FDLE Arrests Correctional Officer for Child Pornography

By: FDLE Release
By: FDLE Release

May 18, 2012

LAKE CITY - The Florida Department of Law Enforcement Cyber Crime Squad and Columbia County Sheriff’s Office arrested Stanley Romero Johnson, 44, of Lake City , on five counts of possession of child pornography, a third degree felony. Johnson was a correctional officer at Hamilton Correctional Institution.

FDLE Agents executed a search warrant yesterday at Johnson’s home located at 601 NW Emerald Lakes Drive in Lake City, after suspecting child pornography images on his computer.

Johnson was arrested without incident and booked into the Columbia County jail. This case will be prosecuted by the Office of the State Attorney, Third Judicial Circuit.


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Defense need to hire and adobe photoshop expert Jennifer Smith AGI team is an author I like. on May 25, 2012 at 03:14 AM
    I am not so sure that when you download the original image the individual that made the .psd file source for that image does not have control to change your download by changing his .psd file. The reason I wonder is because the image file when you right click after download and you look at the properties you still see the the link to the original .psd file if the image was a smart object.
  • by Adobe TV Video working with Photoshop and Dreamweaver on May 24, 2012 at 03:03 AM
    What happens if the image a user download is a smart object? Does it still maintain it original connection to the original source? If the users than reloads that image to internet like on their blog and the web developer that controls that smart objects original source updates his psd file doesn't that update all images link to it. Doesn't that mean that the original image can be modified by modifying the source code? Please look at this tutorial video to see what I am asking. Thanks http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-dreamweaver-cs4/working-with-photoshop-and-dreamweaver/
  • by Pls read May 19, 2012 at 05:28 PM on May 24, 2012 at 02:54 AM
    If the person making that threat is in law enforcement, that is evidence for the defense that law enforcement is will and threatening to misuse their authority to silence those they want to silence. The legislation has given le special access to form that division. Now if that is someone in LE you see evidence of that access being abused for personal interest. If you are in Law enforcement making those types of threats on a public blog, and believe me the defense is going to find out, you are the prosecutors worse nightmare because you destroy the credibility of Law enforcement working this case.
  • by We are broke on May 20, 2012 at 07:52 PM
    you are directed by coder. They put in what url they want you to be directed to. You do not know what URL they have coded so it is not "your" intent, its the coders intent that ends you up at any particular url. I am sorry I know you all what this division of law enforcement to continue to get is funding but honestly in my opinion these are not good strong case that they are building. In my opinion this kind of law enforcement is bad law enforcement. I am not for it. It is a waste of our money and we are broke. If you want to stop this, it would be more effective to go after the hosting companies who are storing and serving these images for public consumption. Charging the individual who was served the image does nothing about stopping the server from serving the image to others. You have to get the images off of the server. That just my opinion. I think this is a pitiful attempt for law enforcement to substantiate the need for more funding. We are broke, this is a waste of our money. You can not stop it like this. I am all for job creation but this is waste of funding to try and create these type of Law enforment positions.
  • by Anonymous on May 20, 2012 at 05:55 PM
    When you click on a link, your are clinking on a url. You have no idea what url. Nor do you have any idea what is in that file. The code codes that link with a url. Like this "a href='http://www.wctv.com>submit"
  • by Anonymous on May 19, 2012 at 05:04 PM in reply to Black flag on May 20, 2012 at 03:03 PM
    If the cop are storing these images on thier own servers and then serving them that entrapment. Especially if they are not releasing the coding that activated the serve to serve the image.
  • by HELLO on May 19, 2012 at 06:11 PM
    HOLD THE HELL UP, IS THIS A STATE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS! HOW ABOUT LET'S SHUT THIS DAM PRISON DOWN. LOL ROLE CALL WHERE ARE ALL THE STATE CO THAT WERE COMMENTING 2 WEEKS AGO ABOUT THAT PRISON IN GRENTA. BOL!
  • by inmate Location: jefferson on May 18, 2012 at 07:10 PM
    BRING THE BOY ON. I LONLEY.
  • by Not for this type of prosecution. on May 18, 2012 at 07:05 PM
    I mean in my opinion if FDLE is tagging those images, so the google bot index them they are baiting these people. And on that note why is google not guilty for indexing the images to begin with. If the google bot did not index these images, than they would not be found. It that simple. There a lot of people doing a lot of things to get that image to that guys computer and I don't see them getting any trouble for their part in it. In fact it sound like to me the serving companies and others are actually be allowed to keep the profits these images are bringing them?
    • reply
      by Anonymous on May 19, 2012 at 09:34 AM in reply to Not for this type of prosecution.
      They are not baiting these guys. If you look for this stuff, find it and download it, you have violated the law, and it doesn't matter who put the stuff out there, or if it is tagged. maybe we should also punish the electric companies for providing the power to run the computers!
      • reply
        by I am not tallking about the Internet Providers, I am talking about the hosting companies that our stroring these images on their servers for public consumption on May 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM in reply to
        You have a hosting company ( "goDaddy is an exapmle of a Web hosting Co) accepting the ftp upload of childrens naked picture that have been tag with special key word, storing the pictures on thier servers and then serving those pictures to other users. How is that not baiting. If they are not baiting why are they tagging the photos with keywords
  • by Not for this type of prosecution. on May 18, 2012 at 06:58 PM
    You have someone taking the photos of the naked kids. You have someone uploading the image to a the internet. You have a server, serving the images...Why does the defense not know who these people are? Why are they not being prosecuted. Why are we not holding the serving companies responsible for storing the images on their servers to begin with. The serving companies are allowed to store the naked child images for the sole purpose of profiting off of serving them to the users but the users are the ones being prosecuted? Why? Why does the prosecution allow the serving companies to hold these types of images on their servers to begin with? I mean it sound like entrapment to me when you allow somebody to take a bunch of naked children pictures, tag the image file with a bunch of key words, store the images on a server companies server and sit back and wait for somebody to come along who the serving company can serve the image to.
    • reply
      by Chris on May 19, 2012 at 07:05 AM in reply to Not for this type of prosecution.
      You're unfamiliar with how these investigations work. In many cases the images are not being hosted domestically. The server sits overseas and the images are downloaded by sickos all over the world. Law enforcement agencies in the States have no authority to force the shutdown of an international server. So they take a wait and watch approach, see who's doing what, who's downloading, who's sharing. Similar to what we saw years ago with pirated music and file sharing. Until you can eliminate the source you go after those that are using it.
      • reply
        by Not for this kind of prosecution on May 19, 2012 at 01:05 PM in reply to Chris
        I am not the only one unfamiliar with how these investigations work....who fault is that? See that is what I am talking about if what you are saying is true and Law endforcement can not gain acccess to the servers serving these than they can gain access to all the evidence need to determine true guilt. If they can not access the servers to review the than they are missing the big part of the evidence that show who is truly guilty? and the defense is being denied a big part of the evidence that would clear their clients. You got to be able to see the coding because it is the coding that tells the server what to serve to the user. The user does not do that.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on May 19, 2012 at 02:28 PM in reply to Not for this kind of prosecution
          Why would it matter that you know how these investigations work. Investigations of computer crimes are technically beyond most people's comprehension because there is a lot that they just don't understand, and they fake it(like you) and mislead people. Sounds like maybe we should be looking at your computer!
      • reply
        by y Not for this kind of prosecution on May 24, 2012 at 02:48 AM in reply to Chris
        If they can not gain access to the server. They can not gain access to the coding. If you can not gain access to the coding how do you know it was not malice coding that store those images on someones hard drive or that directed a server to open the web page into the users browser.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on May 19, 2012 at 09:35 AM in reply to Not for this type of prosecution.
      It doesn't matter where you got the picture from. The fact that simple possession is illegal is all that is needed.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on May 19, 2012 at 01:10 PM in reply to
        Yes it does matter where your computer hard drive got that picture from if it was served by coding that was maliced. How does the prosecution know that the image on your hard drive was not stored there by malice coders, if they are not reviewing the coding. And clearly by your comments they do not have access to all servers to reveiw the coding so they are not reviewing the coding.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on May 19, 2012 at 05:08 PM in reply to
          They rule out "coding" issues. You have to physically(actively) download these pictures. Courts have already rules that pictures that are on a page(and download into your browsing history) do not constitute downloading and would not be subject to prosecution. You sir so not know what you are talking about.
  • Page:
WCTV 1801 Halstead Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32309
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 152046975 - wctv.tv/a?a=152046975
Gray Television, Inc.