Is The 19^th Circuit State Attorney’s Office Unethical? 

On December 4, 2013, “Archangels Of Justice” reported the case where a female Florida Highway Patrol Trooper had been prosecuted for “Driving Under the Influence.” That Trooper was apparently put through hell even though state experts found that she had no alcohol or drugs in her system.  (It is recommended that you re-read the December 4 posting to refresh your recollection of the facts.)  Our continuing investigation and numerous public records requests have resulted in the shocking discovery of what we believe is an absolute pattern and practice of prosecutorial misconduct coupled with flat out illegal behavior of at least two commanders of the FHP.

The Trooper’s Lieutenant, her Captain, and the 19 Circuit State Attorney appear to have worked in concert to deliberately punish the Trooper who was suffering from a severe medical disability, prosecute her for criminal conduct without having the required evidence, withhold and destroy evidence, and conceal the sexual misconduct of the Lieutenant.  You be the judge!

“Archangels” has learned that in the past 8-9 years at least five other female Troopers transferred to other districts because the Lieutenant had been harassing them.  On May 15, 2004, in response to another female Trooper’s complaint the Lieutenant received a “written reprimand” stating, “Allegation: “While on a traffic stop, LT.  S…,  became irate and yelled at a trooper to leave the scene while using foul language.” “Finding: Employee used profane language to a subordinate on May 18, 2004, at a traffic stop.” 

Apparently the Captain and the Lieutenant concealed the Lieutenant’s apparent sexual harassment information from the State Attorney or the State Attorney chose not to disclose it to the Trooper defendant of the DUI prosecution. It should also be reported that FHP troopers act as agents of the State Attorney.  It appears that the information from very credible sources, including FHP internal files, is true.  A complaint of misconduct and improper touching of yet another female trooper was listed as “not sustained” even though some information in her complaint appears to have been corroborated.  Other male troopers who witnessed the incident attempted to minimize the Lieutenant’s alleged improper conduct but as experienced police investigators, in our opinion, the misconduct probably did occur.  Job loss along with the resulting financial concerns, peer pressure, or the fear of retaliation, will usually keep otherwise honest troopers silent.

During the Deposition phase of the Troopers DUI case her attorneys apparently caught the prosecuting State Attorney recording their privileged and confidential conversations with her own audio recorder and became very upset.  Although the defense attorneys had discovered the activated recording device on at least two prior occasions the prosecutor claimed again that it was running by mistake and no action was taken. 

 On October 15, 2013“Archangels” submitted a public records request to the State Attorney seeking copies of the tape recordings, original deposition, reports, correspondence, memorandum, and letters of reprimand.  (See Exhibit #1 below) 

On October 16, 2013, we received a call from the State Attorney regarding our request.  He advised that no written records, reports, correspondence, or memorandum had been created and that the recordings had been destroyed.  He agreed to put his response in writing.  

(See Exhibit #2 below)

A few weeks later we received a letter along with an unsigned handwritten note alleged to be from the prosecutor’s file.  (See Exhibit #3 below) The handwritten note said the tapes were destroyed.  Just who made the decision to destroy the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct is open to speculation and the author of the note is unknown.  It is apparent that the note could have been created at anytime even after our public records requests was submitted.  The defendant Trooper was not even consulted about the destruction of the illegally recorded tapes.  The State Attorney destroyed the evidence of a crime perpetrated by the very prosecutors who were prosecuting the Trooper for a bogus DUI crime.  

In another case a female was removed from her position as a Martin County Sheriff’s Department Detective for allegedly using a tape recorder.  The same State Attorney’s Office proffered an opinion that her conduct was illegal. She disclosed that she had met with one of the assistant State Attorneys who had approved of her audio recording, actually providing her a printed copy of the appropriate laws before-hand.  Upon receiving her complaint, the State Attorney’s Office did not even review the West Law databank, where records are kept, in order to verify whether or not that assistant State Attorney had actually viewed the law and printed the results. That information could have been easily accessed.  Now, the assistant state attorney says that he can’t recall giving her the information.

In the case of another former female deputy sheriff, who had been illegally stalked over 600 times on the state Driver and Vehicle Information Databanks (DAVID) System by various law enforcement agents at many agencies, including Martin County Sheriff’s Office, the State Attorney advised that it should be handled administratively, in other words it was not a criminal matter.  Yet in the case of the female Martin County detective her alleged use of DAVID was declared illegal by the same State Attorney’s Office.  That declaration led to the detective’s dismissal from the MCSO.  Additionally, immediately upon taking office MCSO Sheriff William Snyder, the person who terminated the employment of the deputy detective, promoted a Lieutenant to Captain for using the same DAVID System to gain information about two victims who had withdrawn their support for Snyder during the campaign.

It appears that there are many other instances of questionable conduct involving the 19^th District State Attorney’s Office.  Should they know better?   Sure.  But their alleged acts of official misconduct will continue as long as they keep their dirty little secrets away from public scrutiny. “Archangels Of Justice “will not let that happen.

QUESTIONS:  Is this the kind of law enforcement you want?  Are they really public servants or just taxpayer funded employees who work harder for themselves than the public?  Aren’t they required to obey the law?  Can you now answer the question asked at the beginning of this posting? 

Authored by:  Ira B. Robins                                                  Salvatore Rastrelli

TAGS: Martin County Sheriff's Office,19th Circuit State Attorney, Jennifer D. Heard, FHP, MCSO Sheriff William Snyder.

www.irarobins.com

www.rastrelliinvestigation.com

www.innocenceconsultants.com

www.salvatorerastrelli.com

Exhibit #1

Exhibit #2

Exhibit # 3 (2 pages)