Casillas moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that Minn. Stat. § 617.261 is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague in violation of the First Amendment. The district court rejected Casillas’s First Amendment challenge, reasoning in part that Minn. Stat. § 617.261 regulates obscenity, which is not protected by the First Amendment. The parties agreed to proceed under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4, which allows a defendant to stipulate to the state’s case to obtain review of a district court’s dispositive pretrial ruling. Based on the stipulated record, the district court concluded that Casillas was guilty of felony nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images as charged because he intentionally disseminated an identifiable image of A.K.M. depicted in a sexual act. The district court reasoned that Casillas “texted A.K.M. and seemingly threatened her about posting the image online, which demonstrates that he knew this wasn’t an act based on her consent,” and that Casillas “certainly knew that A.K.M. was not consenting to him disseminating the image.” The district court also determined that the state had proved that “the image was obtained under circumstances in which [Casillas] knew or reasonably should have known [that A.K.M.] had a reasonable expectation of privacy.” The district court reasoned that “an expectation of privacy regarding the image is implicitly inherent from the nature of the act depicted,” that Casillas’s threat to post the image online demonstrated “that he understood it was an image that should remain private,” and that “A.K.M.’s response about prosecuting such conduct further demonstrates that he reasonably should have known that A.K.M. had a reasonable expectation of privacy.” 3