Unacceptable inaction

Justice delayed may be justice denied, but sitting on a potential lewdness investigation for more than a year could itself be deemed an act of criminal complicity.

According to an account in Sunday's Review-Journal by Mike Blasky, a Clark County School District employee is suspected of streaming from his office computer webcam to a viewer he thought was a 13-year-old girl live images of himself masturbating. The "girl" was actually an adult working on a sting operation for the Iron County, Utah, sheriff's office in an effort to catch child molesters.

That was a year ago. To this day, the employee, accounting coordinator Darren Boyett, 45, remains on the job. No charges have ever been filed. In fact, no information has ever been given to Clark County prosecutors, who would be the ones to file such charges.

When called at the phone number the masturbator gave to the "13-year-old" in a Yahoo chat room, Boyett told a reporter he was unaware of any investigation and denied his work computer had been seized, though Utah authorities were told school district police found pornography on it. Utah police traced the IP address involved to Boyett's office computer.

School Police Chief Filiberto Arroyo told the newspaper he believed a federal agency was handling the investigation, but he could not say what agency that might be or even if the case remained open. Arroyo was quoted as saying his office could not do anything about the alleged crime because the communication crossed state lines. "As far as we're participating," he said, "it's currently an active administrative personnel case. I can't discuss our segment of it."

So, it's a personnel matter. Move along, nothing to see here.

But two different deputy district attorneys, when shown copies of the Iron County police report, said there appeared to be enough evidence to bring charges, possibly for open and gross lewdness.

Boyett certainly deserves the customary presumption of innocence until the evidence can be aired in the proper jurisdiction and he can offer a defense.

Does the school district's inaction thus far make it an accessory after the fact of sorts? Might any investigator or supervisor who knew of the allegations, but did nothing, be accused of misprision, which is the crime of knowing about a crime and failing to report it?