Former Alabama State Docks Worker Charged in Port Computer Tampering and Trade Secret Case
Daniel Joseph Gill, 55, of Bay Minette, faces charges including computer tampering and theft of trade secrets, according to wdam.com.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 10, 2026, 7:02 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 10, 2026, 7:08 p.m. ET
Three Men Charged in Alabama Port Computer Tampering and Trade Secret Case
Daniel Joseph Gill, 55, of Bay Minette; Frank Bernard Coleman, 57, of Chunchula; and Kenneth Wayne Keasler Jr., 42, of Saraland have been charged in connection with an investigation by the Port Authority Police Department, according to wdam.com.
The charges against Gill include nine counts of computer tampering, seven counts of theft of trademarks or trade secrets, and two counts of possession of a forged instrument, wdam.com reported. The government claims Gill used the port's computer system to access confidential information and manipulate the bidding process to steer contracts to certain companies, according to wdam.com.
The case is at the charging stage. The charges are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. No trial date or further court proceedings were included in the fact set.
Sep 10, 2026, 7:02 p.m. ETFirst report
Three Men Charged With Computer Tampering, Trade Secret Theft In Alabama Port Case
Three men have been charged in connection with an alleged scheme involving the computer system of the Alabama State Docks, according to reporting by wdam.com. The charges are allegations, the case is at the charging stage, and the accused are presumed innocent. The matter is undecided and has not been resolved.
The defendants are Daniel Joseph Gill, 55, of Bay Minette; Frank Bernard Coleman, 57, of Chunchula; and Kenneth Wayne Keasler Jr., 42, of Saraland, wdam.com reported. Gill faces nine counts of computer tampering, seven counts of theft of trademarks or trade secrets, and two counts of possession of a forged instrument, according to wdam.com.
The government claims Gill used the port's computer system to access confidential information and manipulate the bidding process to steer contracts to certain companies, wdam.com reported. The Port Authority Police Department is the investigating agency, according to wdam.com.
No trial outcome has been reached, and the charges have not been resolved. The case remains at the charging stage and is undecided.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 23:08current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 23:02current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 23:22current
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.