VOLUSIA EXPOSED

VOLUSIA EXPOSED.COM

FDLE / CJSTC is refusing to accept VolusiaExposed.Com's complaint against the Volusia County Beach Patrol without a complainant name and address

FDLE openly admits that there is no official policy requiring the complainant's name and address,
but rather it is their (FDLE / CJSTC) practice.

However, records indicate that FDLE / CJSTC has, in the past, accepted anonymous complaints. So much for that alleged practice of not accepting anonymous complaints !

Would you prefer that the FDLE follow State laws and procedures, in the receipting and investigating of complaints, or are you ok with them instituting ever changing "practices", in complaint dispositions?

Commentary by VolusiaExposed.Com

Updated
March 8, 2012

"We follow Florida State Statutes and our well developed polices in the furtherance of our duties....
and if necessary, we have our practices in reserve, ...you see, it's our practice not to follow statutes, or our policies, and even our practices, ....if the situation so dictates.......it's good to be King...."- FDLE - Tallahassee, Florida ?

March 8, 2012 updates are towards the bottom of the article and are so indicated

VolusiaExposed.Com on February 13, 2012 - filed the below attached complaint to CJSTC / FDLE alleging that, Volusia County had violated State criminal statutes, in the fraudulent filing of former Volusia County Beach Patrol Officer C. Gittner.

Earlier we had made contact with FDLE / CSTC and expressed our concerns of how the Officer Gittner matters (investigations) had been concluded. Mr. Stacy Lehman, of the FDLE, made contact with us and invited us to submit to his office our concerns for possible review and investigation. On February 13, 2012, we complied with Mr. Lehman's request / invitation and sent to him the above linked email which detailed our concerns and supplied attached supportive documentation, as verification to the validity of our concerns / complaint.

On February 29, 2012, after hearing nothing about whether our complaint had been processed, we made the below follow up email contact with Mr. Lehman.

On March 1, 2012 - we received an email from Mr. Lehman whereas he insisted that he would require the name and address of the complainant, in order to process the complaint. VolusiaExposed.Com is willing to supply a complainant name and address, IF there is a legal requirement to do so. FDLE is regulated by the mandates of Florida Statutes chapter 943 and Florida Administrative Code chapter 11B-27.

Upon our review of these regulatory mandates, we could locate no legal authority for FDLE to require the name and address of the complainant, in order to consider the complaint as viable. Therefore, we requested that Mr. Lehman advise us of what legal authority he was using to make such a demand, prior to processing our complaint. In a March 1, 2012 response, Mr. Lehman clearly admitted that no such policy or statute exist, however, it has been the "practice" of the FDLE to require such.

VolusiaExposed.Com has spent the last two years attempting to get law enforcement agencies within the State of Florida to simply follow their policies and the laws of Florida. In short, we desire that LE agencies cease allowing mandated policies such as Florida Administrative Code and State laws to be over ridden by ever changing "practices".

Over and over again, we have seen "practice" over ride State mandates - in the Volusia County jail, officers have a legal requirement to honestly document their interactions with the inmates under their care, custody and control. However, it would appear that it has become a "practice", for these documents to be falsified. (suggest reading the inmate death accounts on this web site - in the particular the Tracy Veira 2009 death).

Therefore, we shall NOT allow our complaint to be handled via the "practices" of FDLE, rather we shall insist that they process our complaint via the guidelines of Florida Administrative Code and Florida Statutes. We outlined our position to Mr. Lehman in our March 2, 2012 email. Please note his response.

Interestingly, it is common "practice" for FDLE to investigate criminal allegations against NON-law enforcement officials, solely on anonymous information - such as an anonymous cell phone call to an FDLE agent. We invite you to review the FDLE investigation into Okalossa County's Tax Collector, Christin Hughes. A read of just the first two pages of this report will clearly indicated that the entire investigation was started via an anonymous cell phone call.

Are corrupt law enforcement officers being insulated by FDLE's preference to process complaints via "practices" rather then by mandated policies and State Statutes?

Maybe, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune has latched on to something in their special multi-report on police corruption. We highly suggest you read it.

By the way - should anyone wish to voice their concern to Mr. Lehman regarding FDLE not processing our complaint, as per Florida law, rather than FDLE "practices", please, feel free to drop him a email.

StacyLehman@fdle.state.fl.us

March 8, 2012 UPDATES

Earlier this month, VolusiaExposed.Com published the above web article regarding CJSTC / FDLE's refusal to investigate our complaint of falsified documents to the CJSTC by Volusia County officials. Within the above article, VolusiaExposed examined the case of Christin Hughes, the Okalossa County tax collector that was investigated by the FDLE due to an anonymous cell phone call.

In the below attached March 5, 2012 email - Mr. Stacy Lehman (CJSTC / FDLE) makes reference that Mr. Hughes was not investigated by the CJSTC arm of the FDLE, but rather by the Office of Executive Investigations (EI) branch of the FDLE. Mr. Lehman's apparent point was that our complaint to the CJSTC and the criminal complaint on Mr. Hughes to the EI branch of the FDLE was not a fair comparison.

Actually, VolusiaExposed had a clear understanding of the role of the EI branch of the FDLE. We anticipated that Mr. Lehman would insist on clarifying the different roles of the CJSTC and the Office of Executive Investigations. Our goal was, upon Mr. Lehman's clarification and explanation of the role of the Office of Executive Investigation, we would advise him of his apparent responsiblity to report our complaint as a possible violation of Florida criminal statutes by government officials, to the Office of Executive Investigations, as we did in our March 5, 2012 response to Mr. Lehman.

However, in his March 5, 2012 email, Mr. Lehman still appears to insist that F.S. 943.1395(6)(a) gives the CJSTC the authority to require the name and address of the complainant in order to declare the complaint as "verifiable". VolusiaExposed maintains that F.S. 943.1395 makes no such requirement, that the complainant provide his/her name and address in order to make the complaint a "verifiable" complaint (see below list copy of the statute). Further in his March 1, 2012 email communication (see above linked copy), Mr Lehman openly admits that "Commission rule does not address how verifiable complaints are received, processed, or what elements they must contain".

F.S. 943.1395(6)(a)
(6) The commission shall revoke the certification of any officer who is not in compliance with the provisions of s. 943.13(4) or who intentionally executes a false affidavit established in s. 943.13(8), s. 943.133(2), or s. 943.139(2).
(a) The commission shall cause to be investigated any ground for revocation from the employing agency pursuant to s. 943.139 or from the Governor, and the commission may investigate verifiable complaints. Any investigation initiated by the commission pursuant to this section must be completed within 6 months after receipt of the completed report of the disciplinary or internal affairs investigation from the employing agency or Governor's office. A verifiable complaint shall be completed within 1 year after receipt of the complaint. An investigation shall be considered completed upon a finding by a probable cause panel of the commission. These time periods shall be tolled during the appeal of a termination or other disciplinary action through the administrative or judicial process or during the period of any criminal prosecution of the officer.

Further in our March 5, 2012 email, we advised Mr. Lehman that records tend to support that the CJSTC did investigate an anonymous complaint, in reference to Levy County Sheriff Deputy Charles Johnson. RUH ROH (in the voice of Scooby Doo) - Did the CJSTC violate it's own "practice" and actually accept an anonymous complaint? Thus, is the rationale why VolusiaExposed MUST insist that our complaint be processed under Florida Statutes and Administrative Codes, and NOT the ever changing "practices" of the CJSTC / FDLE.

Interestingly, after we revealed to Mr. Lehman our knowledge of the Deputy Johnson case, he and his supervisor Mr. Hopkins invited us to call them to discuss the matter in further detail.(see Mr. Lehman's March 6, 2012 email) We invite you to read our response to their invitation.

Sadly, the CJSTC refusal to investigate our complaint is more of a common practice then most might care to believe. In our opinion, the FDLE / CJSTC have become nothing more than the political police department of the Governor's office. Next time you become aware of an incident of police corruption, and you stop to wonder, how did the corruption get so bad, before it was discovered and corrected? Know that the answer to your question has been published right here. While many of the citizens of Florida are led to believe that the FDLE are the heroes of our law enforcement community, that they ensure the integrity and honesty of all law enforcement officers within the State of Florida, the hard cold truth appears to be that they are more interested in promoting political agendas.

The time has come for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to decide - are they going to be our heroes in law enforcement, or the political henchmen of corrupt political dynasties?