Former Indiana Fire Chief Faces New Sex-Crime Charges as Decade-Old Abuse Investigation Expands

Roger Alan Kemp Sr., of Columbus

New Brown County prosecution follows an earlier child-pornography charge, a 2025 digital-device search and questions about how the former chief remained in public-safety leadership

BROWN COUNTY, Ind. — A criminal investigation involving a former central Indiana fire chief has expanded significantly, with prosecutors now alleging that he sexually exploited a teenage girl and retained photographs and videos documenting the alleged conduct for more than a decade.

Roger Alan Kemp Sr., of Columbus, was charged July 23 in Brown County with five felony counts:

• Child exploitation, a Level 5 felony

• Sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class B felony

• Vicarious sexual gratification, a Class C felony

• Two counts of child exploitation, Class D felony

  
  

The use of the older Class B, Class C and Class D felony classifications appears to reflect Indiana law in effect when much of the alleged conduct occurred. Indiana replaced its former four-level felony system with six felony levels for offenses committed beginning July 1, 2014.

Kemp was arrested July 26 and booked into the Brown County Jail. His bail was set at $75,000 cash]

The charges are allegations. Kemp is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Investigation reportedly began in 2025

According to court-document accounts published by WTHR and WBIW, the investigation began in May 2025 after allegations involving electronic storage devices and sexual conduct dating to 2012 or 2013 were reported to police.

A woman who is now an adult reportedly told investigators that she met Kemp when she was 14 and that a sexual relationship began in 2012. Authorities allege the relationship continued until she was 16.

Kemp was approximately 37 at the time of the alleged conduct.

Charging-document accounts state that Kemp knew the girl’s age. The woman reportedly told investigators that Kemp had even discussed the potential criminal consequences he could face for having sexual contact with a minor.

That allegation, if proven, could become important evidence of Kemp’s knowledge and intent. Prosecutors ordinarily must prove more than the existence of sexual images; they must connect a defendant knowingly and intentionally to the conduct alleged in each count.

Police seized phones, hard drives and recording equipment

WBIW reported that officers executed a search warrant at Kemp’s Columbus residence on May 25, 2025.

Investigators reportedly seized multiple cellphones, tablets, hard drives and a video recorder. A forensic examination allegedly located photographs involving Kemp and the girl.

Some of the files reportedly carried dates from 2012 or 2013. Investigators allege that the images remained on Kemp’s electronic devices for more than a decade, until police seized them in 2025.

The long retention period potentially explains why prosecutors filed both offenses tied to the alleged sexual conduct and separate exploitation counts relating to the creation, possession or handling of the images.

The precise conduct supporting each count, however, will not be clear until the charging information and probable-cause affidavit are examined count by count. Prosecutors must prove each charge separately and cannot obtain multiple convictions based on the same criminal act when Indiana’s double-jeopardy rules prohibit it.

Earlier case initially involved only possession

Kemp was first charged in February in Bartholomew Circuit Court with possession of child pornography as a Level 6 felony.

That limited initial charge raised an obvious question: If investigators believed the recovered images documented Kemp sexually abusing a minor, why was he initially charged only with possessing the material?

WBIW noted the same issue in its February report, stating that the publicly available records did not explain why more extensive charges had not yet been filed.

The new Brown County prosecution may provide part of the answer. The alleged sexual conduct may have occurred in Brown County, while the electronic devices were located or seized in Bartholomew County. Venue generally belongs in the county where an offense was committed, although electronic-evidence cases can involve conduct or evidence spanning multiple jurisdictions.

The two prosecutions therefore may address different alleged criminal acts:

The Bartholomew County case concerns possession of prohibited material allegedly found on Kemp’s devices, while the Brown County case appears to concern the alleged creation of that material and the underlying sexual conduct.

Prosecutors and court records will need to clarify the precise division between the two cases and whether any charges overlap.

Fire department removed Kemp after learning of charge

Kemp was serving as chief of the Gregg Township Fire Department in Morgan County when the February charge became public.

According to the department and local reporting, Kemp was relieved of his duties and placed on administrative leave on February 4. The department’s executive board accepted his resignation the following evening from both his position as chief and his membership in the department.

Gregg Township Trustee Matt Bishop said the township contracts with the fire department but that the department is operated as a private entity. Bishop also confirmed that Kemp had been returned to the chief’s position through a vote of the department’s membership.

The fire department said the allegations did not represent the character of its other personnel and announced that operations would continue under Chief Rob Stecher.

“As a public safety agency, we always strive to ensure trust and transparency with our community members,” the department said in its February statement.

The new charges revive broader questions about screening, governance and accountability at volunteer or privately organized fire departments that exercise public-safety authority and receive public funding.

Those questions include whether the department conducted criminal-background checks, what officials knew about Kemp’s prior criminal case, how chief officers were selected and whether township officials had adequate authority to review leadership decisions.

Kemp had a prior firearms-related criminal case

WBIW reported that Kemp was arrested in 2020 after an Amazon delivery driver alleged that he fired a handgun in her direction while ordering her to leave his property.

Kemp was initially accused of felony-level conduct involving the weapon. According to the report, the case was later resolved through a plea to criminal recklessness, and Kemp received home detention and probation.

That prior conviction did not prevent him from later serving, or returning to service, as Gregg Township fire chief.

The 2020 case is not evidence that Kemp committed the newly alleged offenses. It is nevertheless relevant to the public-policy question of how a person with a recent criminal conviction was evaluated for a leadership position within a public-safety organization.

Fire departments routinely enter private homes, interact with children and vulnerable adults, respond to medical emergencies and obtain access to sensitive personal information. Leadership screening is therefore not merely an internal personnel matter.

Published reports contain an age discrepancy

WTHR identified Kemp as 51 when the Brown County charges were filed. WBIW’s February report described him as 49.

Other local records identify the defendant as Roger Kemp Sr. or Roger Alan Kemp Sr.

The discrepancy should be resolved through the charging information, jail-booking record or date of birth listed in the court docket. Until then, reports should avoid treating either published age as conclusively established.

What happens next

The Brown County case will proceed through an initial hearing, discovery and pretrial proceedings. Prosecutors will be required to disclose the evidence they intend to use, including forensic reports, witness statements and information establishing the dates and locations of the alleged offenses.

Issues likely to arise include:

• Whether the digital searches and seizures complied with the Fourth Amendment

• Whether prosecutors can authenticate the files and establish when they were created

• Whether metadata was altered, copied or transferred between devices

• Whether the statute of limitations permits prosecution of each alleged offense

• Whether Brown County is the proper venue for every count

• Whether any counts overlap with the Bartholomew County prosecution

• Whether statements attributed to Kemp are admissible

• Whether the alleged victim’s testimony is supported by the electronic evidence

  
  

Indiana law contains special limitation periods for certain offenses committed against children, and some prosecutions may be filed years after the alleged victim reaches adulthood. Which limitation period applies depends on the offense, the date of the conduct and the statutory language in effect at the time.

The filing of charges is only the beginning of the criminal process. The probable-cause allegations have not been tested through cross-examination, and no court has found Kemp guilty of the newly charged offenses.

A case spanning three counties

The developing case now touches at least three Indiana counties.

Kemp lived in Columbus in Bartholomew County, led a fire department serving Gregg Township in Morgan County and is now accused of sexual offenses filed in Brown County.

That multijurisdictional history helps explain why the investigation has unfolded in stages. It also makes transparency especially important. Residents should be able to determine which agency investigated each allegation, which prosecutor made each charging decision and whether public-safety officials had access to information that should have affected Kemp’s continued leadership.

For now, the most serious questions will be answered in on for our states deplorable courts: what occurred, where it occurred, what the seized devices contain and whether prosecutors can prove each allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.