From The PD:

Columbus- Former State Rep. Matthew Barrett will not face criminal charges for lying to police about whether he knew women who appeared semi-nude on a flash drive he used during a high school government class presentation.[...]

Barrett’s attorney, Jack Bradley, acknowledged that his client lied to police, but said he didn’t lie about what was the focus of the investigation - whether the semi-nude image was intentionally displayed to the class.

Bradley said it was unintentional.

“Any statements that were made were not made under oath and police had made clear to him they were not undertaking an investigation into who the women were on the flash drive,” said Bradley. “I believe he was trying to protect his family and the women involved. Sometimes, good people make bad decisions.”

So it is legal in Ohio to lie to police officers during a criminal investigation?

And how was Barrett protecting his family by blaming the pornography on his innocent son? When his son starts applying for colleges and jobs, a quick Google search of his name means that he will constantly have to remind people that, “No, the pornography wasn’t mine…. It was my perverted father’s, who left office in disgrace.”

Also, the biggest rumor about this story floating around the State House and around Barrett’s home district is that atleast one of the women in the pictures was younger than 18 at the time it was taken. I haven’t seen any media reports mentioning that accusation.