FDLE Investigators, Attorney Separated from Employment

Updates appear chronologically below:

 Staff Report 1:54PM (Eastern)

ALACHUA – Criminal charges against three Santa Fe High School administrators have been formally dismissed, abruptly ending a high-profile case that unraveled after more than two years of disruption to school life at Santa Fe High.

On Jan. 9, 2026, the State Attorney for Florida’s Eighth Judicial Circuit filed a “No Information” in each case — for retired Principal Timothy Wright, former Assistant Principal David “Mac” Rendek, and Athletic Director and Title IX officer Michele Faulk — dismissing all charges before formal prosecution ever began.

The dismissals mark the collapse of a controversial prosecution initiated by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), which had accused the trio of violating:

• Stat. § 39.205(1)
  Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse – Third-Degree Felony
• Stat. § 827.03(2)(d)
  Child Neglect Without Great Bodily Harm – Third-Degree Felony

Despite the severity of the accusations, no charges were ever brought against baseball coach Travis Yeckring, the figure at the center of the investigation. The State Attorney's decision not to proceed underscores deep flaws in the case — and raises broader questions about investigative integrity and institutional accountability.

As first reported by Alachua County Today in July 2025, FDLE’s sworn complaints leaned heavily on secondhand accounts, inconsistent witness interviews, and allegations that evolved over time.

Among the most serious accusations was that Yeckring had shown a student a “semi-nude” or “nude” photo of himself. FDLE confiscated Yeckring’s phone but never produced an image or any evidence of wrongdoing.

Alachua County Today has confirmed with sources speaking on condition of anonymity that at least three FDLE employees involved with the investigation are no longer employed by the agency.

This is a developing story, and Alachua County Today will continue to seek additional information.

#     #     #

email editor@

alachuatoday.com

UPDATE 3:29 PM (EASTERN TIME)

BELOW IS A STATEMENT FROM THE STATE ATTORNEY

BRIAN S. KRAMER STATE ATTORNEY

EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA SERVING

ALACHUA, BAKER, BRADFORD, GILCHRIST, LEVY AND UNION COUNTIES

120 WEST UNIVERSITY AVENUE GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32601

TELEPHONE

(352) 374 – 3670

PLEASE REPLY TO:

MEMORANDUM TO FILE

Date:            January 7, 2026

Subject:       01-2025-CF-001853-A Defendant: Faulk, Michele Roberts

Re:              Case Closing Memorandum

Introduction

On June 19, 2025, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) submitted a sworn complaint alleging that the above-named defendant(s) violated Florida Statutes § 39.205 (Penalties relating to reporting of abuse, abandonment, or neglect) and § 827.03(2)(d) (Neglecting a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement).

• Florida Statute 39.205: This statute makes it a felony of the third degree for a person who "knowingly and willfully fails to report to the central abuse hotline known or suspected child abuse, abandonment, or neglect, or who knowingly and willfully prevents another person from doing so."
• Florida Statute 827.03(2)(d): This statute makes it a felony of the third degree for "[a] person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child."

In summary, these allegations stem from the conduct of Travis Yeckring, who was at the relevant time both a baseball coach and a teacher at Santa Fe High School. It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Yeckring’s conduct was inappropriate, reprehensible, and a likely violation of school policies. FDLE alleges probable cause exists to show that Mr. Yeckring engaged in conduct with students that raised a suspicion of child abuse, and that the defendant(s) violated the above-referenced statutes by failing to report these acts. The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the novel legal theory of guilt proposed by FDLE to support these allegations and to determine the proper disposition of this matter.

Role of the State Attorney's Office

During any law enforcement investigation, the State Attorney's office serves in an advisory role to the law enforcement agency. The State Attorney has no authority over the investigation until the law enforcement agency files a sworn criminal complaint or makes an arrest. In its advisory capacity, the State Attorney may perform certain legal functions on behalf of the agency, such as issuing a subpoena for documents or approving a search warrant for submission to the Court. At times, the agency may informally request opinions on the legal sufficiency of a particular charge or the probability of success at trial. While practices may differ, this office generally provides such informal opinions when asked.

Investigation Background and FDLE's Position

During this investigation, the investigating officers met and communicated with this office on several occasions. As the investigation neared completion, FDLE asked for an informal opinion as to the legal sufficiency of the charges that were ultimately submitted for prosecution. During that conversation, the agents explicitly stated that Mr. Yeckring had not committed any provable criminal act.

There was no probable cause to believe that Mr. Yeckring committed an act of child abuse upon any person. The agents made it clear that no criminal case is forthcoming to this office against Mr. Yeckring for any charge.

An Assistant State Attorney, after conducting extensive legal research and internal discussions, opined that it would be both legally and practically impossible to charge any of the named defendants with a criminal act unless there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendants knew Mr. Yeckring had committed an act of child abuse against a victim, and the defendant failed to report it. The agents requested that the States Attorney’s Office conduct further research, describing Mr. Yeckring's conduct as "unlawful," though they maintained there would be no charges against him. Essentially, the agents asked that the State Attorney’s Office conduct further research because Yeckring's conduct was reprehensible and they felt that there should be a way to charge the individuals (presumably school staff/administration) for failing to report that behavior to the Department of Children and Families (DCF).

Allegations of Misconduct

Understanding the opinion expressed by the Assistant State Attorney, FDLE submitted a sworn complaint against the defendant(s). The complaint alleges that Mr. Yeckring was the baseball coach at Santa Fe High School and the investigation, in its broadest terms, concerned allegations of inappropriate, and perhaps sexual, activity between Mr. Yeckring and several female students.

This type of matter would normally fall within the purview of either the City of Alachua Police Department or the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office. While FDLE has jurisdiction, when FDLE investigates conduct of this nature, it is normally because the local agency has requested FDLE’s intervention. Here, there was no such request. Nonetheless, FDLE's investigation concluded that Mr. Yeckring committed the following acts (the State Attorney’s office accepts these allegations as true for the purpose of this memorandum):

The FDLE complaint alleges the following acts by Mr. Yeckring:

• Communication: Communicated with female students on social media.
• Awkwardness: Engaged in conversations with female students that resulted in the student feeling “awkward.”
• Staring: Inappropriately stared at female students.
• Relationships: Engaged female students in conversations regarding the status of their romantic relationships.
• Inappropriate Photos: Showed female students pictures of:
  • His dog(s).
  • His dog(s) with him in the picture.
  • Himself without a shirt.
  • Himself shirtless with a towel covering his lower body.
• Proximity: Stood too close to female students.
• "Flirty" Messages: Sent a direct message to a female student over social media that was “flirty,” understood as demonstrating a romantic interest.
• Flirty Message (Graduate): Sent a "flirty" direct message to a recent 18-year-old graduate of SFHS.
• Compliments: Told a female student that she was beautiful, unique, and unlike other students.
• Gifts: Purchased food for female students.

·       Interaction with One Student:

• Consoled her over a fight with her boyfriend.
• Told her that there were “real men” waiting in the world for her.
• Stated to the student that he was available to

• Grabbed her hands without permission to hold hands with her.
• Attempted to hug the student but did not when the student indicated an unwillingness.

• Inappropriate Comments: Commented on a female student’s underclothing.

·       Invitations:

• Invited a female student to his residence to see his dog.
• Invited and then cajoled a female student to accompany him off campus to a coffee shop across from SFHS, encouraging a student to violate a school rule.

• Loitering: Would loiter in the dean’s office for no school-related reason to speak with female students assigned as office aides.
• General Compliments: Complimented female students on their appearance and dress.
• Tennis Offer: Offered to coach a female student in tennis (Mr. Yeckring does not play tennis) and asked to engage her in a private game; she declined.
• Skirting Comment: Commented on the inappropriate length of a female student’s tennis skirt.
• Unnecessary Escort: Unnecessarily and repeatedly accompanied a female student office aide while she delivered leave slips around the school.
• Nickname: Was widely referred to by students as “Pedo Yeck,” presumably a shortened form of “Pedophile Yeckring.”

Legal Analysis

 Analysis of the "Suspected Child Abuse" Standard

This office agrees with FDLE that no act of child abuse, as defined by Florida law, was committed by Mr. Yeckring. This office contacted FDLE to clarify the basis for their finding of probable cause for the Florida Statutes 39.205 charge. The FDLE agents indicated that their concern was not tied to any single allegation but rather to the cumulative nature of all the incidents reported to the school administration. The agents know the exact dates, acts, and individuals involved in each alleged act of misconduct. In their view, the accumulation of these incidents should have led the administration to suspect potential child abuse and, therefore, mandated a report to DCF. FDLE acknowledged that none of the individual allegations, standing alone, would support a child abuse charge or trigger the reporting requirement.

"Child abuse" means any willful act or threatened act that results in any physical, mental, or sexual abuse, injury, or harm that causes or is likely to cause the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired.  Abuse of a child includes acts or omissions. FDLE has not charged Mr. Yeckring with child abuse and has confirmed that there is no ongoing investigation of Mr. Yeckring that could lead to such charges. Mr. Yeckring’s alleged conduct is clear and well known. His conduct with the students at issue in this matter was in all cases inappropriate, but, according to FDLE’s investigation, did not violate any Florida Statute. Under Florida Statutes 39.205, there must be either "known" or "suspected" child abuse or neglect to trigger the reporting requirement.

FDLE’s novel legal theory is that Mr. Yeckring’s pattern of conduct, or the totality of the circumstances, should have caused the defendant(s) to suspect child abuse and therefore required that the defendant(s) report this suspicion to the DCF, even when the underlying conduct was known not to constitute statutory child abuse. In evaluating this theory, the word "suspected" must be defined within this context. The dictionary defines "suspected" as "to imagine someone is guilty on slight evidence or without proof," or "to doubt the truth or likelihood of something." It implies an opinion or belief formed with little or no evidence, often based on guesswork.

In this context, it is useful to illustrate how the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s (FDLE) proposed use of “suspected” differs from typical scenarios. Consider a child arriving at school with an injury strongly indicative of inflicted trauma, such as a patterned bruise resulting from repeated strikes by a commonly used object for corporal punishment, like a belt or cord. When questioned about the injury, the child claims it was an accident that would not realistically cause such a pattern. In this case, school officials would be justified in suspecting child abuse due to the discrepancy between the nature of the injury and the explanation provided. The inconsistency raises serious concerns about the true cause and the individual responsible for inflicting the injury, and given that the injury was inflicted, the cause of the injury and person who caused the injury would also be suspicious. In this matter, there is no suspicion because the nature of the conduct, and the identity of the person perpetrating the conduct are both well established.

For the State of Florida to assert a new theory of guilt, that theory must be supported by the law and legal precedent. Legal research conducted by this office shows no criminal case law interpreting Florida Statutes 39.205 that addresses this specific theory. A review of the Florida Standard Jury Instruction does not shed light on this theory; the relevant element of that instruction is simply that "the defendant knew or suspected child abuse occurred." This instruction does not define "suspected" in this instance, nor does it address the theory that a pattern of non-criminal conduct could be the basis of suspected child abuse.

Civil case law does provide some limited enlightenment. In an assertion of immunity from civil liability, a physician need only have a "reasonable cause to suspect" child abuse to be immune from civil liability for mistakenly reporting child abuse and causing damages. It is therefore reasonable to assume that a court’s interpretation of "suspected" in the criminal statute would be akin to "reasonable cause to suspect" child abuse. Here, the conduct of Mr. Yeckring is well known and known not to be criminal. FDLE’s theory is that known conduct which is not illegal constitutes reasonable cause to suspect child abuse. The common definition of "suspect" is rooted in the absence of evidence or proof, not in the combination of known, non-criminal facts. Based on this office’s research, there is no legal support for this new and novel legal theory. A new theory of a defendant’s guilt must be arguable under current statutes and case law. Even when facts underpin the theory, there must be law or case law that supports the State of Florida charging a crime under that theory of guilt. Here, neither statutory law nor case law supports FDLE’s theory, and, therefore, the State of Florida cannot ethically advance it in court.

Mr. Yeckring’s behavior appears to be consistent with what law enforcement would describe as “grooming” behavior. “Grooming” is defined as a deliberate pattern of behavior used by an offender to establish an emotional connection, trust, and a position of power over a victim—typically a minor or vulnerable adult—with the goal of sexual abuse or exploitation. Here, FDLE appears to be attempting to punish the defendant(s) for failing to report this behavior to DCF. Unfortunately, the Florida Legislature has been asked to address and criminalize grooming behavior and had thus far declined to do so.  Knowing that the Florida Legislature has rejected efforts to establish this behavior as criminal further inures against FDLE’s new and novel theory of the defendant’s guilt. Further, a Court is not likely to adopt this theory as valid. The rule of lenity is a legal principle used in criminal law to interpret ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant. It holds that when a law is unclear or has multiple reasonable interpretations, the courts should choose the interpretation that is most favorable to the defendant, thereby ensuring fairness in the application of the law. The most favorable interpretation here is that known conduct by a known perpetrator cannot constitute “suspected” child abuse.

Practical and Evidentiary Problems

In addition to the legal insufficiency, several practical problems exist with these charges:

1. Date of Offense: The affidavit of probable cause lists the date of the offense as November 1, 2022. There is nothing contained in that report, or any other report, that supports a factual allegation that on or about that specific date the accumulated "suspicion" relied upon by FDLE fomented to the point of constituting the moment the defendant was legally obligated to make this report. FDLE cannot point to any specific moment in time when this cumulative effect would have been sufficient to mandate such a report.
2. Universal Duty to Report: The duty to report extends to all mandatory reporters, including law enforcement officers who are aware that no report has been As of the date of this writing, this office’s investigation has confirmed that FDLE has never reported the "cumulative suspected child abuse" to DCF, nor has any parent of any child at issue here, nor has the Office of the State Attorney made any such report. This confirms the consensus that Mr. Yeckring’s conduct, while inappropriate, reprehensible, and a violation of school policy, was not criminal.

Conclusion of Analysis

 Therefore, this Office has determined that FDLE’s investigation of this matter has failed to establish sufficient evidence to believe that the defendant violated Florida Statutes 39.205. This Office is legally prohibited from filing any criminal charge for which sufficient evidence does not exist.

The additional charge of Child Neglect is defined as: “A caregiver’s willful failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child.” The statute continues: “Neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.” The basis of the alleged allegation of Child Neglect here is that knowing that Mr. Yeckring had committed these acts (which were determined not to be child abuse), the defendant failed to protect the children from Mr. Yeckring’s future acts (which were also determined not to be child abuse). The legal analysis for the child neglect charge is inextricably intertwined with the failure to report analysis; therefore, it will not be restated in this memorandum. Accordingly, these allegations fail to meet the statutory requirement for Child Neglect.

Conclusion

The core legal issue in this case is whether the cumulative effect of Mr. Yeckring's inappropriate conduct, while not rising to the level of a single, provable criminal act of child abuse, was sufficient to trigger the mandatory reporting requirements under Florida law for the defendant(s). The relevant statutes criminalize the failure to report known or suspected child abuse, not merely general workplace misconduct or violations of school policy, however unprofessional or reprehensible. Here there is no known or suspected child abuse. Given FDLE's explicit acknowledgment that no probable cause exists to charge Mr. Yeckring with an underlying act of child abuse, the State Attorney's office concludes that the essential element of "known or suspected child abuse" necessary for the prosecution of the defendant(s) under FS 39.205 and FS 827.03(2)(d) is legally insufficient. Therefore, this office will not be moving forward with the prosecution of the named defendant(s) based on the current evidence and legal theory provided by FDLE, and the case will be closed.