Minnesota Coach Fired Due to False Allegations

Story here. A Minnesota college football coach tells his story of being fired for allegations of child pornography, based on home videos of his own children. He has been totally exonerated by the courts and social services, yet he has still been fired by Minnesota State Mankato. Excerpt:

'IT TOOK FOUR hours in jail before Hoffner was told that the charges against him related to videos of his children on his cellphone. It took a night behind bars and then another day for police to allow him to watch those videos with his lawyer. A police officer sat in the room with them to provide supervision. The lawyer took notes. Hoffner tried to pretend the children on the screen were strangers, hoping it would help him critique the videos more harshly.

They watched in silence. The police officer fidgeted in his seat.

"That was it?" Hoffner said when the second video ended. "The only thing I saw was a bunch of happy kids."
...
Meanwhile, day by day, the prosecution's case against him was falling apart. Police seized and searched his laptop, cellphone and a home computer and found nothing -- no other images or videos that could be considered pornographic. A day care provider testified that the Hoffner children "have always exhibited appropriate social development" and "emotional competence." A certified sex therapist viewed the videos and said they consisted of "normal child's play." Blue Earth County Human Services conducted its own investigation and interviewed the Hoffner children, none of whom even remembered being videotaped naked.
...

On Nov. 30, a judge reviewed the evidence and ruled to dismiss Hoffner's case, concluding that the charges against him should never have been filed. "The videos under consideration here contain nude images of the defendant's minor children dancing and acting playful after a bath," the judge, Krista J. Jass, wrote in her decision. "That is all they contain."

Hanson, who had been asked by Hoffner's family and lawyer to drop the charges numerous times and always refused, said he disagreed with the judge's decision but would not appeal. Then he quickly defended his handling of the case. "No matter what the prosecutor does in a controversial case with a high-profile suspect, they will be criticized," he said before declining further comment about the case.
...
The university remained unmoved, citing the mysterious second investigation into Hoffner's conduct. It was unrelated to the initial charge of child pornography, officials said, but involved two "internal complaints" against Hoffner that the university refused to provide details about. (Despite these complaints, the school still employed Hoffner.)'