Did the State Attorney's office drop a felony charge, so not to embarrass the Volusia County Sherriff Department?
Did the State Attorney make proper Brady disclosures to any of the other criminal defendants, that were arrested by the perjurious deputy?
Did the VCSO and the State Attorney fail to criminally charge a VCSO deputy?
Did FDLE / CJSTC fail to open a disciplinary case against the deputy's law enforcement certification?
Is this just another, of many examples, of the little acknowledged disease, of policial corruption, that breeds unabated, within the Volusia County justice system?
June 5, 2012
Records indicate, that on September 29, 2010, Amanda Fackler was arrested by Orange City police on several criminals charges, to include DUI and felony battery on a law enforcement officer. Volusia County Sheriff Deputy Shane Duggan assisted the Orange City police in the arrest of Ms. Fackler.
Records indicate, that Deputy Duggan failed to properly (against VCSO policy) turn over Ms. Fackler's personal property, to police storage for legal retention. That Deputy Duggan, while in uniform, visited Ms. Fackler's place of employment, and successfully secured her personal contact information.
Records indicate, that Deputy Duggan made contact with Ms. Fackler, in order to return her property during a personal and off duty meeting. That such a meeting, along with several cellphone text messages to Ms. Fackler, were flirtatious in nature.
Records indicate, that during an VCSO internal affiars investigation in to his conduct regarding Ms. Fackler, Deputy Duggan committed perjury. Apparently unknown to Deputy Duggan, Ms. Fackler had arranged for her meeting with him to be secretly video taped.
Records indicate, that Ms. Fackler's attorney was successful in using the video taped meeting between Fackler and Duggan, as leverage in having the felony case against Fackler dismissed. Official records (VCSO document) support that the case was dismissed by the State Attorney, in order to simply avoid embarrassment to either the VCSO or Deputy Duggan. Apparently, the felony case against Ms. Fackler was still legally viable, but was only dismissed to avoid the embarrassment.
Former Deputy Duggan's Internal Affairs Report
Former Deputy Duggan's Notice of Termination
Ms. Amanda Fackler's jail booking information
Video Clip from the Duggan-Fackler meeting
The above video is without sound and is just a small clip of the entire 80+ minute meeting between Deputy Duggan and Ms. Fackler - video quality has been reduce to allow for quick play.
QUID PRO QUO - You do for me, I do for you
On State Attorney R.J. Larizza's official website of WWW.SAO7.COM, it states that his office will "pursue justice, without fear, favor, reward or the promise thereof".
We salute Mr. Larizza's apparent committment, to pursue justice, in such a noble manner. However, we now present documentary and video evidence, that questions whether Ms. Amanda Fackler's September 29, 2010 felony arrest was processed under such noble standards.
We suggest that our readers review the Volusia County Sheriff's internal affairs report and termination memorandum, attached to a Deputy Shane Duggan.
(Documents are linked to the right of this web page)
We believe that these documents support that the State Attorney, out of "fear" of embarrassing the VCSO and Deputy Duggan, opted to drop the felony charge of battery of a law enforcement officer, against defendant Amanda Fackler.
Actually, the internal affairs report documents that, the State Attorney dropped the felony charge against Ms. Fackler so as "not to embarrass the Sheriff's department or Deputy Duggan".
VolusiaExposed.Com suggests that such was a favor afforded to the VCSO by the State Attorney's office. Further, does such open the possibility / probability that a "reward", or a QUID PRO QUO "favor" is owed by the VCSO to the Office of the State Attorney?
At the very least, isn't the "promise" of such a political "reward" implied?
FAILURES TO ARREST AND PROSECUTE - WHY?
It's fairly clear by the attached documents, that Ms. Fackler was not prosecuted for her felonious conduct, in order that the VCSO could avoid the embarrassment of Deputy Duggan's conduct.
But, wasn't Deputy Duggan's conduct also illegal? Isn't it illegal to committ perjury? Isn't it illegal to tamper with a witness or obstruct justice?
Maybe, by not criminally charging Deputy Duggan, the VCSO and the State Attorney were actually doing EACH OTHER a favor (Quid Pro Quo).
As a deputy, we would imagine that Deputy Duggan was attached, as a witness, to several open cases within the State Attorney's office. Maybe, even one or two high profile cases would have depended on Deputy Duggan's testimony in court?
Was the State Attorney's office attempting to avoid having to make "Brady Disclosures" to numerous defense attorneys, as per their responsibilities in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)?
If Deputy Duggan had been arrested, his arrest, would have been exculpatory evidence, that the State Attorney would have been mandated to report (under Brady v Maryland) to all defense attorneys attached to a VCSO cases, involving Deputy Duggan.
Regardless, Duggan's administrative charges from the VCSO amount to exculpatory evidence, thus requiring Brady disclosures. Did the State Attorney comply with Brady?
VolusiaExposed.Com has expressed prior concerns regarding the State Attorney's office and Brady Disclosures.
VolusiaExposed.Com article on the State Attorney's failure to maintain a Brady List.
Fogwatch.org's - excellent explanation of the importance of Brady Lists
FDLE's / CJSTC's inactions
The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (CJSTC) responsiblities include taking appropriate disciplinary action against the certification of law enforcement officers. The CJSTC equates to law enforcement officers, as the Florida Bar equates to lawyers.
The CJSTC advertises that their mission is, to ensure that all citizens of Florida are served by criminal justice officers who are ethical, qualified, and well-trained. Let's see if they (CJSTC) has lived up to their mission statement.
A review of Deputy Duggan's CJSTC file, appears to indicate that the CJSTC was aware that, the VCSO had sustained an administrative charge of perjury against Deputy Duggan. Such a charge, if sustained, is considered to be a violation of the Florida Officer Moral Character code (FAC 11B-27)
Moral Character Code - FAC 11B-27
However, the CJSTC records indicate that they "no caused" the complaint, commonly referred to as a CJSTC 78 form.
Deputy Duggan's CJSTC 78 form
While the VCSO did NOT file criminal charges against Deputy Duggan, they did appear to have appropriately handled the administrative complaint to FDLE.
In our opinion, the FDLE / CJSTC should have opened an administrative complaint against Deputy Duggan and probably, should have revoked his law enforcement certification, within the State of Florida. FDLE's failure to take such appropriate action, leaves open the possibility that Deputy Duggan can once again wear a badge in Florida.
Former Deputy Shane Duggan's CJSTC disciplinary history
Is it possible, that since the CJSTC and the State Attorney are both state agencies, that the CJSTC was assisting the State Attorney, in cloaking Deputy Duggan's veracity issues, by not opening a CJSTC disciplinary case on his law enforcement certification?
How would you like, in the future, to be pull over by Deputy or Officer Duggan? Due to the fact that the CJSTC took NO action, that possibility does exist. Do you think that the FDLE / CJSTC took the right action?
VolusiaExposed.Com's past concerns with the FDLE / CJSTC
In 2011, the Sarasota Herald Tribune published a series of articles on how local agencies (State Attorney, police departments) and the CJSTC fail to properly address police corruption within the entire State of Florida. We have attached these article below, so that you may see that our concerns have been validated by others.
CLOSING COMMENTS & OBSERVATIONS
We suspect that many of our readers have been following the recent developments in the George Zimmerman case. His bond was revoked, and the judge in his case has even suggested that Zimmerman's wife should be charged with perjury in regards to the testimony she provided during George's April 20, 2012 bond hearing.
Surely, if citizens (Mrs. Zimmerman) are to be held criminally accountable for their sworn testimony, then we should expect, and demand, that our sworn law enforcement officers be held to the same standard, if not a higher standard.
Interestly, Florida law grants law enforcement agencies some discretion on whether to arrest on many misdemeanor crimes. However, Florida law does NOT grant any law enforcement discretion for felony crimes. Therefore, in our opinion, the VCSO had no discretion regarding their responsibility to file criminal charges on Deputy Duggan.
However, it is noted that the State Attorney DOES have the discretion not to prosecute, even if the charge has been filed by law enforcement. So the possibility exists that the VCSO did not file any criminal charges against Deputy Duggan, already knowing that the State Attorney would not prosecute. After all, if Deputy Duggan had been criminally prosecuted, it would have negated the "favor" that the State Attorney had extended to the VCSO and Deputy Duggan, by dropping the charge against Ms. Fackler.
In the end, this incident appears to be a mere symptom of a severely corrupt criminal justice system. In Volusia County, this corruption goes un-noticed by many, and un-abated by those in authority. Even FDLE / CJSTC, the agency that Florida residents trust to ensure that our law enforcement officers stay within ethical guidelines, appears to have no concerns that Deputy Duggan's own department sustained an administrative perjury charge against him.
Recently, Volusia Beach Patrol Captain Jecoa Simmons had to face criminal charges, due to his perjurious conduct. Why didn't Deputy Duggan have to do the same?
Media article - Beach Patrol officer found guilty of perjury
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE SERIES ON LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRUPTION
by Matthew Doig and Anthony Cormier