Stillwater News Press

December 7, 2012

Perkins man accused of possessing child porn must follow safety rules

By Russell Hixson
Stillwater NewsPress

STILLWATER, Okla. — A Perkins man accused of possessing hundreds of images of child pornography, and now out on bail, has been ordered by the court to abide by a set of safety rules.

According to court records, Garry West, 51, is charged with aggravated possession of child pornography.

The court ordered him to follow rules while awaiting trial:

• West can only use the computer at his workplace.

• The computer West uses at work has been disabled so he cannot access any Internet browser. This is to prevent him from searching for contraband, the order stated.

• The work computer will have an administrative file that keeps track of the defendant’s Internet usage with any browser he might access.

• The defendant’s employer must mail or email to the district attorney’s office a weekly report of the administrative file on West’s work computer concerning any attempt or access of an Internet browser.

Prosecutors had attempted to keep West in jail on a $500,000 bond, arguing that he posed a danger to society. West was convicted in 1989 of filming himself sexually abusing a child. He was released in 1999.

West’s attorney, Royce Hobbs, argued that the bond was punishing West for the nature of the charges before he had even been convicted. The judge sustained Hobbs’ request to reduce the bond and West was released.

Hobbs has also repeatedly filed motions to suppress evidence he argues was obtained illegally.

Court records show officers had a search warrant for West’s Perkins home to locate his computer. They searched the residence but investigators made observations that indicated there was another computer and went to West’s workplace.

Uniformed officers questioned West, who eventually said his personal laptop was in the building’s server room. The laptop was found to contain hundreds of pornographic images involving children.

Hobbs argues in his motions to suppress that police did not have a warrant to search the building without consent of West or the building’s staff. He argues police held West without informing him of his rights or placing him under arrest and pressured him to say where his laptop was. Hobbs also argues the laptop was not in plain sight and officers had no immediate need to search the building.

Hobbs cited court transcripts in which the building’s owner said she felt whether she gave her permission or not the police would do whatever they wanted.

According to the state’s response, police never handcuffed West and told him several times that he would not be arrested. According to the state’s document, police informed West they did not have warrants to search his workplace or car and that everything police did and everything West said was with consent.

The court has not yet ruled on Hobbs’ motions.