FBI Arrests Lindsay Man on Federal Child Porn Charges

Child pornography is one of the many crimes that can be charged as either a state offense or a federal offense. Often, Oklahoma child pornography charges come after a person is accused of sharing pornography on a file sharing site with an undercover law enforcement agent working with the local Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force. When the distribution of child pornography occurs within state lines, the state of Oklahoma has the jurisdiction to prosecute the crime.

However, because a large percentage of child pornography distribution occurs over the internet, it is increasingly easy for these sexually explicit images and videos of children to be transmitted across state lines. When the act becomes an interstate offense, the United States government has jurisdiction to prosecute it as a federal sex crime.

The FBI reports that its agents have arrested an Oklahoma man accused of knowingly receiving child pornography after allegedly exchanging sexually explicit videos with a 12-year-old girl in Illinois. Agents say Todd Dale Noble, 49, of Lindsay, came under investigation when the girl's parents found sexually explicit material on her iPhone and reported their findings to police.

An FBI agent stated in an affidavit that the suspect waived his right to remain silent and agreed to speak with investigators about the allegations. Initially, says the agent, the man said that he had been exchanging messages, images, and videos with the alleged victim and several other girls who where all aged 18 and older. Upon further questioning, however, they say he admitted that he knew the girl in Illinois was not yet 18 and that "he knew what he was doing was wrong."

If the allegations are true, the suspect's first mistake was chatting and exchanging sexually explicit images with underage girls online. His next mistake is waiving his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

When law enforcement places a person under arrest, they must issue some variation of the Miranda warning, which acknowledges to the suspect that anything he or she says can and will be used against that person. It is not an overly broad statement intended to cover all possible but unlikely outcomes. Rather, it is a specific warning that, should you choose not to protect your own rights by remaining silent, the state or federal government will take your words and use them against you to obtain a conviction.

Often, suspects believe that if they just speak with investigators, if they just explain things, either the police will understand and let them go, or the courts will look kindly upon their cooperation. What you need to remember is this: if police come to question you about your possible involvement in a crime, you are already a suspect--they already believe you committed the crime. They are not looking for ways to exonerate you, but they are looking for any evidence to solidify their belief that you are guilty.

If investigators wish to speak with you about any potential criminal activity, you need to insist upon the preservation of your rights--particularly your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney. Too many people make the critical mistake of thinking that "lawyering up" will make them look guilty. What really makes them look guilty, though, is the manipulation of their own words given freely without or against the advice of a skilled criminal defense lawyer.

Don't miss these stories: