Former Cherokee County deputy indicted for child pornography production

Former Cherokee County deputy Garrett Gayoso was indicted by a federal grand jury in Kansas City, Kansas, charging him with producing child pornography.

The Cherokee County Sheriff's Office placed Gayoso on administrative leave in April after the Fall River, Massachusetts Police Department said it was investigating the deputy for what was described as "an inappropriate relationship" between Gayoso and a juvenile female.

Gayoso later resigned.

The Bristol County, Massachusetts District's Attorney's office charged Gayoso with three felonies.

-Sending obscene matter to a child

-Posing, exhibiting a nude child

-Posing/exhibiting a child sex act

The indictment stems from the Massachusetts investigation.

A magistrate judge initially released Gayoso following his December indictment, but the U. S. Attorney objected and another judge overruled that decision and Gayoso was returned to jail Friday.

The allegations against Gayoso were detailed in the U. S. Attorney's motion.

Defendant is a former law enforcement officer who abused his position of trust to groom a teenager online and get her to produce child pornography for his sexual pleasure. During the course of the months-long grooming, defendant was promoted to the role of Detective in February 2025, where he was supposed to be investigating the very types of crimes he was committing in secret. 

Defendant is a danger and a flight risk and should be detained.

The case came to light when the victim’s mother searched Minor Victim 1’s laptop and cell phone and found sexually explicit messages and pictures between Minor Victim 1 – a 16-year-old high school student - and Defendant. 

Minor Victim 1’s mother also discovered that Defendant had traveled to Massachusetts (where Minor Victim 1 resides) and had sex with Minor Victim 1. Minor Victim 1 confirmed that this all occurred.

Massachusetts law enforcement contacted the KBI to investigate further. Various search warrants were obtained, and Defendant was Mirandized and interviewed. During the interview, Defendant admitted that he met Minor Victim 1 online and moved the chats to snap but claimed they did not text much (but had over 24,000 text messages on his phone). 

Defendant admitted to having sex with Minor Victim 1. Defendant admitted that nude photographs were exchanged and that he sometimes requested the nude photographs. Defendant denied knowledge of Minor Victim 1’s age, but his denial is contradicted by the facts. 

For example, Minor Victim 1 states that although they met on a website meant for 18-year-olds, that Defendant asked her almost immediately how old she was, and she responded truthfully that she was 16. 

Additionally, a review of the text messages show that it is clear Defendant knew her age. Defendant talks about throwing a prom for the victim, discusses the 7-8 year age gap of Minor Victim 1’s parents and how it matches their age gap. 

Additionally, at one point Minor Victim 1 sends her Massachusetts id card that clearly shows her date of birth on it. Defendant comments on the id. Although proving that Defendant knew Minor Victim 1’s age is not an element of production of child pornography, it is relevant to show that he absolutely knew she was a minor in high school.

Defendant’s cell phone was seized and searched pursuant to a warrant. Defendant’s common social media handle was some variant of “Bootygoblin.” Agents found well over 24,000 text messages between August 17, 2024 and January 8, 2025. 

Minor Victim 1 stated they were communicating through April 2025 (when her mother discovered the messages) and also reports that they communicated on other forums, such as Snapchat. Even with this incomplete picture, agents uncovered 119 images from Minor Victim 1 to Defendant, many of her entire nude body and many focused on her vagina. 

There are also videos of Minor Victim 1 engaged in a sex act.

Defendant regularly discusses masturbating to these images. The chats are filled with sexually explicit comments, including when Defendant calls Minor Victim 1 “daddy’s little whore” and “daddy’s little slut” and “my cum slut” and “my whore” and “my obedient little whore.”

Defendant moved quickly in his grooming techniques with Minor Victim 1. Within his first 10 messages to the victim, he asks for a picture to see what she looks like. He starts talking about wanting to be in bed with her and rubbing her thigh within the first two hours of conversation. 

After some of Defendant’s subtle suggestions, Minor Victim 1 states “I’m not sending you nudes we literally just met.” Nevertheless, Defendant continued to lavish Minor Victim 1 with praise and grooming and despite starting the conversation on the evening of August 17, already tells Minor Victim 1 he loves her around 1am on August 20. 

The next day, on August 21, 2024, Defendant states “show me all of your body. That way nothing is secret or hidden from me.” The victim then sends a full body picture showing her breasts and vagina. It is evident this is new production because Minor Victim 1 states she needs to shave and Defendant responds he isn’t bothered by it before Minor Victim 1 says she will need some time to take a decent picture.

The text messages continue to when Defendant travels to Massachusetts to have sex with Minor Victim 1. After that encounter, the following exchange takes place:

MV1: Yes, I'm a little upset about something though

Defendant: What's that

MV1: I didn't like the whole not putting the condom on right away thing. I'm going to be paranoid as hell now

Defendant: I'm sorry baby

MV1: I don't want to take risks like that

Defendant: I'm sorry

MV1: It's okay just ask me before doing stuff like that next time

Defendant: You're right. I should've asked

Defendant then proceed to buy Plan B for Minor Victim 1.

The rest of the messages continue with the grooming and requests for child sex abuse material. At one point, Defendant asks Minor Victim 1 if she is still horny and suggests that she “take care of it” but then says “Don’t forget to show me.” 

When Minor Victim 1 responds that she will, Defendant responds “Good girl.” They also discuss Defendant watching Minor Victim 1 engage in a sex act on a video call. In other words, the Defendant used Minor Victim 1 to engage in sexually explicit conduct in live chats that law enforcement does not have a record of.