Gettysburg Man Charged With Receipt And Possession Of Child Pornography
HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Daniel Lee Boose, age 37, of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, was indicted on February 19, 2020, by a federal grand jury with receipt and possession of child pornography.
According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the indictment alleges that between January 2016 and August 2019, Boose received and possessed images of child pornography, including images of prepubescent minors under the age of 12.
The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Gettysburg Borough Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Christian Haugsby is prosecuting the case.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.usdoj.gov/psc. For more information about internet safety education, please visit www.usdoj.gov/psc and click on the tab “resources.”
Indictments are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.
A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
The maximum penalties under federal law for the offenses charged is 20 years of imprisonment, a term of up to lifetime supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant's educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offenses charged is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.
# # #