A former bus driver charged with sexually assaulting young disabled boys who took his bus route, and distributing recordings of those assaults through an online child pornography network, is seeking to suppress evidence against him in federal court.

His defense attorney claims police did not have proper search warrants when they obtained those materials.

John Allen Wright, 46, previously of Milton, N.H., was arrested on Sept. 1, 2011, and charged with three counts of felonious sexual assault against three children in New Hampshire and Maine. He was also charged with approximately 20 other counts related to felonious acts, including indecent exposure and lewdness.

At the time of his arrest, Wright worked for Provider Bus Service as a Seacoast bus driver, servicing families with special needs children in both Dover and Kittery, Maine.

With the discovery of more than 15,000 images and movies depicting child sex abuse on the suspect’s computer as well, Wright was charged at the federal level with five counts of sexual exploitation of children and one count for possession of child pornography.

Indictments were issued against him in January.

In U.S. District Court in Concord, Wright’s defense attorney Harry Starbranch moved for a suppression motion, which Strafford County Attorney Tom Velardi said is “typically done” in child sex abuse cases. Starbranch has alleged police did not have enough probable cause against his client to pursue their search.

“The goal is to knock out the actual physical evidence of the case and leave the prosecution with no evidence,” Velardi explained.

U.S. Attorney John Kacavas confirmed a motion has come forward from the defense, though he could not disclose further proceedings in the case.

According to the district court, a judge has agreed to hear the defense’s argument for suppression on Sept. 11 at 1:30 p.m. A final pretrial conference has been scheduled for Wright on that day at 3:45 p.m. as well.

Velardi said his office will await the conclusion of the federal-level trial before pursuing charges at the state level. He said he suspects it could be months though before his office moves forward.

“When you’re waiting for the federal system, it’s really hard to tell but we are hopeful at the state level, we’ll be able to try this some time this calendar year or in early 2013,” he said.

Velardi added he is in communications with the U.S. Attorney’s office, and lead prosecutor Helen White Fitzgibbon, regarding proceedings of the trial in Concord. He noted Fitzgibbon is “one of the best” child sex abuse image prosecutors in the state.

Asked about the local victims and their thoughts on the waiting, he said the process has been explained to them.

“We have discussed that with the victims’ families and what the proprietary is in waiting at the state level while Mr. Wright remains incarcerated ¿ They certainly understand what that means,” he said. “¿ It’s several more months of waiting and seeing.”

Wright was arrested in September 2011 after an investigation by the state Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force began in February of that year. Kittery, Maine, and Dover police departments were investigating Wright as the case developed, with Kittery police issuing a warrant for Wright in September that charged him with two counts of gross sexual conduct with a minor.

Officials alleged he filmed himself having sexual contact with a local child while on his school bus. Dover police were said to be investigating two separate allegations at that time, involving Wright and his contact with children in the city.

Rochester Police Digital Forensic Analyst Kenneth Tapscott assisted in the investigation of Wright’s case and reported finding a file on the man’s computer labeled “bus,” among thousands of folders containing pornographic images.

Tapscott revealed previously in federal court the file held a number of videos he believed to be from Wright filming children on the bus with hidden cameras. Wright was identified in the videos by a figure-eight tattoo located at the base of his right thumb, according to court documents.

Documents, an affidavit and inventory regarding a Sept. 28, 2011 search at Wright’s home alleged Wright used a number of cameras hidden in pens and a pair of sunglasses to film encounters, both sexual and not, on his bus.

According to the Union Leader, prosecutors have alleged Wright’s assaults of two New Hampshire boys occurred between Nov. 1, 2010 and April 30, 2011. A third boy from Maine was allegedly assaulted between July 1, 2011 and July 31, 2011.

———

©2012 the Foster’s Daily Democrat (Dover, N.H.)

Visit the Foster’s Daily Democrat (Dover, N.H.) at www.fosters.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services

Join the Conversation

27 Comments

  1. Pedophiles are the lowest of the low. One who takes advantage of special needs children is even lower than the rest. Now that I have read about this creep, I have to take a shower, maybe two, to try to wash away the feelings of revulsion.

  2. What is wrong with these people??Lock the a–hole up and throw away the key-he will get whats coming to him!!!

  3. ok now i am so upset about this,the man drove handicap children,touched them,recorede it and they are considering to supress anything for him!!!Screw him he should be in prison ,no trail and let the prison do the justice!

    1. George, do you realize how ignorant your question is, and worse, while you think you are expressing American values, in fact, you are doing the opposite ?  

      I suggest you might read the US Constitution, and also suggest that people stretch their thinking, so they might see that by saying that I am in NO way advocating anything but the rule of law. Don’t you ?

      That being said, if this lawyer’s best defense is to  suppress the evidence, his client molesting kids, recording the crime and posting it on the internet,  then I feel sorry for the poor lawyer, and his sworn duty to put on a vigorous defense of this creep.
      But what else can he do ? 

      Why isn’t the evidence, in the public domain, enough evidence of the crime ? 
      But the bottom line is to trust the system to work. 

      Now, relative to ” How can a lawyer defend him after seeing the evidence?” ,
      specifically, did it occur to you that the poor lawyer might be court appointed,
      George ?

    1.  Actually, a short rope might not be appropriate. The length of the rope and also the way in which it is tied is determined by the persons body weight and other factors. The idea is to snap the spine instantly, and not strangulate the condemned nor tear their head off. Either of the latter scenarios are possible if the job is done incorrectly.

    1. Death Penalty would be cheaper though…..plus there would be more air for the rest of us to breath.

  4. Hang him without a trial?  Deny him his Constitutional rights?  Don’t you folks realize that if we start down that road, no one is safe?

    He is entitled to a trial.
    He has the right to rbe represented by a qualified attorney.
    AND
    no matter how horrible the crime is of which he is accused, he has the right of a presumption of innocence UNTIL he is found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt.

    If you folks do not like that system, might I suggest you relocate to China, Iran, Afghanistan, or Somalia.

    1. Do you really think that when the forefathers created the Constitution, that they envisioned the exclusion of perfectly reliable evidence when it comes to such hair-splitting arguments we see in the courts all the time?? Really?  When the victims are often innocent babies and children who can’t even speak the words necessary to inform adults that they’ve been violated??

    2. Personally, I think him in the videos erases any doubt.

      And let him get away with it…I am sure , in the long run, he will get his .

    3.  Yeah, He is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, That’s the way of the Constitution. But what’s wrong here is if he is found guilty the Judges of today will slap him on the hand. He deserves the most severe sentence possible.

    4. I like the ideals of  the system just fine. I just don’t like creeps like him. And I would find it a whole lot easier to presume his innocence if not for the fact that so much evidence against him exists, evidence that he created.  I agree he has a right to a qualified attorney who will provide him a vigorous defense, because that is what an ethical attorney is supposed to do. That is why despite encouragement by various parties over the years, I never pursued law school. Even if I could have afforded it and completed it and passed the bar exam, I could not stomach the possibility of having to defend scum like this guy. It’s a dirty job, but I guess someone has to do it.

  5. He has more rights than his victims.Our system in America is broken.Has been for years.Afraid that the damage has been done and it is too far gone to fix.

  6. why would he suppress it? in Maine this is a ‘slap on the wrist’ case…prolly $250 fine and 90 days in jail… not like dumping a cat off on the side of the road in a humane manner and getting $500 fine

  7. Why would any defense attorney seek to suppress evidence against this evil creature!!!!   Get him off & he can continue his sick behavior at the expense of another child.

  8. Harvest any donor-suitable organs without anaesthetic, and let him bleed out on the operating table.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *