FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Rapid City Man Sentenced to 5 Years in Federal Prison on Child Pornography Charges

Official court records state that 22-year-old Jesse Luiz Jaso was sentenced following his conviction in federal district court.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 19, 2026, 1:52 p.m. ET
Developing · checked 2h ago

This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 19, 2026, 2:13 p.m. ET — checked 2h ago.

According to official court records published by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Dakota on August 19, 2026, U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier 22-year-old Jesse Luiz Jaso of Rapid City, South Dakota, on August 14, 2026. Jaso was to five years in federal prison for each count, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently, followed by five years of supervised release. He was convicted of Distribution of Child Pornography, Receipt of Child Pornography, and Possession of Child Pornography. Official records state that Jaso was ordered to pay a $300 special assessment to the Federal Crime Victims Fund, a $1,000 fine, and will be required to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. Jaso was indicted by a federal grand jury in February 2024 and found guilty of all counts on May 21, 2026, following a 2-day jury trial in federal district court in Rapid City. Records note he was immediately remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service. According to the official records, the case began in February 2023 when a Rapid City Police Department Internet Crimes Against Children Detective received a Cybertip from Snapchat. Law enforcement learned through the investigation and search and seizure of Jaso's phone that he had been communicating online, purchasing child pornography, and soliciting others to exchange child pornography. The case was investigated by the South Dakota Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force, the South Dakota Division of Investigation, the Rapid City Police Department, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security-Homeland Security Investigations, and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Megan Poppen under Project Safe Childhood.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 119 Aug 2026, 17:52current

    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.