By Meladi Brewer

DailyAdvocate.com

GREENVILLE — Kyle W. Harter’s bond was reduced Monday afternoon in the Darke County Common Pleas Court. Judge Travis L. Fliehman presided.

Harter, 32, of Greenville appeared in court on a two count indictment for allegedly pandering obscenity, a felony of the second degree, and illegal use of a minor in nudity oriented material, also a felony of the second degree. Harter was arrested on July 8, 2024 under suspicion of the above allegations after officers were dispatched to the 500 block of Main Street in reference to a sexual offense on July 7.

Upon officer’s arrival and through investigation, it was discovered that the defendant resides at the residence with his wife, step-children, as well as his natural children. The defendant’s wife, reported she located an application on Harter’s cell phone that shows a hidden camera view of her daughter’s bedroom.

Upon the wife’s investigation, she located a hidden camera inside of a smoke detector in her daughter’s bedroom, and she advised she was unaware nor did she give permission to record in any of the bedrooms in the residence. Harter signed a consent to search form and allowed officers to search his cell phone.

During a search, officers reported they located multiple images which portrays person(s) under the age of 18 years old, nude. One of the photo’s allegedly showed a 17-year-old female partially nude with her private images exposed while changing clothes. The photo appeared to be a still shot image from the hidden camera that was in Harter’s stepdaughter’s bedroom. The victim was unaware there was a hidden camera in the bedroom, and she did not give anyone permission to do so.

On July 8, Harter agreed to an interview at the Greenville Police Department where he advised he understood his Miranda Rights. An officer reported Harter admitted to putting the cameras up in the bedroom and capturing still images and videos of the juveniles while they were nude. Harter advised he knew that what he was doing was wrong and an invasion of privacy to the victim(s), but he did not remove the camera.

After the investigation, he was placed under arrest and transported the jail to be held without bond. On July 10, the court set bond in the amount of $100,000 with certain conditions, including that the defendant have no contact with any minors. Defense Attorney Alex Pendl advised the court on Monday, July 22 that they would like the bond to be lowered, as Harter is unable to pay the $100,000. Prosecuting Attorney Deborah Quigley advised against bond reduction saying Harter violated the terms set before him.

“The state has concerns, specifically with the fact the defendant was violating this courts orders,” Quigley said. “This court was very specific he have no contact with any minors, and the court went through what no contact meant.”

Quigley advised the state is aware of the attempt of contacting his own children. On Friday he contacted one son, on Saturday Harter contacted another, and on Sunday he attempted to have his son come to the jail.

“In fact his sister brought his son to the jail, and his son was turned away by the jail,” Quigley said. “As soon as his sister left, the defendant called his sister and asked to speak with his son.”

Quigley said she isn’t sure “this claim he didn’t understand” is factual.

“I think he absolutely understood, and he should have understood specifically when his son was turned away and told no, you cannot have any contact with minors,” Quigley said.

Quigley said she believed his sister to have been in court and believed she also should have understood the order. If the court deems bond should be lowered, she advised it would be smart to place him on an ankle monitor, placed on electronic monitoring house arrest (EMHA), and only allowed to go to his attorney’s office.

“We also need to make sure that he understands that he is to have absolutely no contact with any minors,” Quigley said.

Pendl advised he understands the state is concerned about alleged bond violations being Harter reaching out to his children while in jail. He claimed it was all a misunderstanding.

“I wasn’t present while he was advised he is not to have any contact with any children,” Pendl said. “It’s my understanding from speaking with Harter that he understood that as no contact with the alleged victims in the case.”

Pendl noted it has to be unnatural for a father to not have contact with his own sons, and Harter now understands the terms of bond, indicated he will not have any future contact with them, and Pendl expects it to not be a problem anymore.

“Mr Harter is charged with some serious offenses, but we also would note that these are not offenses of violence,” Pendl said.

He advised that Harter is not alleged to have caused physical harm to anyone or possessed a weapon. Pendl also advised the court that Harter does not have any significant criminal history.

“He was employed at the time of his arrest, and the longer he is in jail, the more likely he will not be able to return to his employment,” Pendl said. “Should the court release him, he does have a place to stay away from any minor children.”

Pendl requested bond be lowered to $25,000, and even though Harter himself may not be able to post that bond, it may be an amount that may be manageable for his family to post.

“I’m a bit surprised because I do a really good job, I think, at trying to describe to everyone about what I mean by no contact,” Judge Fliehman said. “Never did I realize that I had to describe what it means by the term minor.”

Judge Fliehman said he was not sure why there was an ambiguity in that definition, as he always thought it was a clear term. Harter’s father spoke up and apologized for letting his son talk to him on the phone, as he was unaware Harter was to have no contact with any minors.

“It’s not your obligation,” Judge Fliehman said. “This obligation and limitation falls directly on Mr. Harter.”

Judge Fliehman made sure the father was aware that if the court were to reduce bond in a way that would allow Harter to reside with him that the no contact order then applies to his residence.

“No minors -as broadly as we can define it, as I didn’t think it was ambiguous. No minors including family members would be able to visit you at that residence because Harter may be residing there,” Judge Fliehman said.

He ensured everyone in the courtroom understood that it was not a situation where Harter could go in another room and lock the door.

“It is not how this works,” Judge Fliehman said. “I’m not going to be that lenient with this situation.”

The court modified the bond from $100,000 to $25,000, and if the bond is posted the defendant is to not have any contact with any minors, be placed on an ankle monitor without work privileges. All other conditions of bond also remain in effect.

To contact Daily Advocate Reporter Meladi Brewer, email [email protected].