FirstAlerts

Cranberry Man Charged With Invasion of Privacy for 'Upskirt' Videos

Joshua Kohut, 51, of Cranberry, has been charged with fourth-degree invasion of privacy for allegedly recording 'upskirt' videos without the victim's knowledge. The case is at the charging stage and undecided; he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 26, 2026, 10:45 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 26, 2026, 10:09 a.m. ETWritten Aug 26, 2026, 10:52 a.m. ET
Joshua Kohut, 51, of Cranberry, has been with fourth-degree invasion of privacy, according to wfmd.com. The charge stems from allegations that he used his mobile phone to record 'upskirt' videos without the victim's knowledge. Kohut faces up to 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $10,000, as reported by wfmd.com. The case is only at the charging stage and has not been resolved; the matter is undecided, and Kohut is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Sentencing has not yet been scheduled.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 26, 2026, 10:45 a.m. ETFirst report

    Cranberry Man Charged with Invasion of Privacy for Alleged 'Upskirt' Videos

    Joshua Kohut, 51, of Cranberry, has been charged with fourth-degree invasion of privacy, according to wfmd.com. The charge stems from allegations that he used his mobile phone to record 'upskirt' videos without the victim's knowledge, as reported by wfmd.com.

    The charge is a fourth-degree offense, which carries a maximum penalty of up to 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $10,000, according to wfmd.com. Kohut has been charged but not yet tried; charges are allegations, and he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 126 Aug 2026, 14:52current

    First published.

  2. Version 126 Aug 2026, 14:45current

    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.