Prosecutors want $100,000 bond reinstated in Kettering child porn case

Credit: Montgomery County Jail

Credit: Montgomery County Jail

A 52-year-old Kettering man indicted on more than two dozen child pornography-related charges has no bail restrictions as he awaits trial.

The Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office on Thursday filed a motion asking that the bond and electronic home detention program monitoring for Brent L. Hasseman ordered by Kettering Municipal Court be reinstated, with the conditions that he have no contact with minors and no access to electronic devices.

Prosecutors say Hasseman — who pleaded not guilty following is March 15 indictment for 15 counts of pandering obscenity involving minor and 15 counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance — is a “man of means” who poses a flight risk and faces prison for 15 of the charges, if he is convicted.

More than 50 images and videos allegedly were found on Hasseman’s cellphone of “children involved in sexually oriented and/or obscene behavior,” according to an affidavit. An investigation for the incidents alleged to have happened between March 1 and April 30, 2021, followed a tip sent to the Kettering Police Department from Internet Crimes Against Children.

“The victims in the video and photos include children who appear to be as young as one year old,” the motion stated. “The videos and images collected off the defendant’s phone are disturbing and beyond horrific.”

Hasseman was released from the Montgomery County Jail after he posted 10% of his $100,000 bond and was on EHDP monitoring, plus he was not allowed to use social media or electronic devices or have contact with minors. However, during his March 17 arraignment in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, his bond was changed to allow him to be free on his own recognizance with no electronic monitoring.

Residents have contacted Kettering police to say they were concerned about seeing Hasseman shopping at a local grocery store, according to the motion, which noted that he is allowed to be among the general public because no restrictions are in place.

“The state has major concerns about the defendant being placed on a (conditional own recognizance) bond where he is free to move throughout the community with no supervision.” the motion stated.

Among reasons for concern are the nature of the charges against the senior manager for a large information technology firm, that he apparently has some wealth and that he recently moved to Ohio from California, where he maintains connections.

“The state believes this makes the defendant a significant flight risk pending the outcome of this case,” the motion stated.

Hasseman’s attorney, Chelsea Panzeca of Bleile & Dawson, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

About the Author