Why Maricopa County is refusing to prosecute disgraced Buckeye principal Joe Kinney

Buckeye, Arizona: The Maricopa County Attorney's Office has turned down a case against the 42-year-old (now former) principal of Buckeye Union High School, Joe Kinney, who was been arrested after being caught in an FBI sting operation involving child sex crimes. After Kinney's arrest the Buckeye Union High School District Governing Board voted to fire him on Monday night.

The investigation was launched when an FBI agent in Oregon posed as a 12-year-old girl on the anonymous social media app, Whisper. According to court documents, Kinney initiated inappropriate conversations, continuing to engage with the agent even after they disclosed their age.

The suspect allegedly told investigators he thought the conversations were a form of "role-playing" and denied having an attraction to children, records show.

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office declined to file charges because officials did not believe they could win the case.

"The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office turned down this case for no reasonable likelihood of conviction," the office said in a release.

"The crime of luring requires proof that the suspect knew or should have known that the person he was communicating with was a minor [under 18]. In this case, there was no actual minor; the communication was with an undercover officer.

"While the crime of luring can be committed when a suspect is communicating with an undercover officer, there must be proof that a suspect believes he or she is directing their communications to a minor. Proving belief or intent is often achieved through other actions or comments. Based on the available evidence in this case, the State is unable to prove the suspect was intending to lure a minor for Sexual Exploitation.

"In addition, the undercover officer provided a photo to the suspect to show that she was under the age of 18. However, the photo itself was insufficient to prove she was underage.

"In order to demonstrate intent, prosecutors require evidence that the suspect intended to follow through and engage in sexual conduct with a minor. There was no such evidence in this case. The undercover officer and the suspect were not in the same state, and the investigative steps normally used to prove this intent in court were not taken in this case."