Sarasota Herald-Tribune.
SARASOTA, Fla. — Sheriff Tom Knight has extreme leeway in deciding whether to investigate complaints of possible wrongdoing by his deputies, something that has come into sharper focus in recent weeks after accusations that a sheriff’s captain molested an underage girl.
The sheriff, along with his counterparts around the state, is under no requirement to explain or justify why he does — or does not — order an investigation when a complaint is received.
A Herald-Tribune review of the 40 cases where Knight ordered an internal affairs investigation shows a scattershot approach.
Last fall, Knight took no action on an anonymous allegation that Sheriff’s Capt. Ron Locke molested an underage girl in the mid-1990s. Yet months later, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement learned of the allegations and launched an investigation by state agents.
But Knight acted swiftly when a tipster reported that four detectives and two supervisors drank alcohol and acted inappropriately at a Sarasota bar. That internal affairs case led to suspensions for all involved.
When a sergeant played a prank on Knight by signing him up for junk mail and diet books without the sheriff’s consent, the officer was investigated, pushed to the brink of termination and charged with identity theft.
When a deputy showed up late for a meeting, he was investigated, charged with being absent without leave and suspended for two days.
A complaint that two sergeants had an inappropriate relationship with a female inmate was not upheld. A third sergeant accused of acting in the same manner with the very same inmate was demoted.
When the sheriff orders an internal affairs investigation, the employee is found guilty 92.5 percent of the time. When the public calls to request and investigation, their complaints are sustained about 63 percent of the time, records show.
The result of Knight’s freedom to choose whom to investigate — along with his right to avoid investigating a case like Capt. Locke’s — may open the sheriff to questions about the consistency of his discipline.
Knight said he acts in a fair manner. He said comparisons of individual cases involving high-ranking and low-ranking employees are inherently not fair, because each allegation is different.
“Every condition takes on its own situation,” he said. “It’s not apples to apples.”
Michael McHale, president of the Southwest Florida Police Benevolent Association, said his members want the same standards used whether the accused is a high-ranking officer or a rank-and-file deputy.
“Our position is the sheriff should be consistent with discipline,” McHale said. “Once the decision is made to alter how investigations are conducted, it raises suspicion internally and externally.”
Knight countered that his system of discipline is fair. The process was reviewed by a police legal adviser from the Miami-Dade Police Department after Knight became sheriff.
“He said you have a good system, stay with it,” the sheriff said.
40 investigations
Knight is listed as the complainant on more than 40 internal affairs investigations that have been launched since he was elected in 2008.
Seven have resulted in criminal charges.
Some are similar to the Locke investigation and involve allegations from outside agencies. In many of the reports, the identity of the accuser is concealed.
When Knight received an anonymous letter in May 2010 accusing a half-dozen of his undercover detectives of misbehaving at an Evie’s Bar in May 2010, he waited only a few days before ordering an internal affairs investigation.
The anonymous complainant accused the detectives of using profane language, taking illicit pictures of each other in the bathroom and then driving home in county-owned cars after a night of hard drinking.
Four detectives received suspensions ranging from 24 to 48 hours. The two supervisors drew the harsher discipline.
Knight said he took action against the detectives because that anonymous complaint contained more details than the one made against Locke.
“A lot of it is, what info I have,” he said. “You gotta remember, in that case there was a lot more to it than hearsay and rumors.”
Knight received the email about Locke in October, five months before the FDLE started its probe, which eventually cleared the captain of legal wrongdoing. The FDLE uncovered three potential policy violations by Locke.
Knight said recently that his internal affairs division is now investigating one of those possible violations: whether Locke misused the state computer system to keep tabs on the victim and her mother.
Plea deal for prankster
While the sheriff can rely on a written complaint, Knight also has the authority to order an internal affairs investigation himself.
In July, after he was the victim of a prank, Knight ordered an investigation that led to Sgt. Edward Hale being charged with violating a state identity theft statute.
Knight was receiving an “inordinate amount of junk mail,” as well as nearly $100 worth of diet books, at his office. The abundance of mail also “caused an undue workload increase to agency members,” the internal affairs report states.
With help from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Internal Affairs Lt. Mike Mercurio tracked the orders to Hale, who was placed on paid leave throughout the investigation.
In a written statement, Hale admitted to signing the sheriff up for what he thought was free literature, calling it “innocuous mischievous humor and nothing else.”
But Mercurio found that Hale violated two department policies: conformance with laws and conduct unbecoming.
Hale, 52, retired before receiving any discipline. In a plea deal finalized in May, prosecution was deferred in lieu of 50 hours of community service.
Hale declined to comment for this story, but his attorney, Peter Lombardo, said one of the elements of the crime that Hale faced was whether Knight “suffered severe emotional distress” as a result of the prank.
“The sheriff put in a sworn affidavit that Mr. Hale’s actions caused him severe emotional distress,” Lombardo said. “If they were missing that element, the case clearly would have been dismissed.”
Lombardo — who has represented 20 law enforcement officers in administrative hearings around Florida, although none have been in Sarasota County — said he has seen a decided lack of consistency.
“Sheriffs should make an effort to mete out discipline fairly and honestly,” he said. “If they don’t, it creates a big morale problem.”
Sarasota County Sheriff Tom Knight says his system of discipline is fair, and that each allegation is different.
Copyright 2012 Sarasota Herald-Tribune Co.