Teachers Photos Of Students A Crime

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed a conviction of a teacher 

In the context of this case, where appellant was a teacher taking multiple photos of a student during school, and the content of the photos, depicting primarily the buttocks of a student bending over what appears to be a table, taken with evidence of photos appellant took depicting only a “young woman’s legs and buttocks,” a rational trier of fact could conclude that appellant’s actions in taking these photos were for his own benefit and constituted exploitation of a sexual nature.

Appellant’s action, in placing his phone underneath his student’s skirt and taking a picture, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that appellant engaged in an act that involved sexual exploitation at the time he had responsibility for the student’s supervision.

The evidence

On October 2, 2015, appellant, a science teacher at a Montgomery County high  school, administered a makeup exam to N.S., one of his students. As part of the accommodations for her learning disability, N.S. took a written examination and then had the questions administered orally.

After completing the written examination, N.S. went to the front of the classroom, where appellant was seated in a roller chair, to go over the exam orally. N.S. was wearing a skirt, and she stood approximately 18 inches from appellant.

Initially, appellant was facing his computer and using his iPhone as he conducted the examination orally. Toward the end of the exam, however, appellant turned to face N.S. and “leaned forward like on his knees,” with his phone in his hand. The phone was facing downward with the screen toward the floor and the camera facing upward.

N.S. testified that, after leaning forward, appellant put the phone “almost underneath [N.S.’] skirt” and “started clicking the volume button[,] which takes pictures” when the phone is positioned in the manner described. N.S. believed appellant was taking pictures by “clicking the volume button” because she had taken pictures in that same manner herself.

At that point, N.S. stepped back and crossed her legs while she finished the oral review of the examination. After completing the examination, N.S. left appellant’s classroom and met two of her friends, who were waiting outside of the classroom. N.S. told these two friends about the pictures appellant was taking during the examination. N.S. also told her father and mother. N.S.’ parents called the school and scheduled a meeting with the principal for the following Monday.

N.S. also filed a complaint with Child Protective Services (“CPS”) for Montgomery County, which was forwarded to the Montgomery County Police Department.

The investigator asked and was given permission to look at his phone

As Detective Giovacchini looked, she noticed that there were pictures of adolescent females in the classroom. Specifically, she observed “pictures of butts [in] what appeared to be the classroom setting.” Detective Giovacchini did not see a picture of N.S. or the clothes she described wearing on the date of the incident.

A search warrant led to charges involving other students

State’s Exhibit No. 14 depicted images of R.K. standing in a classroom with her arms outstretched and cleavage exposed.

He was acquitted of the R.K. charges.

Count III involved images from appellant’s phone, shown in State’s Exhibit Nos. 8 and 15, which the parties stipulated were of the minor-victim, M.S., who was appellant’s student during the fall of 2015. These exhibits depicted images of M.S.’ buttocks, taken in the classroom setting as M.S. was bending over.

Guilty

Count IV involved images from appellant’s phone, shown in the State’s Exhibit No. 13, which the parties stipulated were of the minor-victim, G.E., who was appellant’s student during the fall of 2015. State’s Exhibit No. 13 depicted images, taken from behind, of G.E. standing in a classroom.

Not guilty

Multiple images of M.S., R.K., and G.E. were admitted into evidence. Additionally,  the court admitted photos of unknown females, which the court found relevant to appellant’s intent. The court described one photo as one where the “whole photo” was depicting “a girl’s buttocks.” It stated that there was “no legitimate student activity going on,” but rather, it was “just a girl bending over.”

The court here on Count III

In assessing the sufficiency of evidence to support appellant’s conviction for sexual abuse of M.S., appellant’s framing of the issue, whether “[t]he mere taking of a picture of a fully clothed individual” is sufficient to prove “sexual exploitation,” is too narrow. Rather, our analysis requires consideration of all the circumstances, including the context in which the pictures were taken, i.e., appellant was a high school teacher and the minor victim, M.S., was his student, and the content of the pictures, which the circuit court accurately described as multiple images of M.S. “bending over, taking the picture from the back to the virtual exclusion of every other part of her body.” The circuit court, in assessing the totality of the circumstances, concluded that this “was not an accident,” particularly when considered with State’s Exhibit 20, which included photos of another young woman, depicting only the “young woman’s legs and buttocks.” Viewing all of the evidence, the court found that “these pictures were taken to memorialize [M.S.’] backside,” and it determined that the evidence was sufficient to show that appellant’s actions were exploitative. We agree…

Based on the context of the actions, a teacher taking multiple photos of a student during school, and the content of the photos, which depicted primarily the buttocks of a student bending over what appears to be a table, as well as other photos depicting only a “young woman’s legs and buttocks,” a rational trier of fact could conclude that appellant’s actions in taking these photos were for his own benefit and constituted exploitation of a sexual nature.

The N.S. photo was not found but the conviction on that count was nonetheless sustained

The court ultimately found that the lack of a photo, which could be explained for various reasons, did not negate a finding of exploitation. That determination was a correct statement of the law.

…appellant’s action, in placing his phone underneath his student’s skirt and taking a picture, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that appellant engaged in an act that involved sexual exploitation of N.S. at the time he had responsibility for her supervision. The evidence was sufficient to support appellant’s conviction of sexual abuse of N.S.

(Mike Frisch)