Child Porn Charges Against Freedom Assistant Principal Dropped
Article Tools
Share This +
Originally published at 12:08 p.m., April 1, 2009
Updated at 12:34 p.m., April 1, 2009
A judge yesterday dismissed charges of possession of child pornography that had been filed against a Loudoun County assistant principal.
Ting-Yi Oei, 59, of Reston, an assistant principal at Freedom High School in South Riding, was arrested Aug. 20 after law enforcement officials said that he was in possession of an inappropriate cell phone photo of a female student taken by another student. He was charged with the felony possession count and later was charged with two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor.
But Loudoun Circuit Court Judge Thomas D. Horne threw out all the charges yesterday, saying in a five-page opinion that the photo was not sexually explicit enough to constitute child pornography.
“Child pornography involves a cruel exploitation of youth,” Horne said in the opinion, and he quoted a 1990 case that said that “nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene.”
According to court papers filed by the defense, Oei said he obtained the photo as part of a school investigation into rumors that students were circulating nude photographs.
Courtesy of the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office
Booking photo of Ting-Yi Oei, who was arrested on child pornography charges in August 2008
In the opinion, Horne described the photograph as depicting a female from the chest to the mid-thigh. The arms of the female covered her chest, but due to the grainy nature of the photograph, Horne said, it was difficult to determine what parts of her body were visible.
Oei had been reassigned to a clerical job that was not in a school building, Loudoun schools spokesman Wayde Byard said last month. Byard said today that the school system would determine Oei's placement after officials had seen the formal ruling.
Oei obtained the photo March 14, 2008, and law enforcement officials were notified of it by someone else three weeks afterward, said Loudoun sheriff’s spokesman Kraig Troxell. The sheriff’s office charged Oei on May 5 with failure to report suspicion of child abuse or neglect, saying that he had not informed the child’s parents, law enforcement or Child Protective Services of the photo.
That charge, a misdemeanor that carries a fine of up to $500, was later dropped. A grand jury indicted Oei in August on the felony charge of possession of child pornography, punishable by up to five years in prison. Another grand jury later indicted him on the two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Tagged: crime, Freedom High School , Loudoun County Circuit Court, sex crimes
Deal of the Day
$25 Off House Cleaning From Maid To Please!
Maid To Please is offering LoudounExtra.com readers $25 off their first house cleaning, or $10 their third house cleaning.
• View all deals from Maid To Please | All deals
Latest Deal
• $25 Off House Cleaning From Maid To Please! posted: 4/28/09
|
Search Deals and Business Directory |
Your Thoughts...
Are you happy that the school year is over?
Comments:
Note: LoudounExtra.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Peruse our reader agreement and privacy policy
Where does this man go to get his life back? Where does he go to get a job? Mr. Oei has paid an awful price because of this jihad.
Posted by dingus3 (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Finally, a smart person has used facts, not carrerism in a legal case!! Mr. Oei, you have stayed the course and have been vindicated!! Sorry you had to go through the AG power trip.
Posted by mikejeck (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From beginning to end a talented and humane person has been treated very badly by the Virginia Justice system,and the greater Communtiy has been badly served. 1. Mr Oei placed the image on his phone in order that there would be a record of it.He maintained it as the only evidence available. He did not hide it. When asked by the Sheriff's office if he had the image he immediately showed it to their officer. 2. The Sheriff's office and the Commonwealth Attorney's office had so little knowledge of the law that they were unaware that his showing the image to the Principal of Freedom High fulfilled his legal obligation to report any possible abuse. (The Washington Post failed in its duty by reporting that the May 5th misdeameanor charge was dropped but not why.)3. Mr. Oei was not notified by the Commonwealth Attorney's office that he was to be brought before a grand jury on felony charges. He did not know that he was suppose to appear before it. As a result he was arrested as a fugitive at the high school. 4.The photograph was no more ponography than the pictures found in Victoria's Secrets catalogs. By charging Mr. Oei the Commonwealth attorney, Mr. Plowman, will only have encouraged young people to continue to take these pictures of each other. Teachers and school administrators already find it difficult to maintain the stability and structure necessary to an educational system. Fewer of them will be willing to try to maintain the system now.
Posted by fufluns (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr Oei has paid a terrible price and will continue to do so, because the effects of this will not go away just because the judge dismissed the charges. I am so glad that Judge Horne came to this decision.
Parents, we have to be aware of what our kids are sending on their computers and cell phones. "Sexting" has now become a widespread problem, especially since once the image goes out there, the kids lose complete control over who sees it. The schools probably need to tighten up their procedures to protect their staff and students in future cases.
Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I neglected to mention that the Commonwealth Attorney's prosecution of Mr Oei has been a waste of taxpayers' money.
Posted by fufluns (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, conservatism gone wild. Typical of Virginia
Posted by ged0386 (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting verdict. Despite his "vindication," I sure hope he never goes around my kids.
Posted by Koolio96 (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope if you are afraid for your children based on this action you won't consider having any. Your lack of logic defies reason. He was trying to protect youth from the current youth "sport" of sexting. That is the sending of naked photos on celll phones.
Posted by Badger21 (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What causes concern for me is that Mr. Oei reportedly downloaded the naughty picture onto his own cell phone. Check with a police investigator - find out if they also download this kind of material to their own cell phones. I bet the answer will be "no," and for obvious reasons. If he was truly interested in investigating this "sexting" incident, he should have gotten police involved immediately - not wait for someone else to get the police involved weeks after the discovery.
Posted by Koolio96 (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LCPS will still try to get rid of Mr. Oei.
Who needs proof when an accusation will do?
Posted by jbartelloni (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's hope that Mr. Oei can get his life back. My advice: run, don't walk out of the LCPS, get another job, and then get a good lawyer and sue. Sue so that this does not happen to someone else.
Posted by livingloco (anonymous) on April 2, 2009 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is good news. Mr Oei will never regain all that has been lost to him in this case, but at least he can say justice served the right call. Hey LoCo Sheriff's office why not try to stop being camera rolling sheriffs and try to actually solve some of the murders! Stop wasting taxpayer time and money on this nonsense!
Posted by bulldawz1 (anonymous) on April 2, 2009 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you read the article you will notice that LCPS did not fire him during the trial they moved him to a different position. Now that all charges have been dropped I doubt they will let him go. Mr. Oei had lots of support from the Loudoun Education Association during this time. The LEA helped protect his employment as well as help him find great legal defense. Thank goodness there are organizations like the LEA to help educators out!
Posted by Babyduck1974 (anonymous) on April 2, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wait a sec, what did he think was a good idea about having that pic on his cell phone?
Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on April 2, 2009 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am so very glad the AG's office has time to chase down respected Asst Principals doing their job instead of finding the murders of innocent Loudoun County residents. As voters we need to make our mark against the poor performance of this incompetent Asst Attorney General. It was obvious from the start that he was trying to make a point at the expense of a highly regarded, local educator who was doing his job at the request of the Principal of his school. DON'T FORGET THIS INCIDENT ... FIRE THIS AG ...
Posted by kneimo (anonymous) on April 2, 2009 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Oei ia a wonderful, caring, and professional man. I worked with him for several years. It is unfortunate that vindictive parents who want rules for everybody's else's kids...but not their own... are allowed to retaliate and victimize another educator...for revenge.
Posted by smsaccomando (anonymous) on April 3, 2009 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bull, why are you besmirching the LCSO on this case? This was out of their hands pretty quickly after Oei was charged. The LCSO doesn't indict, the Commonwealth does. I admit I am at a bit of a loss as to why this case went on as long as it did, from what I recall the charges could have and probably should have been dropped very early on. Perhaps I am missing something.
As well, Kneimo, whay are you besmirching the Commonwealth's Attorney (not AG) office when the investigation of the murders is a function of the LCSO?
People need to better understand the rolls of LE and County Prosecutors.
Posted by cheekymonkey (anonymous) on April 3, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, amazing to see that a school investigation into sexting, which is legitimate, turned into a child porn possession case for this long with a grainy picture at that. It could have been any vice principal or the principal who could have done the same thing in the school investigation, and it just so happened that Mr. Oei was the one who did it and paid an unnecessary price of investigating a potentially illegal matter in house, meaning in school.
Posted by acleex (anonymous) on April 3, 2009 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The pic was on his cell phone because the principal asked him to make a copy and they couldn't figure out home to download it from the student's phone to a computer. So the student said, here, i'll just send it electronically.
The witch hunt that some people get into over things sexual. Note that the principal who request the photo wasn't charged. Perhaps because she was a woman?
Posted by EdwardMyers (anonymous) on April 3, 2009 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank God common sense has finally prevailed in a dismissal of charges.
From the very beginning the Sheriff's office said in a press release that the cell phone image was not a pornographic picture. It was never disputed that Mr. Oei came into possession of this image only in the course of fulfilling his job requirements as a school administrator and carrying out an investigation. The decision to file charges against Mr. Oei defies logic.
Commonwealth's Attorney Jim Plowman has some explaining to do as to why he chose to pursue such a spectacular failure of a prosecution. What a total waste of taxpayer monies, and a (moral if not legal)fraud against Mr. Oei.
Posted by nilpo34 (anonymous) on April 3, 2009 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The pic was on his cell phone because the principal asked him to make a copy and they couldn't figure out home to download it from the student's phone to a computer. So the student said, here, i'll just send it electronically" -- Well, what am I missing then -- if the principal instructed him to do this, who filed charges against him and why? Something is missing in this puzzle.
Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on April 4, 2009 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the explanation Yoco. Sounds like LCPS put Mr. Oei in a bad position by not adhering to a policy of using professional investigators to look into these kind of situations.
Posted by Koolio96 (anonymous) on April 5, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The picture was not criminal activity so there was no reason to have the police involved. A principal can investiage actions that are disruptive to school activity (as in this case) and keep it private so as not to publicly humiliate innocent students. We don't need to waste police resources on these kinds of issues when there are murderers to catch in Landsdowne.
Posted by EdwardMyers (anonymous) on April 5, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Being in possesion of a nude or even semi-nude pic of a minor, regardless of the reason, is about the dumbest thing anyone can do, and even dumber for someone who works with children. I'm smart enough to know that school administrators have to do their own investigations and can't involve the police for every issue but when it comes to potential child pornography I'm sure as hell not gonna upload a nude pic of a teenager to my phone, even if the President Obama tells me to. So don't be so quick to chastise LC's law enforcement in this case, I want child porn and child abusers to be thoroughly investigated and hammered if they're found guilty.
Posted by ssamson (anonymous) on April 6, 2009 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr Oei had the photo as evidence in this case. Otherwise, he would have had to take the student's cell phone, which would have probably caused a huge problem with the parents. If the students were passing around this picture in school in print form, the principal would have to confiscate it, otherwise, there is no evidence of the activity and the activity continues. I do not believe Mr Oei did anything other than his job. What has happened to him is horrendous.
The school system, perhaps in connection with the sheriff's office should come up with better procedures for their staff to follow to protect the staff in future instances.
In addition, has anyone considered that Mr Oei may have been set up by someone who had a vendetta against him for enforcing school policy?
Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on April 6, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another failure is the grand jury that indicted him.
Posted by ericalaska (anonymous) on April 20, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dont have an account? Sign up!
Post a comment