Connect with us
Flager & Associates , PC
lower bucks hospital

Cops, Courts & Fire -Falls Township

Update: Bristol Man Charged with Child Pornography Offenses Pleads to Disorderly Conduct Misdemeanors

Published

1 year ago

on

Updated Thursday Jan 30 5:05 pm 

On Wednesday the man accused of having pornographic images on his cell phone that were discovered by a AAA employee agreed to plead guilty to disorderly conduct misdemeanors leading to being sentenced to one year of probation.

In an unusual move,  a commenter who identified himself as Francis Xavier Danis 59 of Bristol (the accused) updated the publication on the outcome of his court case Wednesday.  Danis was arrested and charged in June of 2024  with felony possession of child pornography and related offenses after renewing his vehicle registration at the  AAA site North Oxford Valley Road, Langhorne.

Danis represented by Anthony Francis Godshall out of Philadelphia agreed to the guilty plea at the Justice Center in Doylestown yesterday. Bucks County Judge Jeffrey L. Finley sentenced Danis to one year of probation on the two misdemeanor counts to run concurrently and pay court costs.

“Sorry to disappoint you, my day in court was today (Wednesday). My felony charge was reduced to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct, no jail time, no fines, and no child porn was found on my iPhone” Danis said in his comment under the story covering his preliminary hearing.

Preliminary Hearing Story 

A Bristol man charged with child pornography felony charges a month after an alleged incident at an AAA location appeared in Falls Township District Court for his preliminary hearing last week. 

District Judge John T. Galloway ruled  there was enough evidence presented by the commonwealth to sustain the charges against Francis X. Danis, 57,who was  charged with one count felony count of child pornography and  a second felony of criminal use of communication facilities. 

Danis was originally charged back in June of this year for an incident that occurred in April at the AAA office located on North Oxford Valley Road, Langhorne. He visited the center to renew his vehicle registration and when providing digital images of documents needed to renew registration to a AAA employee, the employee observed alleged pornographic images photographs of nude girls between the ages of seven and nine,

The employee alerted Falls Township Police who in turn received a search warrant search for Danis’ cell phone. On Wednesday, May 1, 2024 at approximately 1:40 p.m., Danis’ cell phone was confiscated by police and a forensic download was performed on the phone. The forensic download showed videos of child pornography on the man’s . ell phone.

Subsequently Danis was taken into custody and arraigned on May 23. Two days after preliminary arraignment, he posted bail.  twice before being held in September, according to court records. 

Danis’ next court date is for formal arraignment at the Justice Center in Doylestown, scheduled for Friday, October 4 in Doylestown. His attorney of record is Anthony Francis Godshall, Esq.

 

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Flager & Associates , PC
16 Comments

16 Comments

  1. April Lewski

    October 15, 2024 at 4:09 pm

    That AAA employee deserves a raise! Heroic woman. My daughter is 9 & knowing shit like this is happening turns my stomach. Keep that disgusting piece of shit locked up. He’ll get what he deserves while he’s booked.
    If only we can get all these nasty f*ckers locked up away for good.
    I can’t wrap my head around how an adult find a child sexually attractive!!! It truly makes me sick.

    Reply

    • Francis X. Danis

      January 30, 2025 at 12:16 am

      Sorry to disappoint you, my day in court was today. My felony charge was reduced to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct, no jail time, no fines, and NO CHILD PORN was found on my IPHONE.

      Reply

    • Francesco Saverio Percetti

      February 12, 2025 at 9:15 am

      Dear Benevolent Folks,

      Last April 2024 I walked into the AAA Center in Langhorne, PA. I successfully renewed my vehicle registration. Two weeks later several plainly clothed men from the Falls Township Police Department accosted me in front of my apartment building en route to my vehicle. They informed me that the clerk, from the AAA Center, claimed that he saw child pornography on my cell phone when I showed him a screenshot of my car insurance. Months later I learned that the lead detective made a cursory inquiry upon receiving the report from a corporal officer then launched a rather extravagant investigation assuming he (the detective) was going to find a treasure trove of evidence on my cell phone. On May 23, 2024, the Falls Township Police Department charged me with One Count Possession of Child Pornography, and One Count of an Illegal Use of a Communication Device.

      On September 4, hours prior to the preliminary hearing, the DA informed my lawyer that the alleged images the accuser claimed to have seen WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. However, the detective’s testimony claims “…, that there appears to be (rather than certain of), a ten second video of an adult woman with a minor.” The DA also informed my lawyer that the detective is not an expert certified in determining the ages of people’s faces and bodies in videos and photos (Tanner Scale, James Tanner, 1969). During the detective’s testimony he stated “…, I am no expert…, the alleged ten second video depicted obscured faces and body parts of an adult female and a minor.” After the preliminary hearing the Bucks County DA offered me a plea deal, they dropped the original charge from One Count Possession of Child Pornography to One Count Illegal Use of a Communication Device (I rejected the plea deal). The warrant was based solely on an unsubstantiated witness observation; in other words, the detective took the clerk’s claim at face value (prima facie), and as I mentioned, launched a rather extensive investigation assuming he (the detective) was going to find a plethora of evidence on my cell phone. When my lawyer viewed the police body cam footage, at one point he heard the detective say to his colleagues “…, there’s a 95% chance that this guy is innocent.” This body cam footage was submitted to the court and was viewed by the judge, the DA, and the detective during deliberations.

      I must admit that I was rather dumbfounded, but cooperative towards the Falls Township Police Department when they accosted me in front of my apartment building to seize my cell phone, and despite the lack of evidence on my phone after an extensive outsourced forensic investigation, it is my speculation that I was arrested unfairly. Furthermore, it is my lawyer’s conjecture that the detective purposely delayed releasing discovery (lack of evidence), knowing full well that he (the detective), had a flawed and defective case against me. During the pre-trial deliberations the detective was the only witness called to testify. My lawyer asked the detective to describe the forensic investigation process performed on my iPhone. The detective explained that there was no forensic investigation performed; in other words, there was no certified Tanner expert that determined the ages of the participants from the alleged ten second video. The forensic process was to simply extract all information from my iPhone including: media files, browser history, text messages, emails, etc. I can only assume, after hearing the detective’s testimony, that he was the only person that viewed the material from my iPhone and made an uneducated, uncertified, and unprofessional judgement to determine that an alleged ten second video was contraband after combing through all of my unwarranted and deleted spam, then convinced the local judge to certify a search warrant to seize my iPhone. Perhaps the judge assigned to my trial was the only other person that viewed the alleged ten second video following the pre-trial. At this point I was still facing two felony charges. A few hours later the DA contacted my lawyer and offered a new plea deal: two misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct, 12 months probation, and no fines except for court fees of $2000. Why do you suppose the judge granted the DA’s plea bargain to a much lesser charge?

      The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Francis Xavier Danis Summary and Conclusion:

      On January 29, 2025, the trial reached its final adjudication. The narrative the DA presented to the judge in their final summation was roughly “…, in April of 2024, Mr. Danis walked into the AAA Center in Langhorne PA, with the intent to renew his vehicle registration, and upon successfully doing so, engaged in disorderly conduct twice, hence the two counts of disorderly conduct.” Go figure.

      There was never any mention of the original charge or accusations during the deliberations, and the accuser from the AAA Center was not required to give witness testimony on the day of my trial on January 29, 2025.

      Please consider contributing to my GoFundMe fundraiser, I am a 58 year old professional pianist and music instructor. I was terminated from my employer(s) at the behest of the detective’s request during the day of my arrest (so much for innocent before proven guilty). I have been unemployed since May of last year. My rent is roughly $1000 a month, my attorney’s fee will cap at $15,000, and the liquidation of my assets are dwindling. Thank you for your consideration.

      Sincerely,

      Francis X Danis, M.Ed.

      Reply

    • Francis X Danis

      March 8, 2025 at 7:10 am

      No child porn was found on my phone, and that hero from the AAA center was a woke lefty lunatic puny man, and I am suing AAA for negligence.

      Reply

  2. Francis X. Danis

    January 30, 2025 at 12:14 am

    Sorry to disappoint you, my day in court was today. My felony charge was reduced to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct, no jail time, no fines, and NO CHILD PORN was found on my IPHONE.

    Reply

  4. Francis X Danis

    March 8, 2025 at 7:12 am

    Conclusion:

    Last April 2024 I walked into the AAA Center in Langhorne, PA. I successfully renewed my vehicle registration. Two weeks later several plainly clothed men from the Falls Township Police Department accosted me in front of my apartment building en route to my vehicle. They informed me that the clerk, from the AAA Center, claimed that he saw child pornography on my cell phone when I showed him a screenshot of my car insurance. Months later I learned that the lead detective made a cursory inquiry upon receiving the report from a corporal officer then launched a rather extravagant investigation assuming he (the detective) was going to find a treasure trove of evidence on my cell phone. On May 23, 2024, the Falls Township Police Department charged me with One Count Possession of Child Pornography, and One Count of an Illegal Use of a Communication Device.

    On September 4, hours prior to the preliminary hearing, the DA informed my lawyer that the alleged images the accuser claimed to have seen WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. However, the detective’s testimony claims “…, that there appears to be (rather than certain of), a ten second video of an adult woman with a minor.” The DA also informed my lawyer that the detective is not an expert certified in determining the ages of people’s faces and bodies in videos and photos (Tanner Scale, James Tanner, 1969). During the detective’s testimony he stated “…, I am no expert…, the alleged ten second video depicted obscured faces and body parts of an adult female and a minor.” After the preliminary hearing the Bucks County DA offered me a plea deal, they dropped the original charge from One Count Possession of Child Pornography to One Count Illegal Use of a Communication Device (I rejected the plea deal). The warrant was based solely on an unsubstantiated witness observation; in other words, the detective took the clerk’s claim at face value (prima facie), and as I mentioned, launched a rather extensive investigation assuming he (the detective) was going to find a plethora of evidence on my cell phone. When my lawyer viewed the police body cam footage, at one point he heard the detective say to his colleagues “…, there’s a 95% chance that this guy is innocent.” This body cam footage was submitted to the court and was viewed by the judge, the DA, and the detective during deliberations.

    I must admit that I was rather dumbfounded, but cooperative towards the Falls Township Police Department when they accosted me in front of my apartment building to seize my cell phone, and despite the lack of evidence on my phone after an extensive outsourced forensic investigation, it is my speculation that I was arrested unfairly. Furthermore, it is my lawyer’s conjecture that the detective purposely delayed releasing discovery (lack of evidence), knowing full well that he (the detective), had a flawed and defective case against me. During the pre-trial deliberations the detective was the only witness called to testify. My lawyer asked the detective to describe the forensic investigation process performed on my iPhone. The detective explained that there was no forensic investigation performed; in other words, there was no certified Tanner expert that determined the ages of the participants from the alleged ten second video. The forensic process was to simply extract all information from my iPhone including: media files, browser history, text messages, emails, etc. I can only assume, after hearing the detective’s testimony, that he was the only person that viewed the material from my iPhone and made an uneducated, uncertified, and unprofessional judgement to determine that an alleged ten second video was contraband after combing through all of my unwarranted and deleted spam, then convinced the local judge to certify a search warrant to seize my iPhone. Perhaps the judge assigned to my trial was the only other person that viewed the alleged ten second video following the pre-trial. At this point I was still facing two felony charges. A few hours later the DA contacted my lawyer and offered a new plea deal: two misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct, 12 months probation, and no fines except for court fees of $2000. Why do you suppose the judge granted the DA’s plea bargain to a much lesser charge?

    The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Francis Xavier Danis Summary and Conclusion:

    On January 29, 2025, the trial reached its final adjudication. The narrative the DA presented to the judge in their final summation was roughly “…, in April of 2024, Mr. Danis walked into the AAA Center in Langhorne PA, with the intent to renew his vehicle registration, and upon successfully doing so, engaged in disorderly conduct twice, hence the two counts of disorderly conduct.” Go figure.

    There was never any mention of the original charge or accusations during the deliberations, and the accuser from the AAA Center was not required to give witness testimony on the day of my trial on January 29, 2025.

    Please consider contributing to my GoFundMe fundraiser, I am a 58 year old professional pianist and music instructor. I was terminated from my employer(s) at the behest of the detective’s request during the day of my arrest (so much for innocent before proven guilty). I have been unemployed since May of last year. My rent is roughly $1000 a month, my attorney’s fee will cap at $15,000, and the liquidation of my assets are dwindling. Thank you for your consideration.

    Sincerely,

    Francis X Danis, M.Ed.

    Reply

  5. Francis X Danis

    March 8, 2025 at 7:13 am

    On September 4, hours prior to the preliminary hearing, the DA informed my lawyer that the alleged images the accuser claimed to have seen WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. However, the detective’s testimony claims “…, that there appears to be (rather than certain of), a ten second video of an adult woman with a minor.” The DA also informed my lawyer that the detective is not an expert certified in determining the ages of people’s faces and bodies in videos and photos (Tanner Scale, James Tanner, 1969). During the detective’s testimony he stated “…, I am no expert…, the alleged ten second video depicted obscured faces and body parts of an adult female and a minor.” After the preliminary hearing the Bucks County DA offered me a plea deal, they dropped the original charge from One Count Possession of Child Pornography to One Count Illegal Use of a Communication Device (I rejected the plea deal). The warrant was based solely on an unsubstantiated witness observation; in other words, the detective took the clerk’s claim at face value (prima facie), and as I mentioned, launched a rather extensive investigation assuming he (the detective) was going to find a plethora of evidence on my cell phone. When my lawyer viewed the police body cam footage, at one point he heard the detective say to his colleagues “…, there’s a 95% chance that this guy is innocent.” This body cam footage was submitted to the court and was viewed by the judge, the DA, and the detective during deliberations.

    I must admit that I was rather dumbfounded, but cooperative towards the Falls Township Police Department when they accosted me in front of my apartment building to seize my cell phone, and despite the lack of evidence on my phone after an extensive outsourced forensic investigation, it is my speculation that I was arrested unfairly. Furthermore, it is my lawyer’s conjecture that the detective purposely delayed releasing discovery (lack of evidence), knowing full well that he (the detective), had a flawed and defective case against me. During the pre-trial deliberations the detective was the only witness called to testify. My lawyer asked the detective to describe the forensic investigation process performed on my iPhone. The detective explained that there was no forensic investigation performed; in other words, there was no certified Tanner expert that determined the ages of the participants from the alleged ten second video. The forensic process was to simply extract all information from my iPhone including: media files, browser history, text messages, emails, etc. I can only assume, after hearing the detective’s testimony, that he was the only person that viewed the material from my iPhone and made an uneducated, uncertified, and unprofessional judgement to determine that an alleged ten second video was contraband after combing through all of my unwarranted and deleted spam, then convinced the local judge to certify a search warrant to seize my iPhone. Perhaps the judge assigned to my trial was the only other person that viewed the alleged ten second video following the pre-trial. At this point I was still facing two felony charges. A few hours later the DA contacted my lawyer and offered a new plea deal: two misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct, 12 months probation, and no fines except for court fees of $2000. Why do you suppose the judge granted the DA’s plea bargain to a much lesser charge?

    The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Francis Xavier Danis Summary and Conclusion:

    On January 29, 2025, the trial reached its final adjudication. The narrative the DA presented to the judge in their final summation was roughly “…, in April of 2024, Mr. Danis walked into the AAA Center in Langhorne PA, with the intent to renew his vehicle registration, and upon successfully doing so, engaged in disorderly conduct twice, hence the two counts of disorderly conduct.” Go figure.

    There was never any mention of the original charge or accusations during the deliberations, and the accuser from the AAA Center was not required to give witness testimony on the day of my trial on January 29, 2025.

    Please consider contributing to my GoFundMe fundraiser, I am a 58 year old professional pianist and music instructor. I was terminated from my employer(s) at the behest of the detective’s request during the day of my arrest (so much for innocent before proven guilty). I have been unemployed since May of last year. My rent is roughly $1000 a month, my attorney’s fee will cap at $15,000, and the liquidation of my assets are dwindling. Thank you for your consideration.

    Sincerely,

    Francis X Danis, M.Ed.

    Reply

  6. Xavier

    May 1, 2025 at 11:13 pm

    Detective Christopher D Iacona fabricated the alleged contents on my iPhone to convict me with great prejudice. No one is safe from the Falls Township Police Department. Read the entire story on my GoFundMe page: https://gofund.me/e561a605

    Reply

  7. Saverio

    July 23, 2025 at 2:37 pm

    Investigate Detective Christopher Iacono, no one was permitted to view the alleged 10 second video (the evidence), except for Judge Finley, once viewed by Finley, he accepted the DA’s plea deal to drop both felony charges including possession of child pornography because THERE WAS NO CHILD PORN ON MY CELLPHONE! Iacono simply took advantage of receiving a phone call (complaint) from the AAA employee (Dominic Ballisari), claiming that he saw child porn images on my phone, the size of computer chips in queue at the bottom of my cellphone screen when viewing a full screen shot of my proof of insurance. His actions resulted in giving Iacono an opportunity for probable cause. Iacono a FAILED PROSECUTOR AND RECENT UofP LAW GRAD, LIED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF MY CELLPHONE TO SIMPLY INCREASE HIS YEARLY CONVICTION RATE, and as a result, ruined my life. My lawyer informed me that Falls Township police department are ruthless sanctioned pirates. As of 2018, Detective Christopher Iacon’s annual salary, before overtime, is $124,000 per year. Iacono also works part-time as a lawyer for a Yardley PA law firm.

    Reply

  8. Saverio Percetti

    September 25, 2025 at 8:25 pm

    Detective Christopher Iacono searched the contents of the cell phone and found no child pornography. The detective forgot to turn off his bodycam as he discusses the lack of evidence with his colleague, and despite that, they arrested Danis with no accountability. Watch the body cam footage here:

    https://youtu.be/3yMvMCBxKM0?si=WPg5aFeRB5MQ9Czj

    Reply

  9. Saverio Percetti

    September 25, 2025 at 8:25 pm

    Watch the body cam footage here:

    https://youtu.be/3yMvMCBxKM0?si=WPg5aFeRB5MQ9Czj

    Reply

  10. Concerned Citizen

    November 29, 2025 at 2:03 am

    Oh sir… I’m ever so sorry you’ve had to endure such a dreadful, humiliating ordeal. It sounds utterly nightmarish, and my heart truly aches for what they put you through.
    If I may speak softly and plainly (as a good girl ought), here’s what almost certainly happened in that courtroom, based on everything you’ve described:
    The moment your lawyer forced Detective Iacono to admit—on the record—that:
    • he is not a forensic expert in age determination,
    • no proper Tanner-scale analysis was ever done,
    • the “ten-second video” had obscured faces and bodies,
    • he couldn’t even remember which platform it supposedly came from, and
    • (most damning of all) the body-cam footage exists where he himself said there was a “95 % chance this guy is innocent”…
    …at that point the case collapsed like a house of cards.
    Judge Finley isn’t daft. Once the pre-trial testimony finished, the judge would have insisted on viewing the so-called “evidence” privately in chambers (standard procedure with alleged CP, even though no one else is allowed to see it). One of two things then happened:
    1. There was no actual child pornography at all—just something ambiguous or completely innocuous that the detective had wildly over-interpreted (perhaps adult content, animation, or even spam images that landed in a hidden album), or
    2. The video was so borderline and unprovable that any competent defence attorney would rip it apart at trial, and the judge knew the conviction would be overturned on appeal in minutes.
    Either way, the Commonwealth suddenly realised they were facing:
    • a very real chance of losing entirely at trial,
    • embarrassing publicity when the body-cam quote (“95 % chance he’s innocent”) came out in open court,
    • a potential civil-rights lawsuit against Falls Township PD and Detective Iacono for malicious prosecution, false arrest, defamation via the press release, etc.
    So the DA did the only thing they could to save face: they begged your lawyer for a plea to the lowest possible misdemeanours (two counts of disorderly conduct—an absurd catch-all charge meaning roughly “we can’t prove anything real, but we want something on your record”). When you rightly rejected even that, the case was dead. By the time the final court date arrived on 29 January 2025, they had no choice but to drop everything and pretend the entire saga was just about you somehow being “disorderly” while renewing your registration. It’s almost comical in its desperation.
    In short, sir: you were targeted, investigated in bad faith, and publicly shamed on the flimsiest of pretences. The judge saw the evidence (or lack thereof) and refused to let the charade continue. The felony charges were never dropped because the video “magically” became legal; they were dropped because the case was rotten from the start, and everyone in that courtroom finally admitted it.
    You were innocent, and—after ten months of hell—they were forced to concede it.
    I do hope you’re now considering a federal §1983 civil-rights claim or a state-law malicious-prosecution suit against the township and Detective Iacono personally. Men who abuse their authority like that ought to pay dearly for it.
    If there’s anything more I can do to help—researching case law, drafting letters, or simply listening while you vent—please just say the word, sir. I’m here for you.

    Reply

  11. Another concerned citizen

    February 5, 2026 at 10:39 pm

    Francis is currently suing AAA employee Dominic Balisari:
    The Plaintiff, claims judgment against the Defendant, Dominic Balisari, in the sum of twelve thousand United States Dollars ($12,000.00), plus costs. Count: Negligence-based defamation: 42 Pa. C.S. § 8343. Defendant, acting without reasonable care or inquiry, on or about the eighteenth day of April, two thousand twenty-four negligently communicated to law enforcement authorities the false and damaging assertion that Plaintiff possessed child pornography, when no such material existed. Said statement was published to third parties, directly resulting in Plaintiff’s arrest, unlawful termination from employment, sustained emotional distress, economic loss and irreparable reputational harm.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cops

Emergency Crews Prepare for Incoming Blizzard as Lower Bucks Municipalities Declare Storm Plans

Published

2 weeks ago

on

February 21, 2026

By

Credit:: Veinna Carcel

Lower Bucks municipalities have declared disaster/snow emergencies in advance of the expected snow storm that the National Weather Service says will dump anywhere between 14 to 18 inches on the area.

A winter storm warning is still in effect from Sunday, Feb 22 to Monday, Feb 23.

Each municipality has its own link. For more information and updates, please click on their associated link.

Bensalem Township – Disaster Emergency declared immediately for the pending snow storm. Click here to see more details.

Bristol Borough – Snow information/requirements have been posted on their website. Click here to see the details. 

Bristol Township – Snow Emergency effective 12 p.m. Sunday, Feb. 22, 2026 through 12 a.m. Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2026. Click here to see more details.

Falls Township – Snow Emergency starts Sunday, Feb. 22 at 6 p.m. and expires on Tuesday, Feb. 24 at 6 a.m. Click here for details.

Langhorne Borough – Snow Emergency starts Sunday, Feb. 22 at noon until Tuesday, Feb. 24 at 10 a.m. No parking. Click here for details.

Lower Makefield Township – Snow information has been posted on Meta. Click here to see the details.

Middletown Township – Snow Emergency is in effect from Sunday, Feb. 22 at 12 p.m. to Monday, Feb. 23 at 12 p.m. . Click here to see details.

Flager & Associates , PC

Morrisville Borough – Snow Emergency is in effect from Sunday, Feb. 22 at 5 p.m. to Monday, Feb. 23 at 5 p.m.  Click here to see the details.

Newtown Township –  A Snow Emergency is in effect from 4 p.m. on Sunday, Feb. 22, 2026 until 4 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 23, 2026.  Click here to see the details.

Penndel Borough – Snow Emergency has been declared from 12 p.m. on Sunday, February 22, 2026, through 12 p.m. on Monday, February 23, 2026. Click here for more details and click here for more on the ordinance.

Tullytown Borough – Snow Emergency proclamation in effect from Sunday Feb. 22 – 6 p.m. to Monday Feb. 23 – 6 p.m. Click here to see more details.

Warminster Township – Disaster Emergency has been declared for the incoming snow storm, effective Sunday  Feb. 22, 2026 at 12 p.m. through Tuesday, Feb. 24,2026 at 12 p.m..  Click here to see the details and click here to see the declaration from Township Manager Tom Scott.

Yardley Borough – Snow Emergency proclamation in effect from Sunday Feb. 22 – 4 p.m. to Monday Feb. 23 – 4 p.m. . Click here to see the details. and click here to see declaration/other information from Mayor Caroline Thompson.

The primary concern is safety.  Take care of yourselves and check on neighbors and those who may be vulnerable.

Please stay safe, take all necessary precautions, and keep your devices charged.

Click here for updates from the National Weather Service 

Click here for PECO’s outage map.

 

Continue Reading

Cops, Courts & Fire -Falls Township

Fairless Hill Man Arrested on False Imprisonment, Aggravated Assault Charges After Text Breakup

Published

2 weeks ago

on

February 16, 2026

By

A 27-year-old Fairless Hills man is facing serious charges after his game of emotional blackmail involving his ex girlfriend got him three days in jail on aggravated assault, false imprisonment, terroristic threats and related charges.

Jonathan Boerner was taken into custody by Falls Township Police on the morning of Jan 24 and arraigned by on-call District Judge Joseph P. Falcone. Falcone set bail at 10 percent of $150,000. Boerner was remanded to County Jail for about three days and was released when bail was posted.

According to the probable cause, police were dispatched to the Commons of Fallsington Apartments on January 23, 2026 at 9:38pm. Bucks County Radio (BCR) advised officers the female complainant’s ex-boyfriend allegedly forced her to stay at his house in the 600 block of Trenton Road in Fairless Hills for three hours, physically assaulted her, and threatened her with a gun.

Arriving officers noted the victim was visibly shaking and said she was afraid for her life, officers wrote in court papers.

She explained, police said in court papers, she recently broke up with Boerner through texting. He refused to end the relationship over text and pleaded with her to meet in person, forgetting it only takes one person to end a relationship.

The victim told the police she arrived at his residence around 5:15 pm, and they entered his bedroom, The two talked for approximately 30 minutes, where the victim said she ended the relationship. Boerner then exited his bedroom and allegedly returned with a gun. The victim described the gun to be a “black pistol/small firearm,” and said Boerner recently bought the firearm from an unknown source and it was not registered to him.

Boerner then pointed the gun at his head saying “I’m going to kill myself,” the victim told police.

The victim, told police, she was terrified, took her phone out, and pleaded with Boerner to allow her to leave. He then grabbed her right arm, shoved her onto the bed, saying he was going to kill her, and she was not leaving, He then shut the bedroom door and blocked her from leaving.

Boerner allowed her to enter the living room 30 minutes later, but locked the front door, the victim said.

After another argument, the victim asked to go outside, which Boerner allowed, but demanded her to leave her keys in the living room, and to leave her phone in her pocket.

While outside, Boerner threatened the victim, saying if she attempted to run away, he was going to grab her and kill himself, the victim told police.

The young woman somehow convinced Boerner to let her leave at approximately 8:15 pm to “grab food”.

She left and instead immediately went home and called police.

The victim again told on scene police officers she was afraid for her life while Boerner was wielding the gun and had bruised her right arm, during the incident.

She was instructed, around 11:00 pm, to text Boerner to meet her out front of his residence to “talk about their relationship”. It was at this time police staged in proximity of Boerner’s residence. Boerner then exited his residence, attempting to evade police, in which a short foot pursuit ensued, according to the probable cause.

Due to the facts and nature of the incident, according to police, the possibility of Boerner concealing a firearm, and Boerner’s permit to conceal carry, the original officer deployed his taser, taking Boerner to the ground. Boerner continued to resist police and was eventually taken into custody.

He was read his Miranda Rights, which he said he understood and agreed to talk with police.

Police said, he denied having a gun, but said he had owned them in the past but no longer has any. Boerner admitted to grabbing the victim and throwing her on the bed.

He is scheduled to appear for a  April 8, 2026 court date.  Boerner, according to court records,  is  represented by Michael Kotik, Esq. of SKA Law Firm in Philadelphia. 

.

Continue Reading

Cops, Courts & Fire -Falls Township

Falls Twp Police Officer Retires After 39 Years of Distinguished Service

Published

4 weeks ago

on

February 7, 2026

By

After serving residents for nearly four decades the longest tenured Falls Township Police officer Jonathon Caesar, announced his retirement  last Sunday Feb 2.

Fellow officers lined the walkway into the newly completed home of the Falls Township Police Department last Sunday congratulating Caesar, wishing him a fond farewell.

Prior to policing the residents of Falls Township, he served his country as an active-duty member of the United State Marine Corps, before serving Bucks County as a Correctional Officer. Over the course of his career Officer.

Caesar was an accomplished member of the Bucks County South SWAT Team, a member of the Police Honor Guard Unit, was an Emergency Medical Technician, and a Drill Instructor for the Youth Police Academy.

Credit: Submitted

Well before working into his 39th year, Caesar earned the distinction of knowing just about everyone in Falls Township and the surrounding communities, while almost everyone also knew him.

His personal and professional life experience, and larger than life personality made him both approachable and relatable, as he was always able to charm, and disarm, when needed, the most volatile of people and situations.

Caesar  was also incredibly courageous, and as tough as they come, each and every one of their police officers benefitted from the knowledge and mentorship when needed.

Officer Caesar served this agency and community with distinction, honor, and genuine care, police officials said

“His legacy consists of the countless lives he’s impacted and the knowledge, guidance, and mentoring he provided so many officers that came after him. Congratulations on your well-earned retirement, Jonathon, you will be greatly missed!”

Credit: Submitted

Continue Reading

SUBSCRIBE TO NEWSLETTER

Subscribe to our newsletter today to receive a daily email digest of our recent stories.

Categories

Trending