ILNews

Lawyer faces child pornography charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Anderson attorney is in a community confinement facility after being arrested for distribution and possession of child pornography.

Samuel Hasler was arrested and charged with two counts of distributing child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography Tuesday in U.S. District Court following a joint investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and police in Carmel and Fishers.

According to the complaint, Hasler used a computer to distribute multiple images of child pornography through the Internet to someone in another state on Dec. 3, 2009. On Feb. 14, he allegedly used a computer to distribute more images of child pornography by sending them through the Internet to an undercover police officer.

The complaint also alleges Hasler kept images and videos of child pornography in his law office on an external hard drive; those were recovered during a search of his office Tuesday.

Hasler is not accused of producing any of the child pornography. He was arrested without incident at his law firm Tuesday and appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kennard P. Foster in the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. He was released on his own recognizance and ordered to stay in an Indianapolis community confinement facility on lock-down status pending further proceedings.

Hasler, 50, is a sole practitioner in Anderson and was admitted to the bar in 1987. If convicted, he faces between 5 and 20 years in prison for distribution and up to 10 years in prison for the possession charge. He also faces up to $250,000 in fines per count and a term of supervised release, possibly for life.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT