Court rejects motion to dismiss case against driving instructor

Published 12:51 pm Saturday, August 2, 2025

SOUTH BEND — Defense counsel challenged the veracity of charges for communication with a minor for immoral purposes and witness tampering against David S. Campbell, 64 on July 25. He is accused of sending a nude photo to a former student at his Gotta-go driving school on the peninsula.

Campbell was arrested on March 10 after an investigation by the Pacific County Sheriff’s Office that began on Sept. 30, 2024. Investigators learned that Campbell reportedly attempted to send a photo of a missing worksheet to a student and instead sent a nude photo of himself.

According to court documents, Campbell was confronted by the student’s parents and stated it was “accidental.” Campbell reportedly refunded the students tuition and paid them an additional $100 allegedly to keep quiet.

“[The student] explained they initially believed it was an accident, which is why they did not report it sooner,” Detective Kevin Acdal stated in court documents.

The details of how the photo was sent were the basis for a motion filed June 2 by Campbell’s defense attorney Nathan Needham of Needham-Glenn Law.

According to the motion, there is nothing of substance to imply Campbell ‘communicated’ with the minor ‘in a manner prohibited by statute’ or had any ‘intent’ to have immoral communication with the minor.

“Given these facts, the State cannot prove that Mr. Campbell communicated with a minor for an immoral purpose,” Needham stated in the motion. “This charge requires the state to prove that the defendant engaged in a course of conduct, used spoken words, or ‘invited or induced the minor to engage in prohibited conduct.’”

“Even accepting the facts in the reports as true, the state has not put forth any evidence of a ‘course of conduct,’ ‘spoken words, or an invitation’ or ‘inducement.’ Without such an invitation, or any accompanying text to show intent, the state also cannot prove that Mr. Campbell intended to send [the minor] a nude photo instead of the worksheet. Nor can the state prove an ‘immoral purpose. For these reasons, the court should dismiss the charge of communication with a minor for an immoral purpose,” Needham added.

Pacific County Prosecutor Michael Rothman submitted a response to the defense motion on June 20 alleging that “the evidence shall be viewed in the light most favorable to the State and the court must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prosecuting attorney.”

According to the response, the prosecutor can prove that Campbell did communicate with the minor because he sent the photo, evidence indicates he intended to communicate with the minor, the communication was for immoral purposes, and he displayed “consciousness of guilt behavior.”

“Dismissal of this case due to insufficient evidence when the state has evidence establishing a prima facie case is clearly not appropriate,” Rothman stated in the response. “For the foregoing reasons the State respectfully requests that the Court deny” the motion.

Pacific County Superior Court Judge Donald J. Richter ruled in favor of the prosecution on July 25 and denied Needham’s motion.