NOT CHARGED (ALL) | CHILD PORNOGRAPHY– State v. Mr. H. (DMC No. 10626) (Century Link Investigated): Mr. H. received a letter from Century Link, along with lawsuit documents that he had illegally downloaded child pornography onto his computer.  He immediately got us involved, and we discovered that multiple people (including his teenage sons) had accessed his computer.  The site that was downloaded allegedly contained “teen porn”.  We were able to keep him from being charged with criminal charges, and had the lawsuit from Century Link dismissed for a small settlement, (due to the fact that “someone” in his household had downloaded the videos).  Mr. H. had originally been facing multiple decades in prison if he were to have been charged and convicted.

NOT CHARGED | CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. T. (DMC No. 6477) (Gilbert PD Investigated): Mr. T. took in a roll of film to a Walgreens to have it processed for photographs.  On the roll, were 2 pictures discovered of his daughter exposing herself and touching herself (she was 5 years old).  When Detectives got involved, they executed a search warrant and took all of Mr. T.’s computers.  We sat down with Mr. T. and the Detectives, and allowed them to interview Mr. T.  In addition, we showed Detectives that the person taking these photos was about the same height as the 5 year old, and it was during the 5 year olds birthday party in which many children were present that day.  In other words, another 5 year old child probably took the pictures.  Mr. T. was eventually cleared, and no charges were ever brought.

NOT CHARGED | 4 COUNTS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. G. (DMC No. 6749) (Phoenix PD Investigated): Mr. G. is a gay male who ordered four adult pornography 8 millimeter tapes from EBay.  When he received them, he took them to a local video store to be converted.  While being converted, the employee of the store noticed images of child pornography and called police.  When Mr. G. was contacted, we became involved and brought him into the station to sit down with police in order to be questioned.  We also presented covers of the four boxes, which showed adult males (not children).  Mr. G. had never viewed the tapes, nor did he have any way to view them, prior to taking them into the video store.  After meeting with Detectives, they still routed the file for charges with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.  We were able to convince the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office that there was “no intent” and they decided to not bring charges.  Mr. G. was originally facing a minimum of 40 years in prison.

NOT CHARGED | POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (DMC No. 1472) State v. Mr. S.: Mr. S. had taken some photographs of his male acquaintances, who were 21 and 23 years old. When the photos were developed, the Walgreens employees notified police. A Detective thought the people in the photos may be under 18 years of age. We made contact with the detective, informed her of the ages of the 2 male acquaintances, and also pointed out that under the scientific matrixes used to identify the ages of people in photographs; this wasn’t even a close call. The Detective agreed to not to file charges and stated she would be destroying the photos. We indicated she could not destroy the photos as 1) they were evidence and, 2) our client had done nothing wrong. The photographs were returned to our client, and no charges were filed.

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF A MINOR (Child Pornography) State vs. Mr. L. (DMC No. 9999) (Chandler Police Department): Police showed up at Mr. L.’s house and asked to search his computer due to allegations of alleged Child Pornography.  When he refused, they told him that they would get a search warrant and come back and lock down his house.  He then agreed and his computer was taken and searched.  Police allegedly had found numerous images of simulated and possibly real child pornography on his computer.  Due to the issues of a potentially illegal search under the case of Bumper vs. North Carolina, we were able to convince the detectives to not file charges.  Mr. L. was facing a potential minimum of over 100 years in prison if he were convicted.