ShareThis Page
Cops: Latrobe man had 3,100 images of child pornography on cell phone |

Cops: Latrobe man had 3,100 images of child pornography on cell phone

Paul Peirce
| Friday, December 7, 2018 10:45 a.m

Confiscated by state police, a Latrobe man’s cell phone contained about 3,100 images of naked children, according to court documents.

Thomas B. Marshall, 37, is charged with 10 counts each of disseminating photographs of child sex acts, possession of child pornography and criminal use of a communication device by the state police specialized computer crime unit.

Trooper Matthew Haslett said in an affidavit filed before Unity Township District Judge Michael Mahady that a four-month child pornography investigation indicated an internet user at Marshall’s address on Fairmont Street was downloading images of naked girls ages 9 to 12 years old on a computer device.

Haslett acquired a search warrant and confiscated Marshall’s cell phone.

“Approximately 3,100 image files depicting child pornography were found in unallocated space on the device,” Haslett wrote in court papers.

Marshall was arraigned before acting District Judge Frank Pallone in New Kensington and released on $40,000 unsecured bond pending a preliminary hearing Monday before Mahady.

Paul Peirce is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Paul at 724-850-2860, or via Twitter @ppeirce_trib.

Paul Peirce is a Tribune-Review staff reporter. You can contact Paul at 724-850-2860, or via Twitter .

Categories: Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.