Seventh Circuit Rejects Privacy Claims Against Officers Who Shared Child Exploitation Images With Untrained Auxiliary

Circuit Judge Taibleson, writing for a unanimous panel in Jane Doe 1 v. Steven Sloan, held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. "Although Musselman's crimes were vile, plaintiffs have not alleged a viable substantive due process claim," Taibleson wrote.

The case arose from a January 2019 investigation when the Stark County Sheriff's Office in Illinois discovered a Dropbox file called "Blue Breeze" containing sexually explicit images of local underage girls. Deputy Gary Bent, who also served as Toulon Police Chief, enlisted Jason Musselman to help identify victims because of his IT experience and history of assisting with internet-related investigations. Musselman was an auxiliary police officer with the Toulon Police Department, had no formal training in handling child pornographic materials, and was not a Sheriff's Office employee.

Musselman kept the images for personal use rather than assisting with identification. He was later convicted on child pornography charges and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

The nine victims sued Stark County Sheriff Steven Sloan and Bent under Section 1983, alleging the officers' decision to share the images with Musselman violated their substantive due process rights. The district court dismissed the constitutional claims, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

The court held that recognizing the claimed privacy right would require "breaking new ground" and demanded "a careful analysis of the history of the right at issue." The plaintiffs, Taibleson wrote, "made no effort to conduct that historical inquiry or to show that their claimed right satisfies the Glucksberg criteria." The panel emphasized that "the scope of substantive due process is very limited" and that judges should be "reluctant to expand the concept."

Taibleson acknowledged that the officers' "handling of the Blue Breeze files left much to be desired," but held that "the Due Process Clause is not a vehicle for judges to fashion evidence-sharing protocols in child pornography cases."

The ruling does not end the litigation entirely. The plaintiffs' claims against Musselman under federal victim-protection statutes and state tort law remain pending. The consolidated cases involved three separate civil actions joined for discovery and appeal purposes.