Opinion ID: 3160873
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Private Search

Text: Both Johnson’s and Sparks’s convictions, and this appeal, can be traced to an HTC smart phone that they mistakenly left at a Walmart store located in Cape Coral, Florida, on or about June 4, 2012.3 Linda Vo, a Walmart employee, found the phone. After Sparks sent a text message that she describes as having “urgently requested” the return of the phone, Vo called the number indicated in the text message. 4 During the ensuing conversation, Sparks made a peculiar request of Vo, asking her not to turn the phone over to customer service but instead to hold onto it until Sparks could pick it up directly from Vo. 2 Where factual conflicts in the record exist, we take our facts from the district court’s factual findings. See infra at Section III.B.1. 3 Sparks maintains that the phone was left at Walmart two days earlier, on June 2, 2012. The disagreement over the date on which the phone was lost does not affect our analysis. 4 As the district court noted, what Vo did with the phone is not entirely clear because Vo was not called as a witness at the evidentiary hearings. Vo’s then-fiancé and now-husband, David Widner, did testify, and his testimony provided most of the basis for what is known about Vo’s actions. 5 Case: 14-12143 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 Page: 6 of 64 After making arrangements to return the phone, Vo looked at digital photographs stored in a photo album on the phone, apparently in an attempt to identify the woman to whom she was planning to return the phone. The phone was not password protected, so Vo was able to access the content stored on the phone. She discovered what Widner later described as “questionable” images. Vo told Widner that she had seen some “pretty weird” pictures involving a young girl who was sometimes nude. Widner decided to look at the pictures himself to determine whether the phone should be turned over to the police. Vo showed him the images on the cell phone and told him about a video that was also stored on the phone. In the phone’s photo-album application, Vo accessed a screen that displayed several smaller “thumbnail” images. Vo scrolled through the album as Widner looked on, and Widner was able to see in thumbnail format all of the images contained within the album. Vo then showed Widner a full-size image in which three prepubescent girls stood naked in the middle of a room in what Widner thought was a posed and sexually suggestive manner. Widner also testified that Vo showed him another full-size image that focused on a young girl’s nude vaginal area and stomach, which was covered in a substance that appeared to be semen. After Vo finished showing Widner the images, Vo gave Widner the cell phone to take to law enforcement. 6 Case: 14-12143 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 Page: 7 of 64