Monroe County Man Charged With Possession Of Child Pornography

SCRANTON—The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that on July 9, 2019, Jonathan Brownlee, age 41, of Long Pond, was indicted by a federal grand jury for possession of child pornography.

According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the indictment alleges that Brownlee committed the offense between August 2017 and April 10, 2018. The indictment further alleges that Brownlee possessed and accessed with intent to view images of child pornography, including images of minors under the age of 12.

The indictment also states that Brownlee committed the offense after having been convicted of receipt and distribution of child pornography in 2012 in federal court.  

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Pocono Mountain Regional Police. Assistant United States Attorney Francis P. Sempa 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."

The maximum penalty under federal law for this offenses is 20 years’ imprisonment, a lifetime term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. There is also a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. 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 offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.

# # #