FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Cedar Park Man Convicted of Producing Child Pornography

A federal jury found Scott Joseph Kopas guilty on four counts related to child sexual abuse material.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 2:06 p.m. ET
A federal jury a Cedar Park man on four counts related to the production and possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), announced U.S. Attorney Justin R. Simmons for the Western District of Texas on August 13, 2026. According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Scott Joseph Kopas, 55, was initially the subject of an FBI investigation into online child pornography activities. FBI agents recovered several computers and digital devices after executing a search warrant at Kopas's Cedar Park residence and a hotel in Hawaii. The evidence revealed that Kopas produced CSAM using hidden cameras in bathrooms and a bedroom, depicting two minor females undressing and showering. He also edited the minors' faces onto numerous images of nude adults and children. Additionally, Kopas possessed hundreds of thousands of images and videos of CSAM, and photos of three child sex dolls were found in his bedroom closet, which he had purchased from a Chinese company. Kopas was of three counts of production of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. A sentencing hearing has not been scheduled. The case was investigated by FBI San Antonio, with assistance from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Hawaii and FBI Honolulu. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Matthew Devlin and Kiera Kilday are prosecuting the case. The case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a Department of Justice initiative launched in May 2006 to combat child sexual exploitation and abuse.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 18:06current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.