ShareThis Page
Valley News Dispatch

Arnold man, 46, faces nearly 30 child pornography charges

Emily Balser
| Friday, Sept. 1, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
Robert Pacek of Arnold is a suspect in a child pornography case.
Westmoreland County Prison
Robert Pacek of Arnold is a suspect in a child pornography case.

An Arnold man is facing nearly 30 child pornography charges after he admitted he exchanged online explicit images involving children, according to court documents.

Robert Pacek, 46, of the 300 block of Murray Avenue, was arrested Thursday after police searched his house following an investigation by the state Attorney General's Office.

According to his arrest papers, during the search, Pacek admitted to police he had used Yahoo! Messenger to exchange child pornography. Police also found a laptop he allegedly admitted to using for child pornography.

In addition to the 27 child pornography charges, he is also charged with one count of disseminating photos or film of child sex acts and one count of criminal use of a communication facility.

He is being held in the Westmoreland County jail in lieu of $50,000 bond.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Sept. 14 in front of District Judge Frank J. Pallone Jr. in New Kensington.

Emily Balser is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 724-226-4680, emilybalser@tribweb.com or via Twitter @emilybalser.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.

click me