08/21/2026
To the residents of Lancaster,
I am aware of the video on FB showing the “Predator catcher” group that came to Lancaster last night. I know and understand the very strong feelings in cases like this.
There is a question that comes up frequently when a suspected child predator is confronted by a private “predator catcher” group:
“If the person admitted what they were doing, why didn’t the police just arrest them?”
The answer is that criminal investigations don't operate on the same standard as an internet confrontation.
In New Hampshire, law enforcement has to build a case that can survive court, not simply establish that someone looks guilty in a video.
An admission can be extremely important evidence. However, New Hampshire law does not allow an uncorroborated confession or admission standing alone to support a conviction. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that there must be substantial independent evidence indicating that the admission is trustworthy. That is one reason an officer may not immediately arrest someone at the scene, even when the circumstances appear extremely incriminating.
What this video does not show is the officer seized the cell phone of the individual. A search warrant was applied for and granted. That phone will have the data on it forensically extracted which can be used as evidence in court.
Why conduct a search warrant?
Phones, computers, social-media accounts and other electronic devices can contain the evidence necessary to establish the complete case:
• Messages and deleted messages
• Photos and videos
• Search history
• Account information
• Location information
• Evidence of prior or additional victims
• The identity of the person actually operating an account
• Evidence establishing intent and what the suspect believed the circumstances to be
A search warrant is not necessarily a sign that police don't believe what they have been told. In many cases, it is exactly how investigators corroborate what they have been told and obtain evidence that can be presented in court.
New Hampshire courts require probable cause for a search warrant, including a sufficient connection—or “nexus”—between the evidence being sought and the location or device to be searched.
Why not just arrest first and figure it out later?
Because an unlawful arrest or improperly obtained evidence can create a completely different problem.
Evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search, seizure, or interrogation can become the subject of a motion to suppress. New Hampshire appellate decisions demonstrate that improperly obtained evidence, including statements following unlawful police conduct, can be excluded from trial.
When we are dealing with a case, we are not simply trying to make an arrest. We are trying to make an arrest that results in a sustainable prosecution and, ultimately, a conviction when the evidence supports one.
And this is where private “predator poacher” groups can create complications.
Private citizens are not law enforcement officers.
When a private group arranges a confrontation, controls the conversation, records and publishes the encounter, searches property, or otherwise takes actions outside the scope of a normal citizen interaction, the circumstances surrounding how evidence was obtained can become an issue for prosecutors and defense attorneys.
That doesn't automatically mean the evidence is inadmissible. It means investigators and prosecutors may have to carefully determine:
Who obtained the evidence? How was it obtained? What exactly happened before police arrived? Was anyone acting at the direction of law enforcement? Was a search conducted? Was consent actually given? Were statements voluntary? Was evidence altered, moved, deleted, or contaminated?
Those questions matter because the ultimate goal isn't a viral video or an immediate arrest.
The goal is a case that survives motions, survives trial, and results in justice for the victim.
So if you see a video where someone appears to openly admit to trying to meet a minor and then hear that police didn't immediately arrest them, don't automatically assume that law enforcement “did nothing.”
Sometimes the most important police work happens after the cameras are turned off.
Sometimes taking the time to obtain warrants, preserve digital evidence, corroborate statements, identify everyone involved, and build the case correctly is exactly what prevents a dangerous person from walking free because of an avoidable legal or evidentiary mistake.
Good investigations aren't measured by how quickly someone gets handcuffed. They're measured by whether the evidence ultimately holds up in court.
I hope this clears up any questions or concerns people may have about how this was handled and know we are doing everything to build a solid case to bring this individual to justice and to seek justice for any and all victims.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Woodworth
Chief of Police
