A former high school principal in Kentucky was sentenced yesterday to nine years in federal prison on child pornography charges after taking nude photos from phones confiscated from students and sharing the photos online.

The former principal, Stephen Kyle Goodlett, pleaded guilty to charges of transporting child pornography and knowingly possessing child pornography "that had been transported in interstate commerce." He waived his right to appeal the sentence and "admits all acts and essential elements of the indictment," the plea agreement says.

Nude pictures of students were uploaded to an "anon-ib," or anonymous image board, a website based in Russia.

“I deserve to go to prison”

"What I've done is morally reprehensible," Goodlett said while apologizing to a victim and the judge before his sentencing in US District Court in Louisville, according to the Associated Press. "Your honor, I deserve to go to prison."

Goodlett, 37, is still facing more than 60 child pornography counts "involving many more victims" in a state court, the AP wrote. After his nine-year prison sentence, "Goodlett must serve 10 years of supervised release and register as a sex offender."

Goodlett worked at LaRue County High School (LCHS) in Hodgenville from July 2012 until he was fired in October 2016 after police searched his home and found child pornography. He was an assistant principal his first year at the school, and he was promoted to principal in July 2013.

Phones were regularly confiscated from students under a school policy that said phones must remain in pockets, purses, lockers, or backpacks during school hours.

"Goodlett signed a waiver of his rights and agreed to a recorded interview with KSP [Kentucky State Police] Detectives," according to Goodlett's plea agreement. "Goodlett admitted to KSP that he was addicted to pornography and that he transferred images from phones confiscated from students to his personal thumb drive without their consent or knowledge. Goodlett stated he would take the images and share them to a Russian website with the intent of trading for more images. Goodlett told KSP he used his iPhone and laptop to view the images. A forensic review revealed Goodlett possessed 436 images and 11 videos of child pornography."

School says it "had no legal duty" to prevent crimes

Five female former students have also filed a civil lawsuit against the school district and Goodlett. The school district's motion to dismiss the lawsuit said that it "had no legal duty" to implement policies that would have prevented Goodlett's crimes. That lawsuit is still pending.

Police received a complaint from one of the former students in September 2016, according to a police affidavit that was used in the case against Goodlett. "The complainant... stated that someone informed her that nude photographs of her were uploaded" to the image website, the affidavit said. The complainant "told police she was 15 when she created the nude photos with her cell phone for her boyfriend."

Police said they "requested and received detailed IP address information regarding the IP address responsible for uploading the images" from the website. The IP address led to a Comcast cable Internet account, so police issued a subpoena to Comcast. The cable company told police that the account was registered to Goodlett, and provided his address in Elizabethtown, Kentucky.

State police searched Goodlett's home on October 13, 2016, finding "60 files of child sexual exploitation that he possessed." The files were on devices such as an iPhone and external hard drive. Goodlett gave police a password that allowed them access.

Police said they also found images of nude girls in Goodlett's Dropbox account. Police learned from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that several of the images "were part of a known series of images with an identified minor victim," the affidavit said.

The affidavit describes three of the images, saying all three were of fully nude girls who appeared to be between the ages of 10 and 14.

School had no “chain of custody” for confiscated phones

The civil lawsuit filed against the school district and Goodlett describes the school's phone confiscation policy, which was outlined in the student handbook.

"Any cell phone/Media Device seen between the hours of 8am and 3:10pm will be confiscated by a school or district staff member," the policy said.

Phones were held until the end of the school day on a first offense. On subsequent offenses, phones could be held for between three and seven days.

The school did little to ensure data security, the lawsuit says:

LCHS had no policy or procedure in place to document the chain of custody of students' cellular telephones once confiscated, nor to document, monitor or protect the cellular telephones or the confidential matters stored therein while in the custody and control of school officials, including but not limited to the Defendant, Stephen Kyle Goodlett. Rather, the Cell Phone/Media Device Policy adopted and enforced by school officials at LCHS expressly disclaimed any responsibility for any cellular telephone confiscated by school officials.

"The photographs of the Plaintiffs were taken by the Plaintiffs alone and it is believed that the vast majority of the photographs of other similarly situated students were also taken by them alone," the complaint said. "The Plaintiffs never intended for anyone but themselves or, in some cases, their long-time boyfriends to see these very private and intimate photographs."

It's not clear from court documents whether the phones were protected by passwords or PIN codes. The principal would have had to search through the phone's menu structures to find photos, the lawsuit said.

"Even assuming that school officials were familiar with the menu structure on Plaintiffs' cellular telephones, several steps were required in order to view any of the photographs stored on their respective telephones from the cellular telephones' main menu screen," the complaint said.

The photos in question were taken by the phones' built-in cameras and saved directly on the phones. The plaintiffs "never printed," "never uploaded," and never emailed the photos to anyone, the complaint said. The plaintiffs "did not share the photographs with other students," the photos were not taken on school property, and "[n]one of the photographs was visible on the screen of the cellular telephones."

In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the school district argues that it cannot be held responsible for Goodlett's conduct. While school policy allows phones to be confiscated, "Nowhere in the Policy did the District permit or allow for a student’s cell phone to be searched," the motion said.

"The District is entitled to immunity, cannot be vicariously liable for Defendant Goodlett’s alleged conduct, and had no legal duty to implement policies to prevent the unforeseeable and criminal conduct of Defendant Goodlett," the school district wrote.