Federal prosecutors have dismissed child pornography charges against attorney Richard Pori, but the dismissal was filed “without prejudice,” allowing the government to potentially refile the case. The decision follows ongoing forensic reviews connected to an investigation involving Pori, who was arrested in March on allegations related to the attempted smuggling of Suboxone into a New Mexico correctional facility.
The case against Pori emerged after FBI agents, investigating alleged drug trafficking inside the Cibola County Correctional Facility in Milan, found pornographic images on his electronic devices during a search conducted with his consent. Pori, a 65-year-old attorney with nearly four decades of experience and a former assistant federal public defender, was initially arrested on a state charge related to attempting to bring an eyeglass case containing Suboxone strips—used to treat opioid addiction—into the prison.
Court filings indicate that the child pornography images were discovered as cached media files within Telegram, a messaging application. Prosecutors and an FBI agent at Pori’s June detention hearing argued that the presence of the images on the laptop’s cache files demonstrated Pori’s knowledge and possession. The FBI agent testified that the cache contained multiple images of prepubescent children in sexual acts and that these collages had been accessed on several dates over the prior month.
However, Pori’s defense challenged the assertion that possession of cached images equates to knowing possession. They cited precedents from multiple U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, which have ruled that images stored temporarily in internet cache can be saved automatically by a computer regardless of user intent or awareness. The defense also noted that Pori voluntarily cooperated by consenting to the search of his devices, a behavior inconsistent with deliberate possession.
Prosecutors have not publicly disclosed details of the forensic reports that influenced the decision to dismiss the child pornography charge. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office cited Department of Justice policies that prevent comment on nonpublic investigative materials or internal prosecutorial decisions.
Pori remains under scrutiny for additional allegations. Alongside the eyeglass case incident, he faces federal charges accusing him of using legal mail to send papers testing positive for Suboxone to an inmate in December. His attorney, Mark Hart, has maintained Pori’s innocence, stating that the government’s earlier claims of overwhelming evidence were contradicted by subsequent forensic findings. Hart criticized the prosecution’s approach as “empty and fanatical,” emphasizing their intention to vigorously defend Pori at trial.
The episode has raised concerns about the handling of evidence involving technology and the standards required to establish knowing possession of illicit digital content. It also underscores challenges in cases where investigations targeting one crime uncover potentially unrelated offenses.