Local

Undisclosed: Civil suit, criminal probe collide in Davis’s $15M verdict

A SERIES

Part 3: A crisis manufactured?

Editor’s Note: This is Part 3 in a multi-part series examining the legal battle between the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) and ACSO Sgt. Kevin Davis.

GAINESVILLE – In the aftermath of the $15 million verdict against the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO), one question looms larger with each new revelation: Was the public narrative shaped by something more than facts? Over the course of nearly two years, a succession of lawsuits, employee complaints, and media coverage created an image of dysfunction and misconduct inside Sheriff Clovis Watson’s administration. But a closer look raises an unsettling possibility – that the Sheriff was not just a defendant in court, but rather a target in a coordinated campaign.

In early 2023, Kevin Davis filed a reverse discrimination civil lawsuit against Watson, alleging he had been repeatedly passed over for promotion because he is white. On the very same day the civil lawsuit was filed, Davis’s attorney, Bobi Frank, contacted the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) in a bid to have that agency launch a criminal investigation targeting Watson and his administration. In the following months, Frank’s clientele grew to include not just Davis, but also numerous other ACSO employees who either sued the Sheriff or became key witnesses in both civil and criminal proceedings.

Nearly all of those individuals were granted immunity in the FDLE criminal probe initiated at Frank’s request. But none of that context ever reached the public or the jury.

Litigation or Strategy?

From an outside perspective, the sheer volume of legal action against Watson created an unmistakable impression. Davis sued. Capt. Rebecca Butscher sued. Sgt. Frank Williams sued. Each lawsuit was fodder for a hungry media that resulted in a dog and pony show through traditional and online media, often with minimal pushback from the Sheriff’s Office, which cited ongoing litigation as the reason for silence.

Media outlets, including local TV stations and regional newspapers, whether wittingly or not, began framing the Sheriff’s Office as a troubled agency beset by scandals and legal defeats. In one article, published in The Gainesville Sun in June 2023, attorney Bobi Frank claimed Watson rescinded disciplinary actions against officers not out of fairness, but to avoid further exposure of unlawful behavior. That assertion was given prominent placement, while Watson’s own statement explaining his actions received lesser placement near the bottom.

The Media Echo Chamber

What many of the stories published at the time failed to disclose was that many of the individuals now cast as victims had been represented by Frank – the same attorney who had sought the FDLE criminal investigation underpinning their claims. Nor did the coverage ever explore the broader implications of granting immunity to key witnesses or the concerns that Frank had simultaneously brought civil claims while using a state agency to investigate so-called criminal acts.

Meanwhile, Frank’s involvement with the criminal investigation was shielded from the public and jury’s view. And the media did not report that the State Attorney for the Third Circuit, John Durrett determined that it was not Watson or his administration who acted illegally, but rather, it was Frank’s own client.

Even the $15 million civil jury verdict for Davis was reported without key context: defendant Watson was black, plaintiff Davis was white and the jury was all white. For a case grounded in claims of racial discrimination, the absence of this detail from some mainstream coverage was striking. It left the public with the impression that a grave injustice had occurred – without raising the possibility that public perception itself had been manipulated. It was also clear that negative attention directed to ACSO was exacerbated by social media comments.

Controlled Narrative, Controlled Venue

Adding to the concern is how FDLE’s investigation played out. According to records, the agency conducted several witness interviews at Frank’s law office – a highly unusual practice that raises questions about independence and influence. At least one witness, former ACSO Capt. Brandon Kutner, admitted to secretly recording another meeting involving Frank and another one of her clients. Kutner did not speak to FDLE on the record until after he was granted immunity by the State Attorney’s Office.

Frank’s use of her law office as the location for multiple FDLE interviews – while simultaneously representing many of the same individuals – suggests that there may have been undue influence over the flow of information to FDLE. These circumstances raise legitimate concerns about whether the investigation was shaped by an attorney with a personal stake in its outcome.

The Courtroom Battle Over Optics and Scope

Pretrial motions in Davis’s civil trial provide additional insight into how each side attempted to shape the courtroom environment. Frank filed a motion requesting that ACSO deputies be prohibited from wearing their duty firearms while testifying. The defense opposed it, arguing that deputies appearing in uniform, sidearm included, was standard practice. The court sided with the defense, but the motion underscored Frank’s efforts to influence how the jury would perceive law enforcement witnesses.

On the other side, the defense filed a motion seeking to block the introduction of any evidence or testimony related to the FDLE criminal investigation. The concern was that introducing references to an open criminal probe – requested by plaintiff Davis’s counsel – would unfairly suggest wrongdoing where no charges had been filed.

At the hearing, Frank argued that the FDLE investigation was highly relevant and should not be excluded. Judge Gloria Walker ultimately denied the defense’s motion, allowing testimony about the investigation, even though FDLE’s probe was still ongoing and would later conclude without criminal charges.

This is particularly significant given the nature of Davis’s lawsuit. His civil complaint centered on allegations of reverse racial discrimination and retaliation – not illegal recordings or other alleged crimes that were of interest to FDLE. Yet FDLE’s investigation only resulted in two referred charges, both related to alleged unlawful recordings. Neither of those involved Davis directly, and both were ultimately declined by State Attorney Durrett.

A Verdict Built on Air?

Currently, with ACSO still fighting to vacate the verdict, the stakes could not be higher. A case that began with a disputed promotion has evolved into a test of the justice system itself. Was the lawsuit a standalone complaint? Or was it the first move in a broader campaign to dismantle an administration through legal pressure and media manipulation?

The legal record may never answer that question. But the sequence of events – and the gaps in what the public was allowed to know – deserve closer scrutiny.

Next in Part 4: What the Jury Never Saw

Testimony, motions, and exhibits told only part of the story. In Part 4, we examine the critical facts that never reached the jury — including immunity deals, ethical blind spots, and courtroom decisions that shaped what could and could not be revealed. If the jury had the full picture, would the verdict have changed?

#     #     #

Email editor@alachuatoday.com

HIGH SPRINGS ‒ The High Springs City Commission voted unanimously on June 12, 2025, to approve a resolution setting the next municipal election for Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025. The election will determine who fills Commission Seat 3, currently held by Mayor Tristan Grunder.

Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Election Day. The City Clerk will serve as the Supervisor of Elections for the City of High Springs.

Qualifying Period

The qualifying period for candidates will open at 7:30 a.m. on Monday, July 21, and close at 6 p.m. on Thursday, July 24.

Candidate Fees

The qualifying fee for the 2025 election is 1 percent of the annual salary for the seat, which amounts to $111.24. Candidates may alternatively submit an Affidavit of Undue Burden in lieu of paying the fee.

Candidates must submit completed Florida Voter Registration Applications and fee payments to the High Springs City Clerk’s Office at 23718 W. U.S. Highway 27, High Springs, FL 32643. Registration forms are available on the Alachua County Supervisor of Elections website at www.votealachua.com.

Candidate Information Packets

Candidate filing packets containing all necessary forms are available through the City Clerk’s Office. Prospective candidates can request a packet by calling 386-454-1416, Option 6, or by emailing cityclerk@highsprings.gov.

Voter Registration

Voter registration is handled by the Alachua County Supervisor of Elections. Residents can verify their registration status, register to vote, or find polling location information by visiting www.votealachua.com or calling 352-374-5252.

#     #     #

Email cwalker@

alachuatoday.com

ALACHUA – The Alachua Chamber of Commerce’s 36th annual Sportsfest Golf Tournament teed off June 14 at Turkey Creek Golf Course, bringing together local teams, sponsors, and volunteers for a day of charity and competition.

Despite hot temperatures and rain, the tournament saw strong participation and fundraising success, generating more than $30,000 to support local schools and youth programs.

Held each year on the Saturday before Father’s Day, Sportsfest is a collaboration between the Alachua Chamber of Commerce, local businesses, and community partners. The event not only offers a day of friendly golf competition but also raises critical funding for educational and recreational initiatives across the community.

Earlier this year, the Chamber awarded $22,000 in grants to six local organizations using proceeds from the tournament. Grant recipients included Irby Elementary, Alachua Elementary, Santa Fe High School PTSA, the Santa Fe High School Hospitality Council, a joint Mebane Middle School/Kiwanis Club initiative, and the City of Alachua Recreation Department.

The tournament weekend began with the Corporate Sponsor Scramble on Friday, featuring more than 30 players. On Saturday, 96 players took to the course, joined by some 30 volunteers.

The competition concluded with the tournament’s signature Shootout, where qualifying teams vied for bragging rights and prize money. Tower Hill Insurance claimed victory in the Shootout and also took first place in Friday’s Corporate Scramble.

Tournament Results

Net Winners

1. Scherer Construction
2. Sysco
3. Edward Jones – Matt Surrency

Low Gross Score

1. Waste Pro
2. Sysco
3. New Generation Builders

Shootout Winner

Tower Hill Insurance

This year’s tournament was presented by Dollar General as the Tournament Sponsor and Capital City Bank as the Shootout Sponsor. More than 50 sponsors contributed through hole sponsorships, raffle donations, hospitality stations, and corporate team entries. Raffle prizes ranged from gift cards and hotel stays to TVs and new golf equipment, all donated by area businesses.

The Sportsfest Committee recognized all tournament sponsors with a special shoutout to hospitality sponsors Mi Apa Latin Café, Conestogas Restaurant, and Coca-Cola for keeping players and volunteers fueled throughout the day.

“This tournament is more than just a great time—it’s a tradition rooted in giving back,” said Sportsfest Committee Chair Michelle Vickers. “Thank you, Alachua, for always showing up and showing out!”

#     #     #

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:

1. 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.
2. 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

NEWBERRY – A 19-year-old Newberry man previously arrested in connection with a stolen firearm has now been formally charged with burglary and the theft of two additional guns related to the same 2024 incident, authorities said.

Jacques Demetrius Harris was charged in May 2025 in connection with a Sept. 23, 2024, burglary during which four firearms were reported stolen from a vehicle in Newberry. The weapons included a Diamondback 9mm handgun, a Glock 19, a Canik Elite Combat 9mm handgun with a gold barrel, and a CZ Scorpion 9mm pistol equipped with a pistol brace.

Harris had previously been arrested on Nov. 4, 2024, after a traffic stop revealed a Taurus pistol—reported stolen just two days after the September burglary—in his vehicle, according to an arrest report. Deputies noted at the time that Harris was dressed entirely in black and was wearing a ski mask. He was released the following day on $77,000 bail. In January, prosecutors filed formal charges including grand theft of a firearm, unlawful concealed carry of a firearm, possession of marijuana under 20 grams, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

On March 4, 2025, Harris was again pulled over in Newberry, this time driving a black Nissan. The front seat passenger was identified as Edwin Lee Daniels III, and the rear passenger as Neville Lowe. A probable cause search of the vehicle uncovered marijuana and a Glock 19—the same model reported stolen during the September burglary.

Investigators noted that this theft occurred near the same Newberry neighborhood, close to railroad tracks, and within days of the theft of the Taurus pistol recovered in the earlier stop.

At the time of the March stop, Harris was already on pre-trial release and under court orders not to possess firearms or illegal substances. Daniels, the front-seat passenger, was a convicted felon and legally prohibited from having a firearm.

A search warrant was issued for four cell phones—two belonging to Harris and one each to Daniels and Lowe. According to the arrest report, investigators discovered multiple images on Harris’ phone dated Sept. 30, 2024, showing Harris and others holding firearms. Some photos included metadata indicating they were taken at Harris’ residence, including one of a CZ Scorpion pistol believed to be the same firearm stolen in the Newberry case.

Other images showed Harris holding a Canik TP9 Elite Combat Executive pistol with a gold barrel—matching the description of another weapon reported stolen. One video, reportedly taken on the day of the burglary, showed a serial number that matched a stolen firearm from the earlier ACSO case.

In the arrest report, the investigating deputy wrote: “Harris has been caught with a stolen firearm in his vehicle at two different times in Alachua County. I have time- and date-stamped photos, some of which were taken the same day of the burglary, showing the stolen guns... In one of the above photos (taken from a video on the phone) you can clearly see the serial number of one of the stolen weapons.”

The report also cited probable cause to charge Harris with grand theft of a firearm and armed burglary of a conveyance under Florida Statutes 812.014(2)(c)(5) and 810.02(2)(b), respectively.

Though Harris is currently on pre-trial release in two other criminal cases, this latest charge does not violate those release conditions because it stems from conduct that occurred prior to those arrests. He has no prior criminal convictions.

Following his most recent arrest, bail was set at $250,000 by Judge Meshon Rawls. In the November case, although his bond had been revoked after the March arrest, Judge Aymer “Buck” Curtin later released Harris on his own recognizance. He was also released on recognizance in the present case after formal charges were not filed within the 40-day deadline, per an order by Judge Denise Ferrero on April 17.

The investigation remains ongoing.

Bail was set at $250,000 by Judge Meshon Rawls.

#     #     #

Email cwalker@

alachuatoday.com

HIGH SPRINGS ‒ The High Springs City Commission voted unanimously on June 12, 2025, to approve an increase in the City’s Fire Assessment Fee, raising the residential rate to $250 for Fiscal Year 2026.

During the commission meeting, Fire Chief Joe Peters and Public Information Officer Kevin Mangan presented the results of a comprehensive study analyzing the number of fire service calls across residential, commercial, industrial/warehouse, and institutional categories for the 2023-24 period. The study, which cost approximately $16,500, was the City’s first since 2008 and showed significant growth in all categories.

Fire Assessment Fees are billed annually alongside property taxes and fund fire protection services. The current residential assessment has remained at $223 since 2021. That rate had also been in place from 2018 to 2020 before a temporary increase tied to the City’s transition to providing advanced life support (ALS) services.

“The money collected from the Fire Assessment must be used for the Fire Department only,” Peters emphasized.

Under Florida law, the City must structure the fees proportionally to the usage levels within each property classification. According to the study, the distribution of fire service usage is as follows: residential properties account for 68.75 percent of service calls, commercial properties 18.40 percent, industrial/warehouse properties 4.51 percent, and institutional properties 8.33 percent.

City staff presented four potential scenarios for updating the fire assessment structure. The first two scenarios maintained the current residential rate of $223, with varying adjustments to non-residential rates. The third scenario proposed increasing the residential fee to $239, while the fourth scenario recommended raising it to $250 and adjusting the other categories proportionally.

The commission adopted the fourth scenario, which is projected to generate approximately $969,220 in revenue.

Under the approved rates:

• Residential properties will be assessed at $250 annually.
• Commercial properties will be charged $0.24 per square foot.
• Industrial/warehouse properties will be charged $0.07 per square foot.
• Institutional properties will be charged $0.16 per square foot.

According to the City, the updated fire assessment is necessary to maintain legal compliance and ensure adequate funding for fire protection services amid increasing demand.

#     #     #

Email cwalker@

alachuatoday.com