School Official Says His Future Is Unclear
Article Tools
Share This +
Assistant Principal Cleared in Porn Case
Saturday, April 4, 2009
A Loudoun County assistant principal who was cleared last week of charges of possession of child pornography said that he still believes in "the core of what I've been doing all my life" but that he is not sure he would return to his school were he to be allowed to do so.
"One has to do a lot of questioning and soul-searching about these kinds of things," said Ting-Yi Oei, 59, of Reston, an assistant principal at Freedom High School in South Riding and an educator for 30 years.
Oei was arrested Aug. 20 after law enforcement officials said he possessed an inappropriate cellphone photo of a female student taken by another student. He was charged with a felony possession count and later with two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor.
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.
Loudoun Circuit Court Judge Thomas D. Horne threw out all the charges Tuesday, saying in a five-page opinion that the photo was not sexually explicit enough to constitute child pornography.
Courtesy of Diane Curling
Ting-Yi Oei, an assistant principal at Freedom High School, was cleared of charges of possession of child pornography.
"Child pornography involves a cruel exploitation of youth," Horne said in the opinion. He quoted a 1990 case that said "nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene."
Flanked by his attorney, Steven David Stone, and Loudoun Education Association President Sandy Sullivan at a news conference Thursday, Oei talked about the difficulty of the past year and said he was grateful to the family members, friends and even strangers who had stood by him. He said legal bills have cost him his savings.
Oei said that he would need to think about what is next in his career and that he was still thinking hard about what message to draw from his experience.
"I need to reflect and get my life back whole again," he said.
In the legal 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 because of the grainy nature of the photograph, Horne said, it was difficult to determine what parts of her body were exposed.
Oei's lawyer said his client was the victim of an overzealous prosecutor.
Loudoun Commonwealth's Attorney James E. Plowman was "absolutely irresponsible in what he did," Stone said. "It seems to me that Mr. Plowman didn't do basic legal research when he filed these charges."
Plowman said that he accepted the judge's ruling but that "we're comfortable with the position that we took, and we take our positions in the community based on what we think will protect residents."
After his arrest, Oei was assigned to a clerical job not in a school building. Loudoun schools spokesman Wayde Byard said Friday that school officials had not seen the formal ruling and that Oei's placement would not be determined until after the ruling was reviewed.
Oei obtained the photo March 14, 2008. Law enforcement officials were notified of it by someone three weeks later, Loudoun sheriff's spokesman Kraig Troxell said. 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.
Sullivan said Oei "was simply doing his job as an assistant principal of investigating a matter in his building."
"Judge Horne's decision gives back some level of confidence and assurance to school employees that their efforts to protect students will be supported by the courts, and they will not be persecuted for doing their jobs, as occurred in this case," she said.
Staff writer Donna St. George contributed to this report.
Tagged: crime, Freedom High School
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
School officials have not seen the formal ruling,what they don't know how to get a copy of court transcript which is public record. Maybe they need to go back to school. The school system and the Commonwealth's AG need to have a suit filed against them. Mr. Oei I hope you have the wherewithall to make it happen. They took your dignity and your way of life away from you for just doing your job. Outrageous!!!!!
Posted by livingloco (anonymous) on April 4, 2009 at 7 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is something about this case that is mystifying. Who accused this man of having porn on his cell phone, and why? Further, why didn't the principal immediately come to his aid if he put the photo on there because he was instructed by the principal to do so? Something is not making sense here.
Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on April 4, 2009 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The people of Loudoun should be embarrassed that they elected such a troglodyte as prosecutor.
Posted by tompkins (anonymous) on April 4, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yocomclan .. please read the entensive stories at http://www.loudouni.com/ . There is indeed more to this story and it isn't very flattering to the prosecution.
I hope someone is willing to run against Plowman next election. I want to contribute to their campaign. Plowman's behavior in this case suggests he is motivate by his own sexual demons and doesn't exhibit the pragmatic justice-seeking demeanor that a prosecutor should have. If he doesn't resign we need to reject him at the polls.
I know politics is about hypocrisy. The democrats talk about how the rich don't pay their fair share because rich democrats simply don't pay their taxes. Likewise republicans talk about the evils of sexual immorality because they employ prostitutes and have "wide stances" in bathroom stalls.
I don't know what Oei can do to get his life back but we can protest loud and long that we will not tolerate this behavior by law enforcement or the CA office and demand that it not happen again!
Posted by EdwardMyers (anonymous) on April 5, 2009 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If anyone is wondering about his future, it should be James Plowman. While it may be debatable as to whether the circumstances of the case should have required Mr. Oei to inform the parents of the juvenile of suspected abuse, the fact that those charges were dropped indicate that considerable doubt existed.
But there is absolutely no question that this case did not even remotely support the felony charges of possessing child pornography. If Mr. Plowman had spent as much time researching the case law as he apparently did researching how well this would play among his conservative supporters in the next election, he might not have received a five-page smackdown from Judge Horne. That Mr. Plowman would continue to assert that he is "comfortable with the position that we took ... based on what we think will protect residents" even after receiving this legal rebuke raises broad questions about his professional judgment. And the public should question how well they are being "protected" by a prosecutor who shows so little concern about ruining someone's professional and personal life.
Posted by alert4jsw (anonymous) on April 5, 2009 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What does Plowman's being a conservative have to do with this?
Posted by dingus5 (anonymous) on April 5, 2009 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dingus, there's an election every year in VA, so some people are always campaigning, even if they personally aren't running for anything.
Mr. Plowman isn't up for reelection this year, but lots of offices ARE on the block in the fall, so if the object is to turn VA completely blue, then it is always time to attack any office holder on "the other side".
Yocom, I'm wondering whether who the kids are has anything to do with it--not uncommon for someone caught out to accuse in another direction.
I also recall that when charges were brought after the first were dropped, some heavily politically active folks here in town (who do not share Plowman's party affiliation) had much to say about how big a case this was and how much much more there was to it.
Turned out not to be true, according to the evidence.
But it is a darn good question as to who pushed this with the CA's office, and why.
I'd really hate to think that this man was placed on the block to divert attention from the FACT that underage kids were taking inappropriate pictures and transmitting them, and that it was seized as an opportunity to create a political issue.
Doubly sad for Mr. Oei if true.
Pure speculation on my part, but this is Loudoun, the land of ugly politics, and that's how it smells funny to me.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 6, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think there needs to be an independent investigation into all aspects of this case. This has been a travesty and we as citizens need to see that action is taken to be sure this injustice does not occur in the future.
Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on April 6, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Relax, all it takes is 30 years of savings to clear your name from an unjust charge. I hope Plowman liked his LOCO job.
Posted by mikejeck (anonymous) on April 6, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here are things that don't add up to me:
1. What purpose was served by uploading the pic of a potentially pornographic underage photo? What became of Mr. Oei's investigation as it appears he had the photo for 3 weeks?
2. Certainly Mr. Oei must have attended formal and mandatory training that taught him not to perform a child porn investigation using his personal devices.
3. Why did the Mr. Oei and the school choose not to notify the parents of all the children involved?
4. It appears the judge tossed the case because the pic was grainy, had it been a clear pic Mr. Oei would be facing trial. That tells me the judge thought Mr. Oei's actions, along with the Grand jury, were criminal and that the charges are dismissed for lack of evidence.
Bottom line for me, why would a school administrator use his personal phone to conduct a child porn investigation? Confiscate the students phone, call the police, call the parents, do EVERYTHING possible to ensure you're investigation is documented and approved by authorities!! Say what you will about the case being unjust, but Mr. Oei was just plain stupid, no one Loudoun County should dispute that.
Posted by ssamson (anonymous) on April 7, 2009 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
1) It was not clear the picture was pornographic (judge said no) or that the picture was of a child. Further investigation was needed to identify the subject of the picture to see if a referral needed to be made.
2) The picture was not of a nude. The female had panties on.
3) The subject was unknown. Possession of pictures of females in underware is not illegal or unusal. We see those pictures in newspaper ads all the time.
4) False. The judge determined that the picture was not nude because he did not see a nipple. Even if he had seen a nipple that would not have automatically made it lewd enough to be pornographic.
5) The principal told Oei to make a copy. Would you want to risk being fired for insubordination for not following your boss's directive? Actual child pornographers are found with 10s of thousands of pictures and videos, not one.
6)If we accept your opinion that Oei was stupid, is it acceptable to falsly prosecute someone not because the did something wrong, but because they were "stupid?" No! No! No!
Posted by EdwardMyers (anonymous) on April 9, 2009 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dont have an account? Sign up!
Post a comment