Federal child porn charges prompt county to dismiss case against ex-U-M resident physician Stephen Jenson
Stephen Jenson
State child pornography charges against former University of Michigan resident physician Stephen Jenson were dismissed Thursday morning on a motion by Washtenaw County prosecutors in favor of federal prosecution.
Jenson, 36, of Pittsfield Township faced four counts of possessing child sexually abusive material after authorities said he left a thumb drive containing child porn in the Pediatric Emergency Department at U-M Hospital.
Those charges were dismissed because Jenson is appearing at 1 p.m. Thursday in federal court in Detroit on charges of receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography.
In the state case, Jenson was looking at a possible sentence of probation, if convicted. Federal penalties for possessing child porn are stiffer. Each count Jenson is facing in the federal case is punishable upon conviction by a minimum of five years in prison.
Jenson worked at the hospital until late December.
Records show University of Michigan officials waited 6 months to report it to police after child porn was found in May on the drive that was left in a computer in a locked lounge residents use.
To date, investigators have recovered 97 images and four videos of suspected child porn on Jenson's electronic storage devices, federal court records show.
The investigation prompted an internal review, which resulted in U-M President Mary Sue Coleman calling the delay a serious failure. U-M said it would bring in an external expert to review its procedures.
Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached by phone at 9734) 623-2527 and email at leehiggins@annarbor.com.
Comments
Hunybee3
Fri, Feb 17, 2012 : 3:54 p.m.
Why the misleading headline AnnArbor.com?
Cindy Heflin
Fri, Feb 17, 2012 : 3:56 p.m.
Hunybee3: We changed the headline yesterday to clarify. It was not intended to be misleading.
Franciscomaurier
Fri, Feb 17, 2012 : 1:56 a.m.
Caveat: everything I know about this case I read here, so the facts may not be absolutely correct... That said, there was no search here. The doctor left the thumbdrive in a computer and some other employee found it, looked at it, and found info that apparently suggested it was Jensen's...along with child sexually abusive material. There's no search issue unless the government conducts the search. Also, state charges are always appropriate. It seems like a no-brainer: the thumb drive is Jensen's, and it contains child sexually abusive material. Possession is a four-year felony. Pretty straight forward. A conviction on state charges will increase the federal guidelines. So if it was the goal of the criminal justice system to protect those of us who don't possess child sexually abusive material and think those who do are a danger (nearly everyone...) the state should proceed with charges, then give the feds a little extra ammunition when sentencing him. And on that note, what's up with Prosecutor Mackie and sex crimes? He dismissed charges against this child porn hoarder. He dismissed charges and agreed to a sweetheart probation deal for that guy Suomo who molested the poor girl in the hospital (and then - surprise - Suomo went out and raped another child). And what about the window-peeper doctor? Mackie dismisses charges, accepts a no-contest plea, and agrees not to proceed on what almost certainly was a motherlode of child porn on his computer. Does anyone else see a disturbing pattern here?
BhavanaJagat
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 6:16 p.m.
A RIGHT CHOICE : The County Prosecutor has taken a wise decision to drop the County charges against Dr. Stephen Jenson. The matter may need the attention of federal authority as it has better investigative tools. They would know and determine the origin of these images and verify the country of its origin. Apparently, the material may not have local origin and there could be no child abuse within the community that could be related to these images. The charges if proved attract a stiff penalty and hence it is proper to observe the law carefully and practice the principles of law in its strict application. I have a problem with the nature of the discovery of evidence in this case. The U.S. Supreme Court in the past has exonerated serious drug traffickers if the evidence was obtained in an illegal search and seizure.
xmo
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 5:10 p.m.
Who is being Fired besides Stephen Jenson?
SMC
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 4:54 p.m.
I'm surprised there wasn't a more attention-grabbing headline, like "CHILD-PORN DR. FREE TO GO" followed by "to federal court" in tiny letters. I swear, the internet has both revolutionized and destroyed proper journalism...
Roadman
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 4:48 p.m.
Not only the mandatory minimum of five years o prison time upon conviction, but federal charges are preferable for tactical reasons. The search warrant used to conduct the raid on Dr. Jenson's home by local law enforcement officers could be quashed due to Fourth Amendment violations and the evidence taken suppressed and excludable from a trial. But if a different soverign - the feds - wih to use that evidence they may be able to as their agents did not or could not violate the Fourth Amendment in that raid. The feds, also, are better equipped to handle this type of prosecution.
Eep
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 9:59 p.m.
@Roadman: Janis involved the use of illegally seized evidence in a civil case brought by a different sovereign. I don't think the Janis rule has ever been applied to a criminal case brought by a different sovereign.
Roadman
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 8:01 p.m.
@mick52: There is a U.S. Supreme Court case from the 1980s called U.S. versus Janis that allows illegally seized evidence to be barred only against the government that conducted the illegality. The argument may go here that the feds here did not take part in the raid and should not be punished by having their evidence suppressed. Frankly, I have not researched the current law on the Janis Rule so there may be changes that I am unaware of.
justcurious
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 5:58 p.m.
Eep, and we do not know if that could be a local person.
Eep
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 5:36 p.m.
Maybe the feds are interested in using these charges as leverage to pursue the person who actually produced or sold the porn.
Mick52
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 5:11 p.m.
It does not work that way. Illegally obtained evidence is not admissible. And you are presuming that for some reason the search warrant was not valid. Why? The feds would have to do the very same thing to get the evidence. Not sure why you would think the feds were better equipped either. I find it odd they took this case, this typically is a small fish. The penalty difference is just one year, four years vs five years.
Mick52
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 4:46 p.m.
Why did UMPD continue with a warrant request if the feds were involved. The difference in sentencing is one year and usually various counts are service concurrently. Unusual the feds would get involved in what to them is a minor case. Unless there is more going on here.
Joe Kidd
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 7:36 p.m.
That is right. Usually the feds are looking for a bigger fish in the pond. Ocean really. That is why the penalties are worse. Prosecutions at that level usually are big involved cases and over state lines. Maybe this guy is a bigger fish than we know so far. Which leads one to wonder why did the feds get involved and how? Any chance of finding that out AA.Com? Did UM ask them or did they come calling? Did the prosecutor's office request it for some reason? Darn, another mystery here.
Mick52
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 6:20 p.m.
I agree Actionjack that child abuse is a serious crime. I was not referring to the nature of the offense, I was speaking to how big the player is. What I meant by minor is that federal LE usually addresses criminal activity on a wide scale, vast scale, like organized crime and not an individual case of one person with illegal material. That is why I pondered perhaps more is going on here.
justcurious
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 5:56 p.m.
"Unusual the feds would get involved in what to them is a minor case." Please explain what about this case is "minor" to them. Or is it just minor to some commenters?
Rod Johnson
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 5:23 p.m.
Think of the children! Moral panic exemplified.
actionjackson
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 5:15 p.m.
This is not a "minor" case. I believe that where children are involved it is a heinous and major crime that should be dealt with in the most severe manner.
Doug Boynton
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 4:44 p.m.
Headline is misleading...should make clear that charges are deferred in favor of stronger federal statute. Just sayin'.
Cindy Heflin
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 5:49 p.m.
We have revised the headline to clarify that the county dropped its case in favor of the federal prosecution.
dancinginmysoul
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 4:35 p.m.
Way to misrepresent the article with a terribly misleading headline.
SMC
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 4:54 p.m.
I'll bet it got more hits this way...
Anne
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 3:45 p.m.
@Lee Higgins Since it is a fact that the UMHS General Counsel knew about this when it happened is it really a "cover up"? One person who no longer works at UM, did things wrong and closed the case (this is a proven fact); and yet for some weird sensationalism you keep banging the drum saying this was a cover-up.
trespass
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 5:36 p.m.
@Anne- The Deputy General Counsel is a differenct person than the General Counsel and the question is still who knew what when. Did the Deputy General Counsel know in May or November? The internal report did not say. Also, just because some people inside the administration know that does not mean it was not a cover up.
Anne
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 4:51 p.m.
@trespass From annarbor.com feb 10 - Lee Higgins "including the Deputy General Counsel (Health System Affairs) knew about the alleged charges" Also from the president of the U, and others have said that. So personally I don't think that my comment is half as silly or deluded as yours.
trespass
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 : 4:16 p.m.
@Anne- Silly, silly comment. First of all, the General Counsel, who is Suellyn Scarnecchia has not admitted to knowing about this in May and the Deputy General Counsel for the Health Center has not admitted to knowing in May. Even if they did, not telling the campus police was a cover up. Also, the University had many opportunities after Dr. Jensen was arrested to tell other University representatives, like SACUA, about the delay and the internal investigation but they chose not to. That is a cover up.