A Florida man arrested and charged with 20 counts of child pornography possession confessed to the authorities that he is aware that some of the naked children in the photos on his laptop were 10 years old but reasoned that he does not know that the photos were illegal.
The Indian River County Sheriff’s Office detectives arrested Luis Idarraga, 63, at his Vero Beach home on Tuesday.
Armed with a search warrant, detectives went to Idarraga’s house Tuesday afternoon where the suspect vehemently said the authorities wouldn’t find child pornography in his home. Idarraga even volunteered his cellphone and any passwords to electronics in his home.
The detectives discovered an HP Chromebook in a second bedroom, along with Idarraga’s work uniforms for a golf maintenance company.
With the passwords provided by the suspect, the detectives found 20 photos in the HP Chromebook of children totally naked or wearing only a top. Some of the children appeared to be as young as 8 to 10, while the others looked 11-13 years old. More shockingly, the children in the photos were shown engaged in some form of sexual activity.
Idarraga did not only not deny owning the said laptop, but also showed the detectives the receipt for his purchase of it on May 4 and even admitted that he’s the only one who uses the device.
Idarraga also confessed to deliberately downloading the lewd photos of children from the internet.
The detectives said Idarraga practically showed no remorse for the crime and didn’t feel like he’d done anything wrong, much worse, illegal with the child pornography he downloaded from the internet.
Idarraga posted $50,000 bond Wednesday after he was charged with 20 counts of child pornography possession.
Whether he’s telling the truth or feigning innocence as far as awareness of the criminality of child pornography or not will not save him from facing accountability for his acts.Twitter: #MAGA #KeepAmericaGreat! #Florida #IgnoranceoftheLawExcuseNoOne #Pedophile #CrimeNews
The photos in question are very vague. I can see why he probably thought they were legal as naked children photos are in a grey area in terms of legality. And "some form of sexual acticity" could just probably mean the child had their legs open too wide for the police and they categorized it as child pornography. It seems like a very subjective ruling.