An Army major already facing felony child-pornography and methamphetamine charges in Missouri is scheduled to appear at Fort Leavenworth next Tuesday for an arraignment and motions hearing in a separate Army general court-martial involving child pornography, controlled substances and other alleged misconduct.
MAJ Christopher C. Piasecki is scheduled to appear before an Army court Aug. 18. The military docket lists two Article 134 child-pornography specifications, another Article 134 specification, three Article 112a specifications, five Article 133 specifications and two Article 107 specifications.
The Army docket lists Piasecki as not guilty with an officer panel. His trial is currently scheduled for Oct. 5 through Oct. 9 at Fort Leavenworth.
But records obtained and reviewed by The Salty Soldier show the Army prosecution is only one part of Piasecki’s legal trouble.
In Missouri, Piasecki is simultaneously being prosecuted for allegedly possessing methamphetamine and child pornography. Both state charges trace back to alleged conduct on the same date: May 27, 2025.
And the records reviewed so far indicate Platte County has not stepped aside simply because the Army is pursuing its own case.
Instead, Piasecki appears to be facing active civilian and military prosecutions at the same time, raising an unanswered question: Are Missouri prosecutors and the Army pursuing separate discoveries, or did the same underlying investigation produce charges in both jurisdictions?
In one Missouri case, Platte County Prosecuting Attorney Eric Zahnd alleges Piasecki knowingly possessed methamphetamine on May 27, 2025. The charge is a Class D felony under Missouri law.
A second felony information alleges that Piasecki knowingly possessed child pornography that same day. The charging document describes the evidence as a video depicting a very young child engaged in sexually explicit conduct with an adult.
The child-pornography case initially carried a $100,000 cash-only bond. Court records show Piasecki was prohibited from contacting anyone under 18, barred from possessing internet-capable devices and placed under electronic monitoring.
He later posted the full $100,000 bond.
Those allegations become more significant when compared with the Army docket. Piasecki’s court-martial includes Article 134 child-pornography specifications and three Article 112a specifications involving controlled substances.
What The Salty Soldier has not yet obtained is the Army charge sheet detailing the conduct behind each military specification.
Without that document, it would be premature to say the Army and Missouri are prosecuting the exact same acts. But the overlap in alleged offense categories makes that comparison an obvious next step in the investigation.
One of the more unusual details appears in Piasecki’s original Missouri drug case.
When an arrest warrant was issued for the controlled-substance charge in May 2025, the conditions imposed on Piasecki went beyond drugs and alcohol.
The warrant also prohibited him from having contact with anyone under the age of 18. It additionally prohibited alcohol, marijuana and drugs that were not legally prescribed and required drug-patch monitoring and pretrial supervision.
That restriction involving minors appeared in the drug case before the separate child-pornography charge was filed publicly in July.
The records currently available do not explain why a no-contact-with-minors condition was attached to what was, on its face, a controlled-substance case.
Piasecki later asked the court to remove that restriction. Prosecutors opposed the request. The court record reviewed by The Salty Soldier instead notes that Piasecki was permitted to use a government-issued computer for work.
That sequence leaves an important question unanswered: What did investigators and prosecutors already know when the first arrest warrant was issued?
The answer may be found in the underlying probable-cause statements, search-warrant materials or investigative reports.
A June 2026 defense filing in the child-pornography case adds another noteworthy detail.
Piasecki’s attorney told the Missouri court that he remained employed by the United States Army as a major and had 12 years of service.
The filing asked the court to loosen some of his release conditions, including removing his GPS ankle monitor or converting the monitoring to an application-based system. His attorney also sought removal of the drug patch or replacement with random urinalysis.
Meanwhile, the state prosecutions continued.
Platte County prosecutors filed formal felony informations in both cases in June, after the matters moved into the circuit-court stage. In the methamphetamine case, prosecutors also filed discovery disclosures showing the State had made available investigative reports, statements, photographs, video, electronic communications and other electronic data connected to the prosecution.
The State identified multiple law-enforcement personnel and other potential witnesses and said additional individuals named in investigative reports could also be called.
As of Aug. 10, the Missouri drug prosecution remained active, with additional drug-patch reports being filed and another hearing scheduled later this week.
That activity is occurring just days before Piasecki is due in an Army courtroom at Fort Leavenworth.
Piasecki’s Army background provides a sharp contrast with the allegations now confronting him.
Military professional material previously identified Christopher C. Piasecki as the author of “Generating Enhanced CBRN Readiness at JPMRC,” written while he held the rank of captain. A LinkedIn search result reviewed by The Salty Soldier identifies him as a JPMRC Protection Chief and references previous Army planning duties.
Now, his next major professional appearance is scheduled to take place in a courtroom.
On Tuesday, Aug. 18, Piasecki is scheduled for an Article 39a arraignment and motions hearing at Fort Leavenworth. The Army has separately set his general court-martial for October.
The emerging picture is not one of Missouri handing its investigation to the military.
It is one of two justice systems pursuing an Army major at the same time.
Whether those systems are prosecuting Piasecki for separate misconduct or drawing from the same underlying evidence remains unanswered.
The Army charge sheet could go a long way toward answering that question.
Piasecki has pleaded not guilty, and the charges against him remain allegations unless proven in court.
The Salty Soldier is continuing to obtain records related to both the Missouri prosecutions and the Army court-martial.
© 2026 The Salty Soldier. All rights reserved. Reproduction without written consent is strictly prohibited.
