Santa Rosa County, Fla :A Chapter in the Good Ole Boy Playbook

In the state of Florida, there are statutes stating the specific process for individuals involved in a vehicle crash. The state law is intended to provide information that is easily understood by any person that will be operating a motor vehicle. Information from this statute can be found in the questions given during testing for a driver’s license in the state of Florida.  For instance:

316.061 Crashes involving damage to vehicle or property.

(1) The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash resulting only in damage to a vehicle or other property which is driven or attended by any person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such crash or as close thereto as possible, and shall forthwith return to, and in every event shall remain at, the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s.316.062. A person who violates this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, $5 shall be added to a fine imposed pursuant to this section, which $5 shall be deposited in the Emergency Medical Services Trust Fund.

316.062 Duty to give information and render aid.

(1) The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash resulting in injury to or death of any person or damage to any vehicle or other property which is driven or attended by any person shall give his or her name, address, and the registration number of the vehicle he or she is driving, and shall upon request and if available exhibit his or her license or permit to drive, to any person injured in such crash or to the driver or occupant of or person attending any vehicle or other property damaged in the crash and shall give such information and, upon request, exhibit such license or permit to any police officer at the scene of the crash or who is investigating the crash and shall render to any person injured in the crash reasonable assistance, including the carrying, or the making of arrangements for the carrying, of such person to a physician, surgeon, or hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that treatment is necessary, or if such carrying is requested by the injured person.

316.027(2)(a) The driver of a vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property which results in injury to a person other than serious bodily injury shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and shall remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062. A person who willfully violates this paragraph commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 

While these are no brainers to most functioning adults, evidently if you have a vested interest in covering up a crime, then you will pull out the Good Ole Boy Playbook and do something like what happened in to Mr. Randy Jones.  Here’s Jones’s story.

On January 14,2017 Randy Jones and his wife were involved in a vehicle crash. The crash occurred in Santa Rosa County within the city limits of Milton Florida. The at-fault vehicle was driven by Brenda Roe. Roe was exiting a parking lot of a local business. She pulled into the roadway of Hwy 90 and into the path of the vehicle operated by Jones. The collision caused the vehicle of Roe to overturn to its side. Both, Brown and his wife had the dashboard impact their lower legs. Airbags deployed, and thankfully, both were wearing seatbelts, which likely reducing additional injuries.

Jones, first confirmed his wife was not critically injured and did not need his immediate attention to sustain life. He exited his vehicle and went to the overturned vehicle operated by Roe. Roe was found on the passenger side of the vehicle, sitting upright, and fortunately not seriously injured. She was helped from the mangled crashed vehicle. By this time, witnesses had arrived to assist with further efforts to care for those involved in the crash. Patrol Officer Kimberly Aguiar arrived on scene with other officers to provide assistance, required by law enforcement. Also, on scene was Patrol Officer Dalyn Wilson. Jones and his wife were transported from the scene to a local hospital for medical treatment required for sustained injuries caused from the vehicle crash. Officer Aguiar remained at the scene to complete her duties on scene and later, responded to the hospital to further investigate with interviewing Jones and his wife. Officer Wilson was also assisting during this time.

After arriving at the medical facility, where Jones and his wife were being treated, the officers spoke to Jones and provided a card with a case number. Jones inquired about the driver of the other vehicle. Jones believed the driver had been seriously injured because the impact was violent, and a full side collision had caused the vehicle to roll over. Jones believed that the driver had a head injury because of what he had observed at the scene when offering aid. Officer Aguiar stated she did not have any information on the other driver because that driver had left the scene. Jones questioned this fact and tried to get verification of what that meant exactly. Jones believed she could have wondered away, because of the suspected head injury, and could need immediate medical assistance. Officer Wilson interjected and informed Jones that Roe left the scene in a vehicle. Officer Wilson further explained he did not need to worry because she was with “a high-level police officer”. Jones challenged this statement.

Jones began to feel that this process was not one to be trusted. Jones requested the Florida Highway Patrol be called to investigate this incident. Jones believed the action of a “high-level” police officer arriving at the scene of a vehicle crash removing an involved party was not normal operating procedure. Jones had also expressed concern about the sobriety of Roe and was concerned there was improper assistance being given to Roe. Stating his concern to the officers caused Jones to be threatened with law enforcement action. He was accused of hindering an investigation because of his acknowledgement, of a “high-level” police offer aiding an escape, of a suspect appearing improper. Jones realized that he would not make progress with this concern at the time and nothing further was done to seek FHP for assistance.

Later, through public record requests Jones did discover a recording of a dispatcher calling FHP. The conversation was derogatory when describing Jones and FHP concluded they would not respond based on the information provided by the dispatcher. The public record requests also uncovered that Officer Aguiar had been less than honest with Jones concerning the information she had gathered about Roe. Aguiar had contacted Roes husband in another state to inform him of the accident that Roe had been involved in before contacting Jones at the hospital. It is difficult to believe Jones had been provided truthful information from the officers at the hospital. One would struggle how an officer would know how to contact the husband of Roe, in another state, if her identity was not known to them.

Days after the incident Jones was provided a copy of the accident report prepared by Officer Aguiar. The questions created by, the less than professional investigation conducted, Milton Police Department were not answered in this report. The report supported that there was clear indication that preferential treatment given to Roe because of that “high-level” police official. It is apparent that the investigation relied more on appeasing Jones than on the task of gathering facts. The main concern of Milton Police Department was to stop Jones from asking questions that they did not want to answer. Understandably, Jones had been irritated with the unprofessional conduct that was displayed by the officers performing the investigation. Jones was aware the facts concerning the traffic crash were secondary to the effort to protect a suspect with a “high-level” police friend.

An internal investigation was conducted concerning this incident by Milton Police Department. Capt. Michael Cline is identified as the investigator assigned to complete the investigation. Capt. Cline should have the law enforcement skills required to complete the task of investigating the complaint of Jones. Reading the investigation, obtained through a public records request, could not be used as evidence to support that Capt. Cline possesses any substantial investigative skills. One with investigative skills would cringe during the laborious task of reading this document. Capt. Cline would be described as either incompetent or complicit to a cover up of wrong doing.

Florida law provides an entire chapter in the statutes dedicated to how to conduct an Internal Investigation. It is one of the few laws that give a detailed explanation of how to properly complete an investigation, if tasked with the duty to complete an investigation, concerning a matter to which this law is applicable. Capt. Cline failed to meet the requirements of the law in several areas. His investigation obviously avoided the tough details that would have given Jones the answers he requested.

One fact that was discovered is there was a “high-level” police official involved. That person was identified as Jim Spencer. Spencer is the Chief Deputy at Santa Rosa Sheriffs Department. It was confirmed through the investigation that not a single officer involved in the crash investigation ever attempted to question Chief Deputy Spencer about his involvement. Chief Deputy spencer arrived on scene and became involved in an incident that he should have never been involved in because of a personal relationship. The Capt. Cline investigation indicates that conduct of Spencer was ignored because of his position with SRCSO. Had the average person conducted themselves as did Spencer law enforcement action would have been taken. Spencer was not even questioned. Had Spencer been questioned he would have had to admit he knew his actions were not legal. If a victim in an emergency room can be threatened with arrest for calling a legitimate state law enforcement agency for assistance with a bogus investigation, it is reasonable to believe, removing a possible suspect from a crime scene would be illegal. Unless you are in Milton and the perpetrator is the Chief Deputy of SRCSO.

Capt. Cline not only failed to uphold his oath of office, he failed as a leader to the officers involved. He taught the officers a lesson that it is acceptable to bend, twist, or even lie if it makes life easier. But this is basically saying one person’s life/comfort is MORE IMPORTANT than the other. While the reason doesn’t matter, in this case it was a “high-level” police official being protected, the moral of the actions by Capt. Cline is that putting political/personal motives ahead of the truth is acceptable. That is a great plan and works well, unless you are Mr. Jones and his wife.

Thousands upon thousands of medical bills accumulated because of the actions of Ms. Roe. It would be unfair to say this accident happened because Ms. Roe was impaired. There is no substantial proof she was under the influence; however, a poor investigation was conducted, and she was protected from the scrutiny that she should have been subjected to, after the crash. Mr. Jones can only play by the rules because he doesn’t have the luxury of making a couple of calls effectively having two law enforcement agencies create “facts” that help him prove the possible negligence of Ms. Roe, he believes exists. If Mr. Jones did have those resources available to him and treated Ms. Roe in the same manner he was treated, he could make up whatever story he wanted and call it fact. I wonder if Capt. Cline ever looked at this matter from that view point.  I wonder if Chief Deputy Spencer would be as indifferent to a similar situation if it were his family being wronged.

The investigation conducted by Capt. Cline used a witness statement given by an officer that supports the corruption suspected in this case. Officer Dalyn Wilson is named on the Brady List. If you do not know what that is, be assured it was not for stellar law enforcement abilities.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1963’s Brady v. Maryland, required prosecutors to disclose any exculpatory evidence — that is, evidence favorable to arguing innocence — to the defense, including information about witnesses’ credibility.

Officer Wilson made a list that requires prosecutors to expose his poor law enforcement character. Capt. Cline uses Officer Wilson’s statement to support that the officers involved in this incident were acting lawful. His statement was used as fact to support that no illegal act or policy violation occurred. Capt. Cline refused to see the connection here. Mr. Jones has accused wrongdoing of law enforcement officials in an incident that involves law enforcement officials acting contrary to law. Capt. Cline uses a statement of an officer that has conducted himself as a law enforcement officer in a manner that he MUST be identified by prosecutors because he lacks credibility.

I am certain that Mr. Jones would appreciate any help that could be offered on how to expose this miserable situation and that might help remedy any chance of more innocent citizens being exposed to corruption by officials in our community. We have seen incidents occur time and again in our local law enforcement agencies. A reasonable person would assume our States Attorney’s Office would take one of the issues to task. That has not happened yet, no matter how egregious the officer, and there is not any indication the pattern will change. Hopefully the public will become a voice that is loud enough to gain the attention of a power strong enough to stop the abuse that is becoming more common.

I am sure there will be a suggestion that Sheriff Bob Johnson implement to remedy future actions. Good suggestion, except, Sheriff Johnson is ALREADY aware of the issue and distanced himself at the first sign of his Chief Deputy being involved. There must be a solution that can be found. We have seen Escambia County fall to corruption. Maybe Sheriff Johnson will see that his path is parallel to Sir David’s in the early years. No honorable law enforcement officer would want to be initiated into that club. Here are my 2 cents for Sheriff Johnson: Step up to do what is right. You could avoid the public losing faith in your officers, your badge, your position and you could be example of success by doing what is right.  That is true leadership.

Source from Inside ECSO Speaks Again!

The most recent headline creates the Illusion that Sheriff Morgan has rid the ECSO of another rogue employee. The story has all the popular buzz words that would cause the reader to believe a dangerous “drug trafficker” has been removed from society. This criminal will not enjoy any benefit for being an employee of the ECSO and will suffer every penalty allowed by law. Sheriff Morgan has exposed her violation of law and emphasized his dedication to destroying the “good ole boy system” by offering her as a sacrifice to the citizens of our county.

For those not familiar with the hypocrisy of Sir David I’ll explain. It is entirely possible that the accused in this case has violated the law. She is not a favorite of any of the incompetent staff members at the agency. She is a very accomplished crime scene technician. She is the senior tech in that unit. She has been dedicated to her job and remained loyal for many years despite the low pay and lack of appreciation. She has attended training classes without fanfare or begging for the spotlight. She is a dependable employee with actual job-related skills. With all the attributes described, she should be held accountable if she betrayed the trust of the agency. If found guilty, she should be punished as would any person found guilty for this type of crime. The standard should be applied to all employees at the ECSO, I would think. The problem is, it is not how the agency operates.

Recently, there have been stories posted about other employees that were caught violating laws. Jessica Hackathorn was reported for committing insurance fraud. This is the same employee that initiated a complaint on an officer for having a step-child on the agency insurance plan after divorcing the mother of the child. The officer was placed on administrative leave and investigated for nearly a year. Evidence supporting that the officer committed no violation of law, was ignored. That exculpatory evidence included a court order stating the officer would pay child support and provide insurance. Any person would interpret this order, from a Circuit Court in this district, to be proof that a crime had not occurred. Somehow, that is not how Chief Eric Haines viewed it.

Chief Haines disagreed with the States Attorney’s Office that no charges should be filed. Haines has developed the reputation for being less than knowledgeable concerning law enforcement issues and having strong tendencies to avoid any display of honest behavior. If, in fact, he had truly believed a law violation had occurred Florida law allows him every opportunity to prepare an affidavit stating probable cause for the court to review. It would only be conjecture to speculate why he did not do this. One could assume his cowardly nature, fear of giving a statement under oath or just lack of intestinal fortitude, contributed to avoiding this option. What he did do is contact the Florida agency tasked with investigating insurance fraud cases. When informed there was not a fraud in this situation, by an official that investigates these crimes as a career, Chief Haines accused the official of misconduct by failing to file charges against the officer because of “professional courtesy,  refusing to believe there was a possibility he was simply wrong. Fortunately, Haines failed to succeed with his bully tactics and the officer was able to return to duty. Haines did feed his demented appetite for abusing people he dislikes by causing the officer to serve a short suspension before returning to duty.

Currently, Hackathorn has found herself in a similar situation. She put a child of an ex-boyfriend on her insurance policy at the agency. She is not the mother of the child and has no legal custodial rights to the child. I applaud her desire to care for this child and would believe she is a decent person to extend her affection to the child. However, she gave misleading information to the insurance company when asking if she could add the child to her policy. It should be mentioned that she would be considered the fiduciary of the insurance plan offered at the ECSO. Add the fact that she considered herself expert enough to file a complaint on an officer for having a “non-qualified” individual on the plan. She considered herself expert enough to even argue against a judge’s court order. I believe it would be extremely unreasonable for her to claim she made an honest error. Facts support what she did was manipulate the law and process to give her an out. She knew the process well and is well-informed on the rules of the insurance plan. She is the gate-keeper for the agency plan. Her job is dedicated to informing all agency employees on rules and answering questions they may have concerning the plan. Within weeks of illegally adding the child to the plan the child had an insurance claim for glasses and braces. I am not saying this was planned but I am saying it is suspicious. All indication here is that she willfully committed a fraud. Maybe, Chief Haines could inform us what he found out after talking to the state about fraud. Surely, he put the same effort into this issue as he did the one he investigated involving the officer.

Then the issue concerning a gun inside a county building. Jamie Higdon was a mechanic working in the garage at the ECSO. He was in possession of a firearm, while at work. There is written documentation that proves he had permission to possess the firearm during certain work-related duties. The state law allows for this. Again, enter Haines with his less than stellar knowledge of the law. An investigation is ordered, and the results are a surprising. The investigation revealed exactly what Haines had stated as law violations. The problem is with this matter:  Haines was wrong. One may ask how that could be. I’ll answer that. One explanation is that the person responsible for the investigation is as ignorant to the law as Chief Haines. This is entirely plausible, as it was one of the incompetent staff members of Sir David that completed the investigation. Another explanation is the investigation was corrupted by Haines. It is common knowledge that Haines never actually makes decisions that can be directly blamed on him personally. He uses internal investigations or another agency to do his dirty work. This gives him the opportunity to blame others and avoid being accountable himself. Either scenario supports the overwhelming opinion that the agency is corrupt and incompetent. Higdon ultimately leaves the agency. A superior employee lost to the poor leadership at the ECSO.

The comparable incident to this story involves Coleen Burt. She is a crime scene tech at the agency. She is often applauded for her stellar ability. Recently, Burt attended a training class and for her graduation, staff members went on a road trip to Tallahassee to celebrate. Never have I known of staff members attending an employee’s graduation ceremony out-of-town. Also, Burt works inside the main building at the ECSO. Her position is a civilian position. No civilian should be armed with a firearm in the area she reports to for work. This is an area defined specifically by state law as being an area that guns will not be in possession of civilians. Well, that isn’t the case for Burt. She mistakenly left her personal firearm in the bathroom while working. It is explicitly illegal for her to have been in possession of a firearm in the area and she carelessly left hers laying unattended for some period. The area is a secure area and often has members of the public in the area there for various business they may have at the ECSO. Had the wrong person found this gun before a responsible individual, what would happen? What if a child went into that bathroom and retrieved that weapon?

Let’s examine Burt. She has been involved in various “investigations” involving her propensity to be involved with individuals that are married or in some way relate to promiscuous behavior. Some jokingly comment her job title should be “Sex Scene Tech” and not Crime Scene tech, because there are more biologicals left by her than taken from a crime scene. This description is not “slut shaming” or being plain hateful. A public records request of investigations she has been involved in would support what is stated here, assuming Haines will, in fact release this information.

Here is a prediction. Hackathorn and Burt will never have to answer for the incidents described above. When their investigations are completed, no action will be taken. In fact, Hackathorn’s fraud related investigation is focused on the “leak” to Hunt insurance and not the lie/ fraud she committed. If the ECSO is called out, the defense will be the recent arrest of the employee in the headlines now. Morgan will use her as an example of just how honorable he is. He will say all employees are treated equal. You know now that he is a liar and that is not true. Do not allow him to do that when the time comes.

 

 

Double-Talking Underling

Underhill (aka Underling) posted this in Escambia Clan Watch regarding the county settlement with a woman discriminated against by the Fire Chief.

professionalism fire dept

My question would be if the Commissioner believed the words–the above words–should apply to all people employed by the county?

His political bromance with Morgan colors his judgment to the fact of what kind of “leader” his buddy is to his staff.  The “Honorable” Commissioner’s attention should be turned to the article by Dr. James Scaminaci on May 26, 2016, GENDER AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE ECSO IS NOT A JOKE.

There are 5 lawsuits discussed while, in actuality, there have been MANY other instances and MANY other lawsuits.  Rhonda Ray, Jacquelyn Gulley, Laura Montoya, Beyanca Cannon, Mindy Pare. All gender discrimination and at least 3 are racial discrimination. If Chief Grace was so wrong for his actions in the Fire Department, why isn’t the same action on a much bigger scale worthy of looking into?

As Scaminaci says:

“I think that when you find that five different women at five different times complaining of racial and/or gender discrimination and they are then subjected to retaliation via Internal Affairs investigation (or other investigation or near-immediate termination), then I believe you have the factual basis to conclude that there may be a pattern and practice of creating a hostile work environment for women of color (and women), a pattern and practice of racial and/or gender discrimination, and a pattern and practice of retaliation against those very same women. “

Another line in Scaminacis’s article says it all. “Once a woman files a complaint to protect their rights, dignity, and career, it appears that the full force of the office of the Sheriff is dedicated to beating these women down into submission.”

On top of the injury created by the Sheriff in these cases, Underling provides the insult by putting the Fire Chief’s victim on a pedestal while the 5+ women in the ECSO, just lose their reputation, their careers, their chance to be what they are called to be….COPS. How much is that worth?

 

 

How Many BJ’s for This?

colleen burt

I was shocked that THIS crime scene tech was actually applauded for this award, while no other such awards have been recognized with the same fanfare. But I suppose it should not have been such a surprise being that LEO AFFAIRS posts have been deleted about the open talk of the “oral” gratification this woman provides at crime scenes and the fact her nipple rings can be identified in a line up, Eric the social media Nazi, probably has sampled her talents.  While the one LEO AFFAIRS post addresses her by name, Escambia, & Santa Rosa reference her.

cb
Escambia LEO Affairs post

cb

cb
Santa Rosa LEO Affairs

While the number of BJ’s given for the attention by Chief Deputy Nonsense is in question, the real question is why Colleen did not get the opportunity to go to jail for leaving her gun in the women’s restroom? James Higdon was burned at the stake for that but yet there is NO documentation on Ms. Crime Scene Nipple Ring, why?

Attached is the IA on Higdon, if anyone has any info on “lady” referenced here, please let me know.

higdon investigation_Page_01higdon investigation_Page_02higdon investigation_Page_03higdon investigation_Page_04higdon investigation_Page_05higdon investigation_Page_06higdon investigation_Page_07higdon investigation_Page_08higdon investigation_Page_09higdon investigation_Page_10higdon investigation_Page_11higdon investigation_Page_12higdon investigation_Page_13higdon investigation_Page_14higdon permission_Page_1higdon permission_Page_2