Teen Accused of Sexual Assault No Longer Attending Hamilton
17-year-old Daniel Koepke faces four felony charges in Washington County stemming from alleged incident this summer.
A teenager accused of sexually assaulting a 6-year-old girl this summer is no longer attending Hamilton High School, district officials said Thursday.
Due to student confidentiality laws, district spokeswoman Denise Lindberg would not elaborate on the circumstances surrounding 17-year-old Daniel Koepke, who faces four felony charges in Washington County.
"The high school worked out a cooperative arrangement with the individual, who will no longer be attending classes at Hamilton High School or any facility in the district," she said Thursday morning.
Koepke was charged in Washington County Circuit Court in July with four felony charges including first degree sex assault of a child under 13 years old, exposing genitals to a child and causing a child under 13 years old to view or listen to a sexual activity.
The school district learned of the allegations Monday.
"We should have been informed of the situation. We were not," Lindberg said. "We started hearing from some parents within the last week about this."
Lindberg said protocols are typically in place for school districts to be informed of these types of court proceedings involving a student.
"We don't know why they didn't occur. It put us in a difficult situation," said Lindberg, adding that the case is somewhat unusual in that the alleged crime happened in a different jurisdiction.
The police liaison officer with the Waukesha County Sheriff's Department contacted the Washington County District Attorney's office after learning of the alleged incident and the charges, Lindberg said.
Late Monday afternoon, the Washington County District Attorney provided the district with information about the bond release restriction. According to the Wisconsin Circuit Court System, Koepke is prohibited from having no unsupervised contact with any child under 16 years old.
"At that point, the high school put into place some immediate measures related to the bond restriction," Lindberg said.
"The bottom line in all of this … is that we want our community to be safe. We want our children to be safe."
Hamilton School District officials on Tuesday sent a letter to Woodside Elementary School parents informing them the teenager lives near their school.
Woodside Principal James Edmond wrote that extra police patrols have been planned near the school.
"In addition, all district schools have monitored, secure entrances, and I have reinforced with our staff the need to be diligent in playground supervision," he wrote.
"Now is a good time to remind everyone about the importance of close and careful supervision of children. Conversation with young children about stranger-danger also may be appropriate," Edmond added in the letter.
The district, according to parents, also made "robocalls" describing the situation and steps being taken by the district.
"I know that parents are somewhat frustrated because some of the information has been vague, but we're just not able to provide that specific information," Lindberg said. "We want parents to be informed. The bottom line in all of this … is that we want our community to be safe. We want our children to be safe."
In This article
-
Hamilton High School
W220n6151 Town Line Rd, Sussex, WI (Located east of Sussex near Highway-74 and Town Line Road) -
Woodside Elementary School
W236n7465 Woodside Rd, Sussex, WI (Located north of Good Hope Road) -
S
3:03 pm on Thursday, November 8, 2012
The offender's home actually shares a property line with Woodside Elementary. It is inexcusable that parents at HHS and Woodside Elementary were not informed, when the incident occured in July 2011.
DT
7:59 pm on Thursday, November 8, 2012
I live within CLOSE proximity of this individual's home. I have an almost 5 year old son and cannot believed that no one within a mile radius was informed of this situation! As it turns out, my son and his grandmother went to a rummage sale AT this person's home in September. It happened in JULY when kids everywhere are outside playing and no one knew! SHAME ON Washington County for not reporting this to Waukesha County so people could protect their children! Who knows how many other children he may have had "contact" with from July - November!
Jaime Lannister
8:02 pm on Friday, November 9, 2012
You may want to have a doctor inspect your son after that. God only knows what happens at rummage sales these days.
AG
8:31 pm on Thursday, November 8, 2012
I also live in close proximity to the offender's home. I too saw the rummage sale and drove past. The perpetrator was outside. Honest to God, how could a family consciously invite the public to their yard after such a hanous crime was committed. I know that the offender "babysat" kids in the neighborhood. I am so afraid that he has other victims. Maybe he watched other kids after July. SHAME ON Washington County! How could you not warn the community that we had a babysitter/pedaphile in our midst!
Will Silvers
7:39 am on Friday, November 9, 2012
Why is this pervert still walking the streets?
WIRSOL
8:57 am on Friday, November 9, 2012
First of all we live in a country that has habeus corpus, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
Second of all this is also a child by law and a child, anyone that doesn't see that needs to start lobbying to have the age of consent and the age of selective service and the drinking age lowered. For to do anything else would carry on the double standard.
Thirdly, even our US DOJ states that most offenders are known to their victims and their families. They are trusted folks that are able to earn your trust and the trust of your child. Stranger danger is something that is important, but keeping an eye on your child is the best way to protect them.
Also, the kind of abuse that the 17 yr old is accused of was more than likely learned from abuse that they were subjected to. These kinds of things come in cycles, abusers of any form usually were abused themselves. What we should all want to know before we light those torches and lynch the child, is what caused this so that the cycle CAN be broken, so the public can really be protected.
Joseph
9:47 am on Friday, November 9, 2012
Why didn't the ordinance Chapter 9.33 prevent this?! Come on Village Board. Please explain that!
Bill K.
10:57 am on Friday, November 9, 2012
@ Joseph You should be giving recognition not criticism to the village board. The facts are that up until approximately 1 year ago the village had no sexual predator ordinance in the village laws at all. I am thankful this new law was enacted when it was so when the village police became aware of this they were able to take immediate action. I went to the villages website after reading your comment and found after I read the law it is very strict and covers situations exactly which they are dealing with right now.
Nala
10:46 am on Friday, November 9, 2012
I just read Chapter 9.33 and I don't need the Board to explain to me that it is written for an "offender" which states is for a person that has been found guilty! This kid has been charged but not convicted. It also states that if said offender has established residence prior to the ordinance or is a minor, these are exception. Seemed pretty clear to me!
DT
1:47 pm on Friday, November 9, 2012
Im just curious if Woodside parents are also alerted each year to the pedofile that lives across the street from the school??? Notice the homes in Braddock Place that go up for sale every other year? There's a REASON!!! Pedofiles have NO business living near schools where they are allowed to observe children all day long!
S
8:44 am on Saturday, November 10, 2012
@DT - I checked the Wisconsin offender registry (http://wisconsindoc.familywatchdog.us/ShowMap.asp?frm=0) and did not find any offenders in Braddock Place.
That said, I specifically recall checking this same registry a year or so ago, and there WAS someone listed on S. Ridgeview Cir. Is that the offender you mentioned? Has that individual moved? Or is this someone else and if so, why are they not on the registry?
DT
11:28 am on Sunday, November 11, 2012
For some reason, it says he is unmappable, seach the list for all Sussex, it seems they are not showing up on the map.
http://wisconsindoc.familywatchdog.us/ViewInfo.asp
s
11:34 am on Monday, November 12, 2012
Until someone is actually convicted and sentenced, not just charged, they will not show up on the Sex Offender registery or on Family Watch Dog. If the case is dismissed, or charges are reduced to an offense that does not require registration (for example 4th Degree Sexual Assult- it would be up to the judge - aka court ordered- to require registration for a specified amount of time if that was the case), it will not show up.
A
4:36 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I live on S Ridgeview Circle and haven't heard of any sex offenders???? I have young kids, please tell me if there is someone living on my street!!!
PatchUser
10:30 am on Saturday, November 10, 2012
I'd be interested to know why we get to know the identity of this offender, and yet not that of the 20 year old man accused of a similar crime back in March. There also were never any updates on that story. Also, the articles pertaining to Dan Koepke don't mention the incest charge either. My heart goes out to his family. I can't imagine the immense difficulty of the situation for everyone involved.
Brendan O'Brien
2:22 pm on Saturday, November 17, 2012
Hi PatchUser, thanks for the comment. I'm not sure why Patch did not cover a similar crime in March. In terms of the incest charge, I have made every attempt to protect the identify of the victim and their family.
Brendan O'Brien
Editor
S
9:30 am on Tuesday, November 20, 2012
I live in Majestic Heights. And every day I hope that Daniel is not only removed from our neighborhood (and never to return) but I hope he is kept away from all children.
Child sex predators are monsters.
By the way - be sure to check out Brendan's other article, where Daniel plead "no contest" to two of the felony charges. And the court dismissed the other charges saything there was some disagreement over who moved the victim's clothes. This should invoke public OUTRAGE!
Daniel needs to be sentenced for a long, long time. At least 20 years. (although I'd be content with the original 100).