Undisclosed: Civil suit, criminal probe collide in Davis’s $15M verdict
A SERIES
Part 4: What the jury never saw – the allegations that collapsed
Editor’s Note: This is Part 4 in a multi-part series examining the legal battle between the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) and ACSO Sgt. Kevin Davis.
GAINESVILLE – In a civil trial that ended with a $15 million verdict against the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO), the jury heard evidence framed around the existence of a separate criminal investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). But what they never heard – because much of it was excluded, undisclosed, or developed too late – was that many of the underlying allegations in the criminal investigation collapsed under scrutiny.
The Only Two FDLE Findings
According to FDLE’s final investigative summary, only two allegations formed the basis of potential criminal findings:
- That former ACSO Captain Brandon Kutner unlawfully monitored privileged communications under the direction of ACSO leadership, a claim based solely on Kutner’s own testimony.
- That a document from an internal affairs investigation involving Sgt. Kevin Davis was concealed or destroyed – an allegation FDLE said was corroborated by testimony from two employees.
However, in February 2025, State Attorney John Durrett declined to prosecute either allegation in the criminal investigation. In a letter to FDLE, Durrett wrote that the interception charge was “based entirely on the immunized testimony of a singular witness.” Regarding the document destruction claim, Durrett stated there was “nothing contained in what was received and reviewed implicating Mr. Watson” in such a decision. In both cases, the State Attorney found the evidence too weak to support prosecution.
Beyond those two rejected findings, the remaining dozens of allegations – spanning more than 60 pages of FDLE’s report – either lacked evidence, were disproven, or were found to involve no criminal conduct. And yet, these unfounded allegations helped fuel a media and legal frenzy that cast Sheriff Watson as a corrupt actor – without the facts to support it.
Among the unproven or discredited rumors and speculations widely circulated:
- The Dealership Accusation: Public rumor suggested Sheriff Watson had steered vehicle purchases to a local dealership employing his son. However, FDLE records contain no findings validating the claim. In fact, there is no evidence that any such purchases occurred during Watson’s tenure.
- Per Diem Abuse: Concerns circulated that Watson abused per diem reimbursements. Yet the FDLE report includes no evidence that Watson ever requested per diem during his time in office. This accusation, widely repeated, appears to have no basis in fact.
- Personnel File Snooping: Allegations that Watson improperly accessed employee personnel files were investigated but found to be unsupported. No criminal conduct was identified.
- Favoritism and Cronyism: Claims of racially biased hiring and promotions – central to the reverse discrimination narrative in the civil suit– were reviewed but not substantiated as criminal. FDLE concluded these were administrative, not unlawful.
A Long History of Litigation
Notably, Sgt. Kevin Davis had previously sued the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office – including then-Sheriff Sadie Darnell. That earlier case alleged First Amendment retaliation after Davis was passed over for opportunities following a letter he wrote to the editor of The Gainesville Sun defending another deputy. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2019, was later voluntarily dismissed by Davis.
Sources within ACSO suggest Davis’s repeated failures to advance were not because of his race or political beliefs – but because he was perceived internally as a habitual litigator and workplace disruptor. His personnel file reflected patterns that cast doubt on the sincerity of his later discrimination claims.
The Witch Hunt Framework
What emerges from FDLE’s records isn’t just a lack of evidence – it’s a pattern of overreach. The allegations were wide-ranging, overlapping, and often contradictory. And nearly all of them led back to a small circle of individuals: a handful of disgruntled employees, an attorney with a stake in both the civil and criminal outcomes, and a state investigative agency that allowed itself to be drawn into a political and legal crossfire.
Attorney Bobi Frank wasn’t merely representing clients; she was crafting the narrative. It was Frank who requested the FDLE investigation the same day Davis’s civil lawsuit was filed. It was Frank who appeared with or represented at least eight of the key witnesses in the FDLE investigation, many of whom testified in the civil trial as well. It was Frank whose own law office served as the venue for early FDLE interviews. And it was Frank who became the central figure in the very allegations that eventually collapsed – illegally eavesdropping or recording conversations.
FDLE, whether knowingly or not, became the tool. The agency conducted dozens of interviews, collected documents, and issued subpoenas – all of which gave the appearance of serious criminal inquiry. But the final result was paper-thin. The only potential charges – both rejected – rested on the word of immunized witnesses, including one who admitted to illegally monitoring his own attorney.
What Was Left Unsaid
Despite this, jurors heard testimony about an “ongoing criminal investigation” – but never learned that the only two potential charges were ultimately rejected, and that most of the other claims had been discredited or were irrelevant to Davis’s discrimination case.
- Equally troubling, they were never informed that:
- Early FDLE witnesses were granted immunity before speaking with investigators;
- Those witnesses were represented by the same attorney, Bobi Frank, who also filed several of the civil claims;
- Several interviews occurred at Frank’s own law office, where she was present – despite the conflict of interest such dual roles might pose.
A Narrative Untethered from Fact
The narrative presented in and outside the courtroom created the perception of a scandal-plagued agency. But FDLE’s own final report told a far more mundane story – one where explosive accusations lacked corroboration, and the most serious claims could not meet even the lowest burden of proof.
Nevertheless, local media – largely fueled by rampant speculation – assisted in crafting a false narrative.
Post-Trial Fallout
Armed with Durrett’s letter and the full FDLE file, ACSO asked the court to amend its post-trial motions to include this new evidence. The court denied the request. As a result, the motion for new trial – set for July 15 – must proceed without the addition of the FDLE reports and Durrett’s letter, which reveal the collapse of the criminal case.
The jury never saw FDLE’s actual findings. They never learned that most allegations were baseless. And they never heard that immunity agreements shielded central witnesses from accountability.
Next in Part 5: Damage Control
As ACSO prepares its final push for a new trial, we examine the ripple effects of the Davis verdict.
# # #
Email editor@alachuatoday.com
Undisclosed: Civil suit, criminal probe collide in Davis’s $15M verdict
A SERIES
Part 4: What the jury never saw – the allegations that collapsed
Editor’s Note: This is Part 4 in a multi-part series examining the legal battle between the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) and ACSO Sgt. Kevin Davis.
GAINESVILLE – In a civil trial that ended with a $15 million verdict against the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO), the jury heard evidence framed around the existence of a separate criminal investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). But what they never heard – because much of it was excluded, undisclosed, or developed too late – was that many of the underlying allegations in the criminal investigation collapsed under scrutiny.
The Only Two FDLE Findings
According to FDLE’s final investigative summary, only two allegations formed the basis of potential criminal findings:
- That former ACSO Captain Brandon Kutner unlawfully monitored privileged communications under the direction of ACSO leadership, a claim based solely on Kutner’s own testimony.
- That a document from an internal affairs investigation involving Sgt. Kevin Davis was concealed or destroyed – an allegation FDLE said was corroborated by testimony from two employees.
However, in February 2025, State Attorney John Durrett declined to prosecute either allegation in the criminal investigation. In a letter to FDLE, Durrett wrote that the interception charge was “based entirely on the immunized testimony of a singular witness.” Regarding the document destruction claim, Durrett stated there was “nothing contained in what was received and reviewed implicating Mr. Watson” in such a decision. In both cases, the State Attorney found the evidence too weak to support prosecution.
Beyond those two rejected findings, the remaining dozens of allegations – spanning more than 60 pages of FDLE’s report – either lacked evidence, were disproven, or were found to involve no criminal conduct. And yet, these unfounded allegations helped fuel a media and legal frenzy that cast Sheriff Watson as a corrupt actor – without the facts to support it.
Among the unproven or discredited rumors and speculations widely circulated:
- The Dealership Accusation: Public rumor suggested Sheriff Watson had steered vehicle purchases to a local dealership employing his son. However, FDLE records contain no findings validating the claim. In fact, there is no evidence that any such purchases occurred during Watson’s tenure.
- Per Diem Abuse: Concerns circulated that Watson abused per diem reimbursements. Yet the FDLE report includes no evidence that Watson ever requested per diem during his time in office. This accusation, widely repeated, appears to have no basis in fact.
- Personnel File Snooping: Allegations that Watson improperly accessed employee personnel files were investigated but found to be unsupported. No criminal conduct was identified.
- Favoritism and Cronyism: Claims of racially biased hiring and promotions – central to the reverse discrimination narrative in the civil suit– were reviewed but not substantiated as criminal. FDLE concluded these were administrative, not unlawful.
A Long History of Litigation
Notably, Sgt. Kevin Davis had previously sued the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office – including then-Sheriff Sadie Darnell. That earlier case alleged First Amendment retaliation after Davis was passed over for opportunities following a letter he wrote to the editor of The Gainesville Sun defending another deputy. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2019, was later voluntarily dismissed by Davis.
Sources within ACSO suggest Davis’s repeated failures to advance were not because of his race or political beliefs – but because he was perceived internally as a habitual litigator and workplace disruptor. His personnel file reflected patterns that cast doubt on the sincerity of his later discrimination claims.
The Witch Hunt Framework
What emerges from FDLE’s records isn’t just a lack of evidence – it’s a pattern of overreach. The allegations were wide-ranging, overlapping, and often contradictory. And nearly all of them led back to a small circle of individuals: a handful of disgruntled employees, an attorney with a stake in both the civil and criminal outcomes, and a state investigative agency that allowed itself to be drawn into a political and legal crossfire.
Attorney Bobi Frank wasn’t merely representing clients; she was crafting the narrative. It was Frank who requested the FDLE investigation the same day Davis’s civil lawsuit was filed. It was Frank who appeared with or represented at least eight of the key witnesses in the FDLE investigation, many of whom testified in the civil trial as well. It was Frank whose own law office served as the venue for early FDLE interviews. And it was Frank who became the central figure in the very allegations that eventually collapsed – illegally eavesdropping or recording conversations.
FDLE, whether knowingly or not, became the tool. The agency conducted dozens of interviews, collected documents, and issued subpoenas – all of which gave the appearance of serious criminal inquiry. But the final result was paper-thin. The only potential charges – both rejected – rested on the word of immunized witnesses, including one who admitted to illegally monitoring his own attorney.
What Was Left Unsaid
Despite this, jurors heard testimony about an “ongoing criminal investigation” – but never learned that the only two potential charges were ultimately rejected, and that most of the other claims had been discredited or were irrelevant to Davis’s discrimination case.
- Equally troubling, they were never informed that:
- Early FDLE witnesses were granted immunity before speaking with investigators;
- Those witnesses were represented by the same attorney, Bobi Frank, who also filed several of the civil claims;
- Several interviews occurred at Frank’s own law office, where she was present – despite the conflict of interest such dual roles might pose.
A Narrative Untethered from Fact
The narrative presented in and outside the courtroom created the perception of a scandal-plagued agency. But FDLE’s own final report told a far more mundane story – one where explosive accusations lacked corroboration, and the most serious claims could not meet even the lowest burden of proof.
Nevertheless, local media – largely fueled by rampant speculation – assisted in crafting a false narrative.
Post-Trial Fallout
Armed with Durrett’s letter and the full FDLE file, ACSO asked the court to amend its post-trial motions to include this new evidence. The court denied the request. As a result, the motion for new trial – set for July 15 – must proceed without the addition of the FDLE reports and Durrett’s letter, which reveal the collapse of the criminal case.
The jury never saw FDLE’s actual findings. They never learned that most allegations were baseless. And they never heard that immunity agreements shielded central witnesses from accountability.
Next in Part 5: Damage Control
As ACSO prepares its final push for a new trial, we examine the ripple effects of the Davis verdict.
# # #
Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.