Background
Patrick Havens was charged with secret peeping, second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor, and third-degree sexual exploitation of a minor following the discovery that he had installed hidden cameras disguised as ordinary phone charging blocks in the bathrooms of his home. His granddaughter, S.H., who was thirteen years old and living with her grandparents, recognized the devices after going to use her grandparents’ bathroom because Havens had previously shown the family the same type of charging-block cameras to explain how he had discovered a theft. When she saw the devices “lighting up,” she removed them before showering, photographed them, and called law enforcement.
A search of Havens’ home pursuant to a warrant revealed additional charging-block cameras in a garage and nightstand, along with stickers designed to disguise them as regular chargers. Forensic analysis of each charging-block camera revealed approximately 100,000 images captured from the bathrooms. The data also contained videos of S.H. “partially undressed in different stages, showing genitalia and breast.” Havens’ cell phone held videos he had separately recorded of charging-block camera footage showing S.H. undressed. Havens told investigators he watched the cameras “to see if ‘they’ were stealing things.” After a jury trial in August 2024, Havens was convicted on all three charges and sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 31 to 107 months.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed in full. Writing for a unanimous panel (Zachary, J., with Flood and Stading, JJ.), the court addressed Havens’ primary argument on the secret-peeping conviction: that the State presented no evidence he placed the cameras “with the intention of invading S.H.’s privacy,” relying on In re Banks, 295 N.C. 236, 244 S.E.2d 386 (1978). The court rejected that argument, holding that Banks—which interpreted a much older version of the statute and construed it to require intent to violate a victim’s reasonable expectation of privacy—does not govern the elements of N.C.G.S. § 14-202(f), the current felony secret-peeping statute enacted with technology-driven amendments. Under § 14-202(f), the State need only prove the defendant “secretly or surreptitiously uses or installs in a room any device that can be used to create a photographic image with the intent to capture the image of another without their consent” for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire. An intent to invade privacy is not an enumerated element of the current offense.
The court found ample evidence of surreptitious use—Havens installed the devices covertly, disguised them as chargers, and selectively recorded on his cell phone only footage of S.H. in various states of undress. Regarding the purpose element (sexual arousal or gratification), the court held a jury could reasonably infer from the totality of the circumstances—the targeted nature of the recordings, the selective transfer to Havens’ personal phone, and the thumbnails of S.H.’s genitalia found on the devices—that Havens acted for that purpose. On the exploitation counts, the court held the “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” standard was met by the imagery recorded, and that Havens’ knowing possession and secondary recording of the footage on his phone satisfied the knowledge and control elements of third-degree exploitation.
Key Takeaways
- The 1978 decision in In re Banks defined “secretly” under an older version of the secret peeping statute to require intent to invade privacy. That gloss does not carry over to N.C.G.S. § 14-202(f), the current felony provision covering hidden photographic devices; the State need not separately prove intent to invade privacy under subsection (f).
- For secret peeping under § 14-202(f), the essential elements are: (1) secretly or surreptitiously installing or using a photographic-image device in a room, (2) with intent to capture images of another person without their consent, (3) for purposes of sexual arousal or gratification. All three may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
- Selectively recording footage of a specific victim in states of undress onto a personal device is sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a jury may infer the sexual purpose element.
- For second-degree sexual exploitation, images or videos of a minor showing the “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” satisfy the “sexual activity” element under N.C.G.S. § 14-190.13(5)(g). The taking of screenshots and the creation of secondary recordings from original footage supports both the duplication element (second-degree) and the possession element (third-degree).
Why It Matters
Hidden cameras disguised as everyday electronics have become a recurring problem in domestic settings, rental properties, vacation homes, and institutional facilities. State v. Havens clarifies that NC’s current secret peeping statute does not require the State to prove a traditional “voyeuristic intent to violate privacy”—a defense argument that defendants have tried to import from the 1978 Banks case into modern prosecutions. Prosecutors handling cases involving hidden cameras need not stretch to prove a subjective privacy-invasion motive; proof of surreptitious installation, unconsented photographic capture, and sexual purpose is sufficient.
For defense counsel and civil practitioners, the decision also illustrates how the statutory elements interact when the same footage is both captured and then re-recorded. The defendant’s act of recording his own cameras’ videos onto a separate phone generated an independent basis for the second-degree exploitation (duplication) charge—layering additional criminal exposure on top of the original installation. In civil proceedings—especially those involving vacation-rental hosts or property managers where hidden cameras are discovered—this decision illustrates the scope of potential NC criminal liability that runs parallel to civil invasion-of-privacy and tort claims.