Former state official faces sex charges

From Statesman Journal staff and wire reports

May 16, 1990

 

Scott McAlister, a former Ore­gon assistant attorney general, was charged Tuesday in Utah with sexual exploitation of a minor. The second-degree felony charge states that McAlister possessed two films depicting child pornography, evidence from an Ore­gon court that McAlister brought with him last year when he took a job with the Utah Department of Corrections.

 

McAlister left his position in Oregon in January 1989 after 17 years — most of that time provid­ing counsel to the Oregon Depart­ment of Corrections. He resigned as the Utah inspector general in December amid sexual harassment allegations.

 

His former secretary has said that McAlister, 43, had asked her to keep a box of 30 eight-milli­meter films and later showed her one, saying it would increase her appreciation for group sex. The former employee, Linda Dreitzler, turned the films over to federal authorities. The charge filed Tuesday in the Third Circuit Court was based on information compiled in a subse­quent child pornography investi­gation by the FBI, which searched McAlister's residence Jan. 31. The U.S. attorney's office turned the case over to the Salt Lake County attorney last Wednesday.

 

A probable cause statement said two of the films — Young Ara­bian Nights and Pre-teen Sex —had been seized during the search. But Chief Deputy County Attor­ney Bud Ellett said that the films actually were among those turned over by Dreitzler and that the statement might be changed. The films "depict nude minors performing explicit sexual acts ... for the purpose of the sexual arousal of any person," according to the statement by Richard Forbes, a county attorney investi­gator. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 1 to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

 

McAlister's lawyer, Brad Rich, said that his client had agreed to appear in court to face the charge sometime next week, and that county authorities had no concern about him appearing. McAlister is living in Arizona and has found temporary work, although Rich would not specify where. The Salt Lake Tribune report­ed Tuesday that sources close to the U.S. attorney's office said offi­cials feared that it would be diffi­cult to prove that child pornogra­phy had been transported across state lines for the purpose of exhi­bition, as outlined in federal law.

 

Dreitzler initially filed a sexual harassment complaint with the Utah   Industrial   Commission against McAlister and the Depart­ment of Corrections, alleging that McAlister used his position to force female employees into sex. Another Corrections employee also filed a complaint with the In­dustrial Commission. McAlister abruptly resigned in late Decem­ber, saying he was tired of "unfounded complaints and rumors." But Dreitzler's lawyer, Kathryn Collard, said Tuesday that she had obtained a "right to sue" letter from the federal Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission to bypass the state agency. She planned to file a federal lawsuit based on claims of sexual harass­ment and discrimination as well as general civil rights violations. Rich said there was no doubt that his client's chief accuser was trying to get back at him.

 

"His version of what happened is completely different from hers. Her motivation is going to have to come out sometime," Rich said. "It can only be explained by her personal desire to see him in trou­ble." McAlister has denied using the movies as teaching aids for group sex with female employees. "Who would give somebody kid­die porn to get them in the mood for group sex?" McAlister said in February.

 

"Anybody who thinks about the allegations will realize they're ab­surd. If I was going to try to get somebody in the mood for group sex, the last thing in the world I'd give them is kiddie porn." Collard said she and Dreitzler both considered Tuesday's crimi­nal charge to be mere window dressing. "This guy will never do a day behind bars. He has friends in low places," Collard said. "I knew the feds weren't going to charge him. It sounds like the explicit reason for the county at­torney to do this is so he wouldn't do any time."