FirstAlerts

Sharpsburg Resident Indicted on Federal Child Sexual Abuse Material Charges

A federal grand jury in Pittsburgh has charged Drew Michael Kozlowski with distribution, receipt, and possession of child sexual abuse material.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 5:54 p.m. ET
A 45-year-old Sharpsburg, Pennsylvania resident, Drew Michael Kozlowski, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh on charges of distributing, receiving, and possessing material depicting the sexual exploitation of minors, according to official records released August 10, 2026, by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The matter is currently at the charging stage and remains undecided. An indictment is merely an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law. According to the official indictment record, Kozlowski received and attempted to receive material depicting the sexual exploitation of a minor on or about March 27, 2026, and distributed and attempted to distribute such material on or about March 28, 2026. The record further alleges that in June 2026, Kozlowski possessed material depicting prepubescent minors or children under the age of 12 engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Homeland Security Investigations conducted the investigation leading to the three-count indictment, and Assistant United States Attorney V. Joseph Sonson is prosecuting the case. The prosecution was brought under Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide Department of Justice initiative launched in May 2006. If convicted, Kozlowski faces statutory maximum penalties including not less than five years and up to 20 years in prison for the receipt and distribution charges, and faces up to 20 years in prison for the possession charge, alongside potential fines of up to $250,000 per offense.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 21:54current

    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.