Coleman v. State

Citation: 416 P.3d 238Docket: No. 71052

Court: Nevada Supreme Court; May 3, 2018; Nevada; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

NRS 200.604 prohibits the unauthorized capture of another person's private area under circumstances where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court addressed whether this statute applies to copying a consensually recorded video of sexual acts. The court determined that copying such a video does not violate NRS 200.604 and reversed the conviction. Coleman, a police officer, was acquitted of multiple charges but convicted of violating NRS 200.604 after he copied sexual videos from L.M.'s cell phone with her consent during an arrest. Coleman argued that he did not directly capture an image of L.M. but merely copied an existing video, while the State contended that he violated the statute by capturing an image of L.M.'s private area from the video. The court analyzed the statute's language and found it ambiguous, as "capture an image" could refer to real-time recording or copying pre-existing images. The court indicated the need to examine legislative history and other extrinsic aids to clarify the statute's intent.

NRS 200.604 was enacted to criminalize the real-time recording of a person's private areas in both public and private settings, where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The legislation arose from concerns over the increasing use of small cameras to capture images of individuals in vulnerable situations, such as in dressing rooms or bathrooms, which Nevada law did not previously address. Specific incidents highlighted during legislative hearings included a case involving a man filming under women's skirts in a casino and a landlord secretly recording a tenant in her home. These examples underscored the need for legal protection against such invasions of privacy.

The statute does not criminalize the republication of consensually captured images. Legislative discussions emphasized the intention to target individuals profiting from voyeurism while protecting those who may unintentionally capture images in social settings. The law was informed by the federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, which similarly aims to prevent nonconsensual recordings in private areas. Federal interpretations of analogous statutes support the understanding that NRS 200.604 specifically prohibits the act of voyeurism—capturing images without consent—rather than the dissemination of previously taken consensual images.

The rule of lenity clarifies the conduct criminalized by NRS 200.604, emphasizing that ambiguities in statutes defining crimes or penalties must be resolved in favor of defendants. This principle mandates strict construction of penal statutes, as established in prior Nevada case law. NRS 200.604 prohibits capturing or disseminating images of a person's private parts without consent in situations where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, it does not criminalize merely copying an image of a private area. 

In the case at hand, the court found insufficient evidence to convict Coleman under NRS 200.604. The evidence demonstrated that Coleman copied a video of L.M. from her cell phone, but he did not capture an image of her private parts in real time. Additionally, L.M. testified that the original video was consensually recorded, which meant that NRS 200.604(2) did not apply. The court determined it unnecessary to address the State's argument regarding L.M.'s consent to Coleman's examination of her phone since the statute does not criminalize copying consensually recorded images. The ruling was reversed, with concurrence from the Chief Justice and another Justice.