FirstAlerts

Peoria Man Charged with Child Sexual Abuse Material Possession

Joshua Hazelbaker faces charges related to child sexual abuse material and sex offender registration violations, according to mix1069.com.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 29, 2026, 7:50 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 29, 2026, 7:35 a.m. ETWritten Aug 29, 2026, 7:53 a.m. ET
Joshua Hazelbaker has been with Possession of Child Sexual Abuse Material and violations of the Sex Offender Registration Act, according to mix1069.com. The charges are allegations, and the case has not yet been resolved. Hazelbaker is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. The Peoria Police investigated the case. Further details were not immediately available.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 29, 2026, 7:50 a.m. ETFirst report

    Peoria Man Charged with Child Sexual Abuse Material Possession

    Joshua Hazelbaker has been charged with possession of child sexual abuse material and violations of the Sex Offender Registration Act, according to a report by mix1069.com. The charges stem from an investigation by the Peoria Police, the outlet reported.

    The government alleges that Hazelbaker possessed child sexual abuse material and violated the Sex Offender Registration Act, mix1069.com reported. As of the report, the matter is at the charging stage, and no trial date has been set. Hazelbaker is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 129 Aug 2026, 11:53current

    First published.

  2. Version 129 Aug 2026, 11:50current

    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.