The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office announced Monday that the case against the former Buckeye Union High School principal has been turned down.
Joe Kinney was arrested last week, accused of attempting to lure a child online .
Kinney was accused of using a social media app to communicate with an undercover officer who was posing as a 12-year-old girl.
During a school board meeting on Monday, the Buckeye Union High School District approved Kinney’s termination.
In a statement, MCAO said, “Based on the available evidence in this case, the State is unable to prove the suspect was intending to lure a minor for Sexual Exploitation.”
The FBI was able to track the messages to Kinney, and his phone was seized during a traffic stop.
Kinney allegedly admitted to talking to people who claimed to be children online but said that he just thought it was a “fantasy” and that he never intended to go through with any acts with children.
Read the full statement below:
“The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office turned down this case for no reasonable likelihood of conviction. The crime of luring requires proof that the suspect knew or should have known that the person he was communicating with was a minor (under 18). In this case, there was no actual minor; the communication was with an undercover officer. While the crime of luring can be committed when a suspect is communicating with an undercover officer, there must be proof that a suspect believes he or she is directing their communications to a minor. Proving belief or intent is often achieved through other actions or comments. Based on the available evidence in this case, the State is unable to prove the suspect was intending to lure a minor for Sexual Exploitation. In addition, the undercover officer provided a photo to the suspect to show that she was under the age of 18. However, the photo itself was insufficient to prove she was underage. In order to demonstrate intent, prosecutors require evidence that the suspect intended to follow through and engage in sexual conduct with a minor. There was no such evidence in this case. The undercover officer and the suspect were not in the same state, and the investigative steps normally used to prove this intent in court were not taken in this case.”