MPD: Sex offender developed photos of children

Talk about an odd case this one takes the cake. Is there a Tennessee law prohibiting any RSO from possessing pictures of children? If anyone knows please let me know. eAdvocate@gmail.com

4-20-2011 Tennessee:

MURFREESBORO — Murfreesboro Police detectives are investigating a convicted sex offender who they believe may have violated Tennessee law when he had images of children developed at a local shopping center’s photo lab.

The man reportedly bought a digital camera at a local yard sale some time before Monday, according to Murfreesboro Police spokesman Kyle Evans. At the time of the purchase, police believe the camera’s memory card contained photos that depicted children playing.

“The photographs of the minors were not pornographic in nature,” Evans explained. “But because the suspect is a convicted sex offender, he could face charges for trying to have the images developed.”

The identity of the suspect has not been released. Police have said an open criminal investigation is still under way in the case and charges may be pending.

Authorities were initially alerted to the situation by an employee of Sam’s Club on John R. Rice Boulevard, according to a March 18 police report.

The employee told police the man, whom he recognized as being on the state’s sex offender registry, brought a digital camera’s memory card into the store to have prints made.

The employee noticed photos of children and decided to call police.

MPD Detective Wayne Lawson was called to Sam’s Club to collect the photographs, according to a police report. He has been investigating the case ever since.

Evans reminded those who are thinking about selling used photographic equipment or computers to “remove any hard drives or memory cards from the devices before the sale.”

“Erasing is not enough,” he explained, adding someone with technical skill could easily retrieve erased data. ..Source.. by MARK BELL

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge throws out charges against Moores

3-23-2011 Wisconsin:

Charges against Bruce E. Moores, a registered sex offender and a former local radio personality, were dismissed Monday in Chippewa County Circuit Court.

Judge Jim Isaacson ruled there was no probable cause a felony was committed by Moores, who was accused of being a child sex offender working with children. Isaacson also dismissed at Monday’s preliminary hearing a misdemeanor count of bail jumping against Moores.

Isaacson made his ruling after hearing testimony from Chippewa Falls Police Officer Deb Brettigen, Jodi Voegeli of the Wisconsin Sex Offender Registry and Theresa King, a worker at the Village of Terror.

A criminal complaint said Moores, 41, 2403 Tony Court - Apt. 3, Eau Claire had contact with children who appeared to be under 16 while working at the food and beverage booth at the Village of Terror, 2302 Nelson Road, Chippewa Falls. The attraction is on the grounds of the Chippewa Valley Renaissance Faire.

Isaacson ruled there was insufficient evidence to show that what Moores was doing constituted a violation.

The potential penalty for the felony charge was 12 years and six months in prison and a $25,000 fine. Moores also faced a potential $10,000 fine or nine months in jail on the bail jumping charge.

Moores was convicted of a sexual assault of a child on Nov. 23, 1992 for an incident that happened in March 1992.

Moores was represented by attorney Robert Thorson while the state was represented by Assistant District Attorney Wade Newell.

He worked for a time for Maverick Media, including doing news reports on WAYY-AM.

Although the Chippewa County charges against Bruce Moores were dismissed, the ex-disc jockey was found guilty in Dunn County of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.

According to the criminal complaint, the 49-year-old was seen videotaping high school girls changing out of their uniforms after a volleyball tournament at UW-Stout’s Johnson Fieldhouse in August 2010. Moores told one of the girls he was working for a local advertising “shopper” newspaper. ..Source.. by ROD STETZER

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Old pics of sister-in-law lead to child porn case

No matter what you think about this fellow, think about the issue he intends to bring to the U.S. Supreme court: How can it be child porn if the girl was 17, above the state age of consent? Now, if if if his child porn conviction was to be overturned, on that issue, think about this, the Adam Walsh Act says, if a person is under 18 ... ... they are a minor, a ton of laws would be affected.

1-17-2011 Illinois:

Bankrupt lawyer, also accused of blackmailing ex-wife, wants conviction overturned

WASHINGTON — In retrospect, Gary Peel's first mistake on the road to his conviction on child pornography charges was the affair he began in 1974 with his sister-in-law. She was 16 at the time.

It probably also was not a good idea to take nude pictures of her. Or to keep them for three decades. And it certainly was not advisable to try to use the pictures to blackmail his ex-wife, the woman's sister, into redoing their divorce settlement. Especially because his ex-wife had gone to federal authorities, who recorded the blackmail attempt on tape.

The photos led to Peel's conviction for possession of child pornography, a conviction that Peel, once a successful lawyer, now is asking the Supreme Court to overturn. The justices are meeting Friday to consider accepting new appeals, including Peel's.

"This is a child pornography case that does not involve a child," Peel's lawyers told the court in their brief. They are claiming violations of the First Amendment and of the Constitution's bar against ex post facto convictions for violating laws that were not in place when an alleged crime occurred.

In the first place, they argue, the age of consent in Illinois was 16 in 1974, which they say means Peel's affair did not violate state law.

There also was no federal child pornography statute at the time. It was enacted in 1978 and, after being amended, now applies to sexual depictions of children younger than 18.

The Justice Department is urging the court to reject the appeal. Peel "is being punished for his possession of child pornography in 2006," acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said in a court filing. In addition, the government disputes that the affair between Peel and the woman was legal at the time.

The court does not even need to consider any of those issues now, Katyal said, because the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, Ill., has ordered the trial judge to redo Peel's prison sentence and throw out a bankruptcy fraud or obstruction of justice conviction that went along with the child pornography charge. Peel had been sentenced to 12 years in prison.

The 7th Circuit upheld the child pornography conviction, dismissing questions about whether prosecutors proved that Peel recalled in 2006 that the woman in the photographs was 16 at the time they were taken.

"He had known her since she was in fourth grade," Judge Richard Posner said in describing a series of contacts between them, "and years later had represented her in her divorce proceeding."

Peel, now in his mid-60s, was a prominent lawyer in Illinois' Madison County, northeast of St. Louis. He and Deborah Peel divorced in 2003 and, beset by financial difficulties, Peel filed for bankruptcy in 2005. A short while later, he approached his ex-wife, acknowledging the long-ago affair and telling her about the photographs.

Peel intimated he might make them public if his ex-wife did not let him out of his financial obligations to her. He eventually showed her the originals at a meeting that was being recorded by federal agents and included this exchange:

"So you resort to blackmailing me?" she said.

Peel replied, "There's nothing left. I'm down to no kids, no grandkids, no money." ..Source.. by MSNBC.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge: Ruling against sex offender stands

See earlier story.

1-7-2011 Wisconsin:

Burlington-area man took photos of children in '09 without parents' consent

RACINE - A Town of Burlington man unsuccessfully challenged a state law that prohibits sex offenders from photographing children without their parents' consent, after he was charged here for doing exactly that.

John Rindo, 64, of the 3000 block of Cottonwood Court, is on the sex offender registry for a 1991 conviction from Washburn County for sexual assault of a child. He was on a pontoon boat on Browns Lake on July 11, 2009, when he allegedly used a telephoto lens to photograph teen and preteen girls who were on a swim raft.

Other people on the lake that day reported his actions to law enforcement. When asked, the girls' parents told law enforcement they had not given Rindo permission to photograph their daughters.

Defense attorney John Birdsall filed several motions challenging the charges against his client. He argued the statute is too broad and infringes upon his client's right to free expression through photography, and that the statute enacted eight years after Rindo completed serving his sentence amounts to retroactive punishment for his crime.

But Circuit Court Judge Gene Gasiorkiewicz said legislators are able to pass laws restricting certain rights in the interest of protecting the public. Gasiorkiewicz said the statute appropriately puts the restriction on a small group of people - sex offenders on the registry - and gives them the ability to get around the restriction by getting permission from parents.

This is appropriate, Gasiorkiewicz said, in part because of the high re-offense rate for sex offenders. He read from several studies, and said those showed "the mere taking of photos of children in swimwear can serve as a source of arousal with respect to known sex offenders."

He said he believes the restriction also protects sex offenders. This kind of prohibition, he told Rindo, is also a treatment strategy "to help you by keeping yourself away from situations ... which will create you back into a situation where you may be aroused or get back into criminal activity," he said.

Taking pictures of children, Gasiorkiewicz said, even ones that are not suggestive, "may be a pretext to getting engaged with (the children), or getting them involved with the sex offender."

Birdsall said they intend to appeal the judge's decision. He believes this is the first time anyone has challenged this law in court. ..Source.. by Janine Anderson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...