substantial risk that the videos would disappear.

Given those facts, a reasonable officer could conclude that evidence was in imminent danger of destruction. Therefore, the warrantless seizure of the phone was objectively reasonable under the exigent-circumstances exception.

3. The Subsequent Search Was Lawful

Because the seizure itself was lawful, the later search of the phone was not tainted by any prior illegality. Evans subsequently signed a written consent form acknowledging that he had the right to refuse consent and require a warrant. The court therefore upheld the search and rejected the suppression arguments.

Street Takeaways

1. Digital Evidence Creates Real Exigency

When officers have probable cause and a reasonable basis to believe a suspect may delete digital evidence, immediate seizure of a device may be justified while a warrant is sought. Courts continue to recognize that electronic evidence can disappear with a few taps on a screen.

2. Build Probable Cause Before Acting

The officer in this case had multiple corroborating sources, a recent report, a victim statement, a phone description, and information that the suspect already knew about the accusation. Those facts mattered significantly in the court's analysis.

3. Written Consent Still Matters

Even when exigent circumstances justify a seizure, obtaining written consent for a later search remains a valuable safeguard. The signed consent form helped strengthen the government's position.

Why This Case Matters

United States v. Evans reinforces an increasingly important principle in modern policing: when officers have probable cause and reasonably fear the imminent destruction of digital evidence, courts may allow immediate seizure of electronic devices even before a warrant is obtained. The decision also serves as another reminder that child exploitation cases can be successfully prosecuted as attempt offenses when the evidence demonstrates intent and substantial steps toward creating illicit images.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for law enforcement training and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Officers should consult agency policy, prosecutors, and legal advisors regarding specific investigations and evolving Fourth Amendment requirements.