United States v. Watkins

── United States v. Watkins ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 11, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 23-6210 Document: 87 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 11, 2026 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 23-6210 v. (D.C. No. 5:22-CR-00325-R-1) (W.D. Okla.) CAMERON WATKINS, a/k/a Crazy Gun, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER _________________________________ Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, MATHESON, PHILLIPS, McHUGH, MORITZ, EID, CARSON, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. ∗ _________________________________ This matter is before the court on Appellant’s Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc and the United States’ Response to Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing. Appellant’s request for panel rehearing is DENIED by a majority of the panel. Judge Moritz would grant panel rehearing. The Honorable Jerome A. Holmes, the Honorable Robert E. Bacharach, and the ∗ Honorable Veronica S. Rossman are recused in this matter.  Appellate Case: 23-6210 Document: 87 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 2 The petition and response were circulated to all non-recused active judges of the court, and a poll was called. The poll did not carry. Consequently, Appellant’s request for en banc rehearing is DENIED. Judges Moritz and Federico voted to grant en banc rehearing. Judge Hartz has filed a separate concurrence in the denial of en banc rehearing. Judge Moritz has filed a separate dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing, which is joined by Judge Federico. Entered for the Court, PER CURIAM 2  Appellate Case: 23-6210 Document: 87 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 3 23-6210, United States v. Watkins HARTZ, Circuit Judge, supporting the denial of rehearing en banc I have nothing to add doctrinally regarding the panel opinion. But two observations may be useful. First, my chambers has conducted a review of statutes of the 50 States and the District of Columbia addressing Peeping Toms—that is, persons using unaided vision to spy on others. We may well have missed something, but I doubt that anything omitted would affect the principal conclusion. Only six States have no such statutes. Of the statutes, the great majority (all but 12 statutes from 12 States) would not apply to the action of the officer in this case because they require a trespass (as is also the case with Model Penal Code § 250.12); require that the viewing be with lewd or improper intent or involve unclothed private parts; or do not apply to law-enforcement officers. * * Statutes with a 1 include a requirement that the perpetrator be trespassing. Statutes with a 2 include a requirement that the perpetrator act with lewd or improper intent or actually observe another’s uncovered intimate areas. Statutes with a 3 include an express exception for law-enforcement activities. Some statutes contain multiple provisions covering the