Paedophile American cop of Massachusetts sacked for child pornography 

Michael Morin, 38, was terminated as of Nov. 10,  He had been a Fall River police officer since March 2017.

By Edward Era Barbacena 

A city white police officer arrested in June on a charge that he allegedly possessed child pornography, has been fired from the Fall River Police Department. 

Michael Morin, 38, was terminated as of Nov. 10, according to Police Chief Paul Gauvin. He had been a Fall River police officer since March 2017. 

He is accused of having possession of nude images of his then 17-year-old girlfriend on his cellphone. 

“The termination was based on findings from a hearing officer designated by the city to determine if he had engaged in serious misconduct in Fall River police department regulations,” said Gauvin. 

Fall River police officer charged with child porn. He says it 'doesn’t rise to the level'

Morin has a right to appeal the hearing officer’s decision. 

Arrested and arraigned on the single charge on June 30, Morin had been on paid administrative leave since May 29 when the relationship with the 17-year-old was discovered during an unrelated investigation

“At this point, we are just happy to move on. I think the way the situation was handled by the department, I think, is exactly what the public would expect,” said Gauvin. 

Morin was not charged with having sexual relations with the 17-year-old female, because the age of consent in Massachusetts is 16 years of age. 

However, it is against the law to possess pornographic images with a person under 18 years old. 

Morin’s defense attorney, Rene Brown, had argued during two court appearances that the charge against the now-former police officer should be dismissed because the alleged victim sent the unsolicited images, and that just because nudity was involved, it didn’t rise to the level of child pornography. 

Morin lost his bid to have the charge dismissed for lack of probable cause in September, with Brown indicating her motion that the clerk magistrate who allowed the case to move forward, was never given the images during an initial, closed-door hearing. 

A district court judge denied the motion, writing that the alleged victim was the class of people the law was intended to protect.