The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed a district court ruling that allowed police to seize a defendant's cellphone without a warrant during an investigation into allegations of child exploitation. The court issued its opinion Feb. 3, 2026, in *State of Idaho v. Christopher Robert Smith*, Docket No. 51551.
Christopher Robert Smith was confronted by police concerning allegations that he had surreptitiously filmed his 13-year-old stepdaughter with his cellphone while she was in the bathroom. When police asked him to show them his phone, he handed it to officers who then informed him they were seizing the device. Police later obtained a warrant to examine the contents of the phone.
Based in part on evidence obtained from the cellphone, a grand jury indicted Smith on two counts of Video Voyeurism under Idaho Code § 18-6605(2), one count of Sexual Exploitation of a Child under Idaho Code § 18-1507(2)(c), and one count of Lewd Conduct with a Minor Under Sixteen under Idaho Code § 18-1508.
Smith filed a motion to suppress the cellphone and its contents, asserting that police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by seizing his phone without a warrant and without a justified exception or exigency. The U.S. District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho, Ada County, denied his motion to suppress. District Judge Cynthia Yee-Wallace presided over the case.
Following the denial of his suppression motion, Smith entered a conditional guilty plea while reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. This procedural move allowed Smith to challenge the suppression ruling while acknowledging guilt, preserving his ability to contest the evidence gathering methods used by law enforcement.
The case presents important questions about the intersection of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures with law enforcement's need to preserve digital evidence in child exploitation cases. Digital devices like smartphones often contain volatile evidence that can be deleted or destroyed, creating potential exigent circumstances that may justify warrantless seizures.
The Idaho Supreme Court's opinion, written by Justice Moeller, addresses the constitutional balance between individual privacy rights and child protection. The court examined whether the warrantless seizure of Smith's cellphone violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Fourth Amendment jurisprudence generally requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before seizing personal property, but courts have recognized several exceptions to this warrant requirement. These exceptions include situations involving exigent circumstances, such as the risk of evidence destruction, immediate danger to public safety, or the hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect.
In digital evidence cases, courts must consider the unique characteristics of electronic devices. Smartphones and other digital devices can contain vast amounts of personal information and can be remotely wiped or have their data destroyed quickly. This technological reality has led some courts to recognize that the preservation of digital evidence may justify immediate seizure, even without a warrant, provided that law enforcement subsequently obtains a warrant before searching the device's contents.
The timing of the warrant application in Smith's case appears to support this approach. Police seized the phone immediately to preserve potential evidence but then obtained a proper warrant before conducting any search of the device's contents. This two-step process attempts to balance Fourth Amendment protections with practical law enforcement needs.
The case also highlights the serious nature of the underlying charges. Video voyeurism, sexual exploitation of children, and lewd conduct with minors are serious felonies that carry significant penalties. Idaho's statutes reflect the state's commitment to protecting children from exploitation and abuse, particularly in cases involving the creation or distribution of illicit images.
Smith was represented by the State Appellate Public Defender's office, with Erik R. Lehtinen as the appointed defender and Andrea W. Reynolds arguing the case. The state was represented by Idaho Attorney General Raúl R. Labrador's office, with Kale D. Gans presenting oral arguments for the respondent.
The appellate process in this case followed standard procedures for criminal appeals in Idaho. After the district court denied Smith's suppression motion, he preserved his right to challenge that ruling through his conditional plea agreement. This allowed the case to proceed to the Idaho Supreme Court while maintaining the specific legal question about the constitutionality of the phone seizure.
The affirmance of the district court's ruling means that the evidence obtained from Smith's cellphone will remain admissible in any future proceedings. This decision may influence how Idaho law enforcement agencies approach similar cases involving digital evidence and child exploitation investigations.
The case demonstrates the ongoing evolution of Fourth Amendment law in the digital age, as courts continue to grapple with how traditional constitutional principles apply to modern technology and law enforcement techniques.