Page 34 - TPA Journal March April 2024

The Home Bathroom Videos were filmed in Neighbor Videos and the Home Bathroom Videos,
Rider’s home, took place over several days, and respectively, and alleged that Rider “did and did
captured a different minor (“Victim 2”). Victim 2 attempt to” use Victims 1 and 2 to produce child
was friends with Rider’s children, and Rider was pornography.
Victim 2’s legal guardian when he filmed her. The
Home Bathroom Videos captured Victim 2 on Before trial, Rider moved to suppress his conver-
multiple occasions as she “undresses, examines sation with Detective Adcock and Agent Donnet
her body, enters the shower, exits the shower, uses on the basis that his statements were involuntary.
a towel to dry off all of her body, and dresses.” He argued that the officers violated his Fifth
Rider was indicted on three counts of violating 18 Amendment right against self incrimination by
U.S.C. § 2251 (a) and (e), which prohibit the sex- failing to secure the voluntary waiver of his
ual exploitation of minors, or attempted exploita- Miranda rights and by disregarding his request for
tion of children, to produce child pornography. counsel. Rider also claimed the officers violated
Section 2251(a) provides that: his due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment because Donnet “repeatedly preyed
Any person who employs, uses, upon [Rider’s] substantial faith” to coerce Rider
persuades, induces, entices, or into confessing. After holding a hearing, the mag-
coerces any minor to engage in, or istrate judge recommended rejecting Rider’s Fifth
who has a minor assist any other Amendment claim because he was not in a “custo-
person to engage in, or who trans- dial interrogation.” Alternatively, the magistrate
ports any minor in or affecting judge found that Rider received his Miranda warn-
interstate or foreign commerce, or ings, implicitly waived his rights by voluntarily
in any Territory or Possession of speaking with the officers, and did not invoke his
the United States, with the intent right to counsel. The district court overruled
that such minor engage in, any sex- Rider’s objections and accepted the magistrate
ually explicit conduct for the pur- judge’s report and recommendations on the day of
pose of producing any visual the trial.
depiction of such conduct or for the
purpose of transmitting a live visu- Rider raises five issues on appeal. First, he argues
al depiction of such conduct, shall the district court erred by denying the motion to
be punished as provided under sub- suppress his conversation with Detective Adcock
section (e) . . . and Agent Donnet. Second, he asserts that Dr.
Compton’s testimony was relevant and should not
“[S]exually explicit conduct” includes the “lasciv- have been excluded. Third, Rider claims there was
ious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area insufficient evidence to support his convictions on
of any person,” which the Fifth Circuit defines as Counts Two and Three. Fourth, he asserts that the
“a depiction which displays or brings forth to view jury charges on Counts Two and Three construc-
in order to attract notice to the genitals or pubic tively amended the indictment and allowed the
area of children, in order to excite lustfulness or jury to convict on a factual basis not alleged in the
sexual stimulation in the viewer.” indictment. Finally, Rider argues that his sentence
was unreasonable.
All three counts were based on footage discovered
on the Maxtor hard drive. Count One accused (omitted: discussion of plaintiff’s expert witness,
Rider and Pettigrew of conspiring or attempting to and jury charge objections)
conspire to employ youth at the Denison Church
to engage in sexually explicit activity for the pur- Rider argues that Detective Adcock and Agent
pose of producing a visual depiction of such con- Donnet violated his Fifth and Fourteenth
duct. Counts Two and Three related to the Amendment rights and that the district court erred

30 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal