You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Tue, Feb 7, 2012 : 5:44 p.m.

Sheriff's deputies looking for man accused of sexual assault against child

By Kyle Feldscher

Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office deputies are looking for Andrew Arron-Darnell Atkins, who is wanted on one charge of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, according to police.


Andrew Arron-Darnell Atkins

Courtesy of Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office

Sheriff’s office Sgt. Thomas Pennington said Atkins is wanted for unlawful touching and assaulting a child under the age of 13. The offense happened on May 12, Pennington said.

Police are unable to release more details about the alleged incident because the victim is younger than 13 years old, Pennington said.

Anyone with information about Atkins’ whereabouts or information about the incident is encouraged to call Detective Tom Boivon at 734-973-4625

Kyle Feldscher covers cops and courts for He can be reached at or you can follow him on Twitter.



Wed, Feb 8, 2012 : 6:06 p.m.

No complaints here about posting this kid's picture. The police know who they are looking for, and need help finding him for good reason. The police know more about this suspect than any of us do. Thanks WCSD !!


Wed, Feb 8, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.

So when there is a creep in A2 assaulting women people expect the police to pull out their crystal ball and find him.But now when they have a known suspect who has been charged of assaulting a kid people complain cause they post his picture


Wed, Feb 8, 2012 : 12:54 p.m.

sorry, I left out the punctuation's


Wed, Feb 8, 2012 : 12:51 p.m.

@ypsiveteran and getyourselfstraightfirst, how else are people going to know who to look out for? In my opinion all that should have been written is man wanted on suspicion in connection to a sex crime. Or SUSPECT WANTED IN CONNECTION TO A CRIME.That is all.


Wed, Feb 8, 2012 : 5:34 a.m.

Just an FYI for a few who seem to not know: the posting of wanted posters only for convicted criminals is actually "impossible" given that the wanted person has not yet been apprehended, let alone convicted!!! Also, for those photos showing people who have been arrested; banning such photos would be construed to be part of secret police and secret courts procedures. Not exactly what we want in this country, now is it? Public safety notifications and the public's right to know is the category: and that has nothing to do with jury verdicts They walk among us: some must be voting, they post their "learned opinions" on the Web all the time - and may even be serving on: juries!!


Wed, Feb 8, 2012 : 3:54 a.m.

Have they checked UM Hospitals or AAPS considering the nature of the crime? I hear those are good places to hide these sort of things.


Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 3:15 a.m.

Good one,"thecompound". Seems to be the norm lately here in A2. ha


Wed, Feb 8, 2012 : 3:45 a.m.

I think it's ridiculous that they post pictures of people that haven't been convicted of the crime. They are suspecting it, he hasn't been sentenced to anything. I noticed that they selectively post pictures. This is how lives are ruined BEFORE hearing both sides of the story. Isn't it innocent TILL proven guilty?? If he had already been sentenced, or entered a guilty plea, then I could completely understand posting a picture.


Wed, Feb 8, 2012 : 1:39 a.m.

Where, oh where, I wonder, are all the people who criticized the paper over and over for printing the photo and name of the pediatrician recently involved in the window peeping incident? The suspect in this article has not been convicted of anything, either, yet here's his picture and his name and information about a sex crime of which he is accused. Where are all those hypocrites now? Where's the concern for this guy's reputation and future?


Wed, Feb 8, 2012 : 7:03 p.m.

That's supposed to be "except" above, not "expect." Sorry for the typo....


Wed, Feb 8, 2012 : 7:03 p.m.

EyeHeart, when it comes to sex crimes against minors, I don't make a distinction between looking and touching, and neither should anyone else expect the person responsible for sentencing. Those who derive sexual pleasure from images of children are sick and present a clear and present danger, regardless of whether they have yet to actually "touch." MIKE, this guy's picture will accompany any further articles about this case. If he's never caught, there probably won't be too many more articles about him. If he is, there will be articles about his arrest, his arraignment, any newsworthy hearings/motions, his trial and the outcome of same. As it should be. The good Dr.'s story and photo weren't "recycled"; had he pled out immediately, had his attorney not filed several motions, etc., the Dr's picture would have only been in once or twice. My point, which I'm sure is obvious, is that there's quite a few people exercising a pretty obvious double standard that's based solely on class and race.


Wed, Feb 8, 2012 : 2:57 a.m.

Looking v touching. Which one do you think is worse?


Wed, Feb 8, 2012 : 1:55 a.m.

First off, they're looking for this guy. It's helpful to have a photo if your asking the public help. Secondly, this is the first time I've seen his photo, I've seen the other one many different times. Third, Let's see if this story and photo gets recycled a dozen times or so, then we'll talk about who the hypocrites are.