MCAO dismisses case against former Buckeye Union High School principal

BUCKEYE, AZ — The Maricopa County District Attorney’s Office announced Monday that the case against the former Buckeye Union High School principal has been dismissed.

Joe Kinney was arrested last week on suspicion of attempting to lure a child online.

Kinney was accused of contacting an undercover officer posing as a 12-year-old girl through a social media app.

During a school board meeting on Monday, the Buckeye Union High School District approved Kinney’s dismissal.

In a statement, MCAO said: “Based on the available evidence in this case, the State cannot prove that the defendant intended to solicit a minor for sexual exploitation.”

The FBI traced the messages to Kinney, and his phone was seized during a traffic stop.

Kinney reportedly admitted to talking to people online who claimed to be children, but said he considered it a “fantasy” and never intended to do anything with children.

Read the full statement below:

“The Maricopa County Prosecutor’s Office dismissed this case because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. The crime of luring requires proof that the defendant knew or should have known that the person with whom he or she was communicating was a minor (under the age of 18). In this case, there was no actual minor; the communication was with an undercover police officer. While the crime of luring can be committed when a defendant communicates with an undercover police officer, there must be proof that a defendant believes that he or she is directing his or her communication to a minor. Proving belief or intent is often accomplished by other actions or comments. Based on the evidence available in this case, the State cannot prove that the defendant intended to lure a minor for sexual exploitation. Additionally, the undercover police officer provided the defendant with a photograph to prove that she was under the age of 18. However, the photograph itself was insufficient to prove that she was a minor. To prove intent, prosecutors require proof that the defendant intended to follow through and perform sexual acts on a minor. There was no such evidence in this case. The undercover agent and the suspect were not in the same situation, and the investigative measures normally used to prove this intent in court were not taken in this case.”