7th Circuit Rejects Minors' Due Process Claims Over Police Sharing Their Explicit Images With Untrained Auxiliary Officer

The case arose from a 2019 investigation into a file-sharing service containing explicit images of underage girls in Toulon, Illinois. Stark County Sheriff Steven Sloan and Deputy Gary Bent provided auxiliary police officer Jason Musselman with a Dropbox link to help identify victims in the images. Musselman, who also served as the police department's IT person, completed the identifications as requested—but secretly kept copies of the images for personal use.

Musselman was later convicted on separate child pornography charges and sentenced to 35 years in prison. The nine victims sued the officers under Section 1983, claiming violations of their substantive due process rights.

Circuit Judge Taibleson, writing for a unanimous panel Tuesday, affirmed dismissal of the constitutional claims. The court explained that articulating a substantive due process right requires "a careful description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest" that must be "deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition."

The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the Section 1983 claims, holding that no fundamental liberty interest was violated. The court emphasized that "not every wrong is a constitutional one."

The court distinguished the plaintiffs' cited precedents, writing that York v. Story "involved egregious police conduct quite distinct from Sheriff Sloan's and Deputy Bent's actions." The court emphasized that recognizing a new due process right would require "breaking new ground" and exercising "the utmost care," but "plaintiffs have made no effort to conduct that historical inquiry."

In particularly pointed language, the court noted that "defendants' handling of the Blue Breeze files left much to be desired," but emphasized that "the Due Process Clause is not a vehicle for judges to fashion evidence-sharing protocols in child pornography cases."

The plaintiffs continue to pursue federal statutory claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) and state tort claims for intrusion upon seclusion against Musselman and the remaining defendants in district court.