Iowa Man Pleads Guilty to Receipt of Child Pornography
William Collins, 44, of Stacyville, Iowa, admitted in federal court to receiving child pornography over a decade-long period.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 2, 2026, 4:11 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 2, 2026, 4:11 p.m. ETFirst report
Repeat Child Sex Offender Pleads Guilty to Receipt of Child Pornography
On September 2, 2026, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa announced that William Collins, 44, of Stacyville, Iowa, pleaded guilty on August 31, 2026, in federal court in Cedar Rapids to receipt of child pornography. Collins, who was convicted of possession of child pornography in 2008 in the same district and previously served federal prison time, admitted to receiving and attempting to receive visual depictions of child pornography between January 2015 and September 2025.
Evidence presented at the plea hearing showed Collins possessed and attempted to possess such depictions, including material involving a prepubescent minor under 12. A search of his phone found 17 videos and 75 images of child sexual abuse material, plus hundreds of images of child erotica, some portraying sadistic or masochistic conduct and involving prepubescent children and toddlers.
Collins faces a mandatory minimum of 15 years and a maximum of 40 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and at least five years of supervised release. Sentencing will be set after a presentence report, and Collins remains in U.S. Marshal custody. The case was investigated by the Mason City Police Department and the Iowa Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, and is prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kraig R. Hamit. It is part of Project Safe Childhood, a Department of Justice initiative launched in May 2006.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 20:22current
First published.
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 20:11current
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.