NO EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR LOCK IT KEEP IT BILLBOARDS

UPDATE:  This article is in error.  I submitted a public records request for call incidences coded 19-0.  While Chief Deputy Haines certainly complied with that request, he took great sadistic pleasure in not informing me that in October 2015 the ECSO had added the codes 19-2 and 19-3 to reflect whether or not the vehicle was locked or unlocked.  I have submitted a public records request for more data regarding these new incident codes.

If the 19-2 and 19-3 data would have supported Sheriff Morgan's spending of $130,000 during an election year, one would think that Chief Deputy Haines would have provided that data.  That strategic option would have shown political sophistication and finesse.  That would have shown loyalty to his boss's mission--to get re-elected and gracefully silence one critique.  But, Chief Deputy Haines had to secure a small psychic victory for himself.  He had to secure some kind of notch in his belt.  Better to humiliate me in public than to inform the public.  With malice aforethought he withheld crucial data simply because I had not specifically asked for incident codes I did not know existed.  Got it.  Lesson learned.  But, he revealed his true nature.

Chief Deputy Haines is a petty, vindictive, manipulative, small bureaucratic tyrant.  This is how he runs the day-to-day operations of the ECSO.  This is the internal face of the ECSO that Chief Deputy Haines tries so hard to hide from the public.  He does not want the public to know how he runs the ECSO.  He does not want to be held accountable.  Game on, indeed, Chief Deputy.

OLD ARTICLE

In a previous post, I reported that Uniform Crime Report data for calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 provided to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement demonstrated that "Larceny from Motor Vehicles" rose and fell significantly without Sheriff Morgan spending any money on anti-crime billboards or instituting any special policies or programs.  From 2011 to 2012, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" fell -7.7%; from 2012 to 2013, such larcenies increased +20.4%; from 2013 to 2014, such larcenies decreased -28%; and, from 2014 to 2015, such larcenies rose +15.1%.  This data is indisputable.

But, keep in mind that this data is submitted to the FDLE a couple months after the calendar closes.  So, this finished data is not available to the ECSO, and especially not to the public.

Still, many people, this author included, believed that the expenditure of $130,000 on anti-crime billboards was driven by political considerations rather than fighting crime considerations.  The question is how to support this hypothesis with evidence.

The only available evidence would be data within the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, that is, incident reports.  This data is available to Sheriff Morgan and his faithful sidekick Chief Deputy Haines for any period they desire.  They could compare, for example, car burglaries for the month of May for any year to see if there were a seasonal effect.

The Escambia County Sheriff's Office has "Incident Disposition Codes."  The purpose of a Deputy responding to a call is coded.  The code "19-0" is for "Burglary: Vehicle."  There are codes for "Grand Theft" (79-0) and "Theft Petit" (80-0) but there are no sub-codes for vehicles.  Thus, 19-0 is the operative incident code.  Deputies also code what happened on these calls.  The codes of interest are:  A: "Arrest made (offense report & arrest report required);" B: "No arrest made (offense report required);" S: "Referred to other Sheriff's Office section/unit;" X: "Followup investigation--warrant affadavit prepared (supplement required);" and Z: "Followup investigation--arrest made (supplement required)."

With these codes Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines would have the empirical data to know if "Burglary: Vehicle" (code 19-0) was going up or down on a weekly or monthly basis.

This CJ's Street Report is based upon an analysis of all 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z coded incidents between May 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016.  The data for 19-0B runs 91 pages.  The other codes are one- or two-pages long (A here, S here, X here, Z here).  While those other codes could be duplicate incidents, I checked, and they are not.

But, before we examine the empirical data, let us first review how Chief Deputy Haines explained the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards to the Sheriff-friendly crowd on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page on May 18, 2016.  Chief Deputy Haines was disputing the first CJ's Street Report post (May 18, 2016) challenging the billboard program on the grounds that, according to a Department of Justice best-practices study, billboards were the least effective means of changing the target audience's behavior, in this case, car owners.

Here is Chief Deputy Haines defending the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards:  "Last May at a LE seminar, I spoke with several Chief Deputies who had started this lock it or lose it type campaign and were seeing success. It took a few months to get it off the ground but it started in August with the ECSO bringing up the topic to the media every chance we got. We then went on to social media, YouTube and press releases. I can post the web addresses or you can do a search and see this step got going around September. We then printed cards in the shape of a key and air vent car fresheners and went to the neighborhoods most affected to hand them out. We then started with the roadside message boards which caused all the “outrage”. We have put the messages on all our kiosks. We are now at billboards. All these things are still ongoing and there is more in the lock it or lose it campaign to come."

Notice that the impetus comes in May 2015 (the reason I asked for that starting point of the data) from a seminar the Chief Deputy had attended.  Keep in mind, that by May 2015, the Chief Deputy knew for fact certain that for calendar year 2014, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" had fallen -28% without the Escambia County Sheriff's Office doing anything expensive or particularly novel.  Notice also that the Chief Deputy did not state that he was alarmed or concerned about any rise in burglaries from motor vehicles in May 2015.  No.  Instead we have unspecified chief deputies from unspecified counties producing unspecified results with the program.

In fact, if you Google "Lock It, Keep It" you find lots of police departments using the program and no scientific data that the program produces results, that is, excluding a multitude of factors that could also account for drops in crime.

The fact that property crimes, for example, have dropped throughout Florida between 1994 and 2014 suggests that one must be extremely cautious in ascribing drops in crime to police practices.  And, the fact that Escambia County's per capita property crime rate steadily rose between 2009 and 2013 and then dropped in 2014, while Florida and other larger counties also experienced drops, suggests we need to be cautious in stating that the ECSO has accomplished something unique.  In fact, the data in the chart below shows that on a per capita basis, larger counties (Duvall, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, and Pinellas) had significantly larger drops in per capita property crime rates (20% to 40%) than Escambia County (0%) over the 2009-2014 time period.

Also, in Chief Deputy Haines's explanation is that the billboards do not start until March 2016.  In between, there is social media, going into neighborhoods, roadside message boards, advertising on kiosks, and finally the billboards.

The empirical data demonstrates that there was no need to spend $130,000 on billboards that would splash Sheriff Morgan's picture on billboards across Pensacola.  In fact, in the five months before Sheriff Morgan committed himself to the billboard contract, the number of 19-0 ("Burglary: Motor Vehicle") had been declining significantly, in some months by 40% to 50%.  In fact, if one were to extrapolate from the 19-0 incident reports for January through April 2016, there would be a record low of such reports--360 total.

Here is the data (codes 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z):

2015:  MAY  126;  JUN  156;  JUL  177;  AUG  151;  SEP  213;  OCT  110;  NOV  64;  DEC  35.
2016:  JAN  24;  FEB  26;  MAR  24;  APR  46; and up to May 19,  18.

Between September 2015 and October 2015, vehicular burglaries declined -48%.  Between October 2015 and November 2015, vehicular burglaries fell an additional -41%.  And, between November 2015 and December, motor vehicle burglaries fell another -45%.  Then, fell again in January (-31%) and held steady in February.  From September 2015's 213 code 19-0 incidents to February 2016's 26 code 19-0 is a mind-boggling 88% drop in monthly incidents.  Ironically, the billboards are correlated with a rise in car burglaries in April 2016, +92%.

Undoubtedly, the Chief Deputy is going to say, "Look at the data, our efforts resulted in a lowering of car burglaries.  Thus, the billboards were necessary."

But, the data show that car burglaries fell significantly in October, November, and December 2015.  The billboards could not have had any effect on these dramatic declines--since they did not appear until March 2016.  Now, whether the decline in October, November, and December was due to the other advertising of the "Lock It, Keep It" is unclear.  A possible explanation would be deputies going into neighborhoods to talk to folks about locking their cars and distributing literature reminding them to lock their cars.  But, that is just good community policing.  If that were the cause of the decline, then the billboard expenditures are not necessary.

But, those explanations are not satisfying.  On September 17, 2015, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Pensacola Police Department had arrested 37 teenagers over the preceding two weeks who had been involved in car burglaries.  While not members of gangs, they saw unlocked cars as targets of opportunity and took valuables out of the cars.  On January 22, 2016, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Escambia County Sheriff's Office had arrested five teenagers, including two with gang ties, that had been burglarizing cars since December 2015.

Thus, the decline in code 19-0 motor vehicle burglaries appears most likely to be the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers starting September 1, 2015 and Escambia County Sheriff's Office arresting 5 teenagers in January 2016.

Thus, we are left with these empirical facts: the significant and dramatic declines in 19-0 (A, B, S, X, Z) incidents started five months (October 2015) before the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign began (March 2016); the drop is most likely due to the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers involved in car burglaries in September 2015; there may be some small influence from ECSO community policing efforts and possibly social media and kiosk advertising; in January 2016, the ECSO arrested an additional 5 teenagers who had been burglarizing cars since December; and, in the month after the billboard campaign started, car burglaries rose 92%.  Perhaps, instead of alerting car owners to lock their cars, the billboards were alerting teenagers to a lucrative source of easy cash.  While correlation is not causation, the rise in April is not good news for car owners or the ECSO.  But, the perception that the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign is driven by Sheriff Morgan's political calculations rather than anti-crime considerations is borne out by the empirical data.  There is virtually no empirical ECSO data to support the need to spend $130,000 on the "Lock It, Keep It" campaign.

I think any reasonable Escambia County voter and county commissioner would conclude that Sheriff Morgan spending $130,000 on billboards throughout Escambia County, starting in March 2016 and ending just ten days before his tough primary race, is really intended to boost his political campaign, and not any particular anti-crime effort.  The dramatic drop in car burglaries appears to be more the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers in September 2015 than any anti-crime publicity campaign undertaken by the ECSO.  This analysis will not convince Sheriff Morgan, Chief Deputy Haines, and their ring of cheerleading supporters on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page.  The issue is whether or not reasonable Republican voters will see through Sheriff Morgan's manipulation of crime data for political gain.  I believe that a reasonable law enforcement officer would have examined the 19-0 incident report data from October 2015 to February 2016 and concluded that spending $130,000 starting in March 2016 to deter a crime that had significantly declined (-88%) from 213 incidents in September 2015 to 26 incidents in February 2016 to a nuisance level (projected 360 for 2016) was not necessary.  But, that's just me, a Democrat who cannot vote in the Republican primary for sheriff.

NO EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR LOCK IT KEEP IT BILLBOARDS

In a previous post, I reported that Uniform Crime Report data for calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 provided to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement demonstrated that "Larceny from Motor Vehicles" rose and fell significantly without Sheriff Morgan spending any money on anti-crime billboards or instituting any special policies or programs.  From 2011 to 2012, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" fell -7.7%; from 2012 to 2013, such larcenies increased +20.4%; from 2013 to 2014, such larcenies decreased -28%; and, from 2014 to 2015, such larcenies rose +15.1%.  This data is indisputable.

But, keep in mind that this data is submitted to the FDLE a couple months after the calendar closes.  So, this finished data is not available to the ECSO, and especially not to the public.

Still, many people, this author included, believed that the expenditure of $130,000 on anti-crime billboards was driven by political considerations rather than fighting crime considerations.  The question is how to support this hypothesis with evidence.

The only available evidence would be data within the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, that is, incident reports.  This data is available to Sheriff Morgan and his faithful sidekick Chief Deputy Haines for any period they desire.  They could compare, for example, car burglaries for the month of May for any year to see if there were a seasonal effect.

The Escambia County Sheriff's Office has "Incident Disposition Codes."  The purpose of a Deputy responding to a call is coded.  The code "19-0" is for "Burglary: Vehicle."  There are codes for "Grand Theft" (79-0) and "Theft Petit" (80-0) but there are no sub-codes for vehicles.  Thus, 19-0 is the operative incident code.  Deputies also code what happened on these calls.  The codes of interest are:  A: "Arrest made (offense report & arrest report required);" B: "No arrest made (offense report required);" S: "Referred to other Sheriff's Office section/unit;" X: "Followup investigation--warrant affadavit prepared (supplement required);" and Z: "Followup investigation--arrest made (supplement required)."

With these codes Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines would have the empirical data to know if "Burglary: Vehicle" (code 19-0) was going up or down on a weekly or monthly basis.

This CJ's Street Report is based upon an analysis of all 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z coded incidents between May 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016.  The data for 19-0B runs 91 pages.  The other codes are one- or two-pages long (A here, S here, X here, Z here).  While those other codes could be duplicate incidents, I checked, and they are not.

But, before we examine the empirical data, let us first review how Chief Deputy Haines explained the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards to the Sheriff-friendly crowd on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page on May 18, 2016.  Chief Deputy Haines was disputing the first CJ's Street Report post (May 18, 2016) challenging the billboard program on the grounds that, according to a Department of Justice best-practices study, billboards were the least effective means of changing the target audience's behavior, in this case, car owners.

Here is Chief Deputy Haines defending the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards:  "Last May at a LE seminar, I spoke with several Chief Deputies who had started this lock it or lose it type campaign and were seeing success. It took a few months to get it off the ground but it started in August with the ECSO bringing up the topic to the media every chance we got. We then went on to social media, YouTube and press releases. I can post the web addresses or you can do a search and see this step got going around September. We then printed cards in the shape of a key and air vent car fresheners and went to the neighborhoods most affected to hand them out. We then started with the roadside message boards which caused all the “outrage”. We have put the messages on all our kiosks. We are now at billboards. All these things are still ongoing and there is more in the lock it or lose it campaign to come."

Notice that the impetus comes in May 2015 (the reason I asked for that starting point of the data) from a seminar the Chief Deputy had attended.  Keep in mind, that by May 2015, the Chief Deputy knew for fact certain that for calendar year 2014, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" had fallen -28% without the Escambia County Sheriff's Office doing anything expensive or particularly novel.  Notice also that the Chief Deputy did not state that he was alarmed or concerned about any rise in burglaries from motor vehicles in May 2015.  No.  Instead we have unspecified chief deputies from unspecified counties producing unspecified results with the program.

In fact, if you Google "Lock It, Keep It" you find lots of police departments using the program and no scientific data that the program produces results, that is, excluding a multitude of factors that could also account for drops in crime.

The fact that property crimes, for example, have dropped throughout Florida between 1994 and 2014 suggests that one must be extremely cautious in ascribing drops in crime to police practices.  And, the fact that Escambia County's per capita property crime rate steadily rose between 2009 and 2013 and then dropped in 2014, while Florida and other larger counties also experienced drops, suggests we need to be cautious in stating that the ECSO has accomplished something unique.  In fact, the data in the chart below shows that on a per capita basis, larger counties (Duvall, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, and Pinellas) had significantly larger drops in per capita property crime rates (20% to 40%) than Escambia County (0%) over the 2009-2014 time period.

Also, in Chief Deputy Haines's explanation is that the billboards do not start until March 2016.  In between, there is social media, going into neighborhoods, roadside message boards, advertising on kiosks, and finally the billboards.

The empirical data demonstrates that there was no need to spend $130,000 on billboards that would splash Sheriff Morgan's picture on billboards across Pensacola.  In fact, in the five months before Sheriff Morgan committed himself to the billboard contract, the number of 19-0 ("Burglary: Motor Vehicle") had been declining significantly, in some months by 40% to 50%.  In fact, if one were to extrapolate from the 19-0 incident reports for January through April 2016, there would be a record low of such reports--360 total.

Here is the data (codes 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z):

2015:  MAY  126;  JUN  156;  JUL  177;  AUG  151;  SEP  213;  OCT  110;  NOV  64;  DEC  35.
2016:  JAN  24;  FEB  26;  MAR  24;  APR  46; and up to May 19,  18.

Between September 2015 and October 2015, vehicular burglaries declined -48%.  Between October 2015 and November 2015, vehicular burglaries fell an additional -41%.  And, between November 2015 and December, motor vehicle burglaries fell another -45%.  Then, fell again in January (-31%) and held steady in February.  From September 2015's 213 code 19-0 incidents to February 2016's 26 code 19-0 is a mind-boggling 88% drop in monthly incidents.  Ironically, the billboards are correlated with a rise in car burglaries in April 2016, +92%.

Undoubtedly, the Chief Deputy is going to say, "Look at the data, our efforts resulted in a lowering of car burglaries.  Thus, the billboards were necessary."

But, the data show that car burglaries fell significantly in October, November, and December 2015.  The billboards could not have had any effect on these dramatic declines--since they did not appear until March 2016.  Now, whether the decline in October, November, and December was due to the other advertising of the "Lock It, Keep It" is unclear.  A possible explanation would be deputies going into neighborhoods to talk to folks about locking their cars and distributing literature reminding them to lock their cars.  But, that is just good community policing.  If that were the cause of the decline, then the billboard expenditures are not necessary.

But, those explanations are not satisfying.  On September 17, 2015, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Pensacola Police Department had arrested 37 teenagers over the preceding two weeks who had been involved in car burglaries.  While not members of gangs, they saw unlocked cars as targets of opportunity and took valuables out of the cars.  On January 22, 2016, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Escambia County Sheriff's Office had arrested five teenagers, including two with gang ties, that had been burglarizing cars since December 2015.

Thus, the decline in code 19-0 motor vehicle burglaries appears most likely to be the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers starting September 1, 2015 and Escambia County Sheriff's Office arresting 5 teenagers in January 2016.

Thus, we are left with these empirical facts: the significant and dramatic declines in 19-0 (A, B, S, X, Z) incidents started five months (October 2015) before the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign began (March 2016); the drop is most likely due to the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers involved in car burglaries in September 2015; there may be some small influence from ECSO community policing efforts and possibly social media and kiosk advertising; in January 2016, the ECSO arrested an additional 5 teenagers who had been burglarizing cars since December; and, in the month after the billboard campaign started, car burglaries rose 92%.  Perhaps, instead of alerting car owners to lock their cars, the billboards were alerting teenagers to a lucrative source of easy cash.  While correlation is not causation, the rise in April is not good news for car owners or the ECSO.  But, the perception that the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign is driven by Sheriff Morgan's political calculations rather than anti-crime considerations is borne out by the empirical data.  There is virtually no empirical ECSO data to support the need to spend $130,000 on the "Lock It, Keep It" campaign.

I think any reasonable Escambia County voter and county commissioner would conclude that Sheriff Morgan spending $130,000 on billboards throughout Escambia County, starting in March 2016 and ending just ten days before his tough primary race, is really intended to boost his political campaign, and not any particular anti-crime effort.  The dramatic drop in car burglaries appears to be more the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers in September 2015 than any anti-crime publicity campaign undertaken by the ECSO.  This analysis will not convince Sheriff Morgan, Chief Deputy Haines, and their ring of cheerleading supporters on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page.  The issue is whether or not reasonable Republican voters will see through Sheriff Morgan's manipulation of crime data for political gain.  I believe that a reasonable law enforcement officer would have examined the 19-0 incident report data from October 2015 to February 2016 and concluded that spending $130,000 starting in March 2016 to deter a crime that had significantly declined (-88%) from 213 incidents in September 2015 to 26 incidents in February 2016 to a nuisance level (projected 360 for 2016) was not necessary.  But, that's just me, a Democrat who cannot vote in the Republican primary for sheriff.

MORGAN MISUSED LETF FUNDS FOR BILLBOARDS?

Trying to pin Chief Deputy Haines and Sheriff Morgan down is like the proverbial problem of nailing jello to the wall.  You interpret their billboard signs to read that it is about vehicle thefts and they come back and state on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page that it is really about car burglaries.  Go to the FDLE website and burglaries are aggregated at a level that is useless.  All burglaries are lumped together, from homes, cars, businesses, and other.  When you finally get to the disaggregated Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data it is not car burglaries but "Largency from Motor Vehicles" that is apparently the relevant reportable index crime.  And, when I asked for the analytical products that drove the decision to spend money on the billboards, I received the disaggregated FDLE UCR data.

So, let us examine the UCR data reported by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office to Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for "Larceny from Motor Vehicles."  This appears to be the only relevant crime data germane to the problem.

For calendar year 2012, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle declined -7.7% between calendar year 2011 (2,119) and 2012 (1,956).

For calendar year 2013, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle increased +20.4%, going from 1,956 larcenies to 2,355 larcenies in 2013.

For calendar year 2014, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle decreased -28%, falling from 2,355 in 2013 to 1,654 in 2014.

For calendar year 2015, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle increased +15.1%, rising from 1,654 in 2014 to 1,904 in 2015.

Let us make a number of observations.  After larcenies from a motor vehicle rose +20.4% in 2013, Sheriff Morgan did not authorize spending $130,000 for billboards.  We know of no special programs, policies, or procedures that were instituted to reduce these motor vehicle larcenies.  The following year, larcenies from motor vehicles declined -28% without Sheriff Morgan apparently instituting anything special that the public would have noticed.  Certainly, had the ECSO done something different in 2014, it would almost certainly had duplicated those programs, policies, and techniques in 2016.  To the contrary, Chief Deputy Haines stated on Facebook that they started the overall billboard campaign in August 2015--several months before they knew what the actual level of "larcenies from a motor vehicle" would be.  In 2015, larcenies from a motor vehicle rose +15.1%, significantly less than in calendar year 2013 (20% less) when the same crime category rose +20%, yet this year--faced with a tough reelection campaign against highly qualified challengers--Sheriff Morgan authorized spending $130,000 in a billboard publicity campaign using a police publicity campaign considered by the Department of Justice to be the least effective method of changing the behavior of car owners.  In short, Sheriff Morgan has seemingly used the plausible cover a 15% rise in larcenies from a motor vehicle to spend $130,000 to promote his image on billboards around the county from March 2016 to just ten days before the election in August.

Escambia County taxpayers need to know that the $130,000 initially comes from the General Fund account.  Sheriff Morgan needs to submit the documentation for the billboards to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to be reimbursed from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund.  Should the BOCC find that the money is not consistent with the purpose of the LETF, they could decline to reimburse the Sheriff.  The same is true for all other expenditures that the Sheriff requests reimbursement for from the LETF.  I am not suggesting that the BOCC will not reimburse the Sheriff.  I am only stating that initially the Sheriff spends funds from his own General Fund account.  Only later does the money come from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund.

As the issue now stands, Sheriff Morgan is spending in excess of $130,000 from his General Fund account to apparently boost his re-election campaign.  Whether or not the expenditure was justified is up to the BOCC and the voters to decide.  But, the evidence suggests that this expenditure was driven first and foremost by political considerations and only secondarily by crime data considerations.  Instead, it appears that Sheriff Morgan is using the rise in larcenies from a motor vehicle as cover for an underhanded re-election publicity campaign.  After larcenies from motor vehicles rose +20% in 2013, Sheriff Morgan did not resort to a publicity campaign.  Why not then and why now?

MORGAN'S CRUELTY OVER $2 BASEBALL CARD

"I really don't see that he has any compassion for his deputies as people.  Nor their families.  He has no respect for his people."  Gabrielle Powell, divorced widow of Deputy Sheriff Ozell Powell, May 22, 2016.

INTRODUCTION

It is rare for civilians to look inside the Escambia County Sheriff's Office and glimpse the internal culture of overt intimidation and the abrogation of constitutional rights of deputy sheriffs by Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines, his chief enforcer.  In this blogpost and the next we will look at three Internal Affairs investigations of deputies Ozell Powell (deceased), Donald 'Buddy' Nesmith (retired), and Jacquelyn Gulley (serving).  This look inside the ECSO is aided by anonymous comments posted on the Law Enforcement Officer Affairs website, communications from confidential sources close to the ECSO, ECSO data released via public records request, and documents filed in the federal Eleventh Circuit District Court.

The legal employment situation of sheriff deputies in Florida is that they are at "at-will" appointees, not "at-will" employees; that is, as Florida is an "at-will" state for all employees, they serve at the whim and pleasure of Sheriff Morgan (and other elected sheriffs).  While the collective bargaining agreement between the ECSO and the Police Benevolent Association (PBA) may have some safeguards regarding procedures for termination, the PBA representatives, who are themselves deputy sheriffs, are subject to the same degree of intimidation and fear of being fired.

Under Florida statute and law, sheriff deputies serve at the pleasure and whim of the sheriff.  Florida State Statute 112.535 on Construction states, "The provisions of chapter 93-19, Laws of Florida, shall not be construed...to limit the right of the sheriff to appoint deputy sheriffs or to withdraw their appointment as provided in chapter 30" [emphasis added].

What this essentially produces appears to be a politicized workforce, a workforce that is risk-adverse, and a workforce that is not likely to counter existing policies with innovative policies.

For example, a thread in the LEO Affairs on "Employed or Appointed?" highlighted these problems.

One commenter noted, "The horror stories you hear are true."

A commenter named Bart casually wrote, "that crap happens every time a new sheriff comes to town. ive never been a fan of elected officials having anything to do with law enforcement. the ideal set up is like the one at miami dade PD. have a chief appointed and he stays there until he fuks up or quits. in addition, every officer from deputy chief all the way to officer is given civil service protection. the sheriff's offices down here need to get with the times.."

A commenter named HCSO511 casually concurred, stating "im with bart. that type of thing has been going on forever. if not dismissed or demoted because of the candidate you supported it can happen because someone getting payback for campaign support wants your job. and if they cant just boot you out of your position they can find a way with a little time and patience. everybody makes mistakes. and the first one a person makes that could be easily overlooked will be used to demote you or let you go."

Another commenter relayed his/her story of a young deputy telling the advice received from older deputies:  "All the old timers said that self-initiated activity only leads to trouble.... If deputies are appointed by an elected sheriff with no employment rights, then their lack of activity equals job security. I think I'm finally starting to get it. The one think I have NEVER done is laugh at old timers because they still have jobs after 20 or 25 years."

An "old timer" commented:  "Being overly proactive always generates complaints. Complaints will always lead to investigations and eventually lead to your pink slip. I've seen it over and over again.  Being overly proactive will put you in harms way more often."

So, we civilians need to understand that the sheriff position, an elected position, creates political dynamics inside a Sheriff's Office.  The sheriff uses his deputies to campaign for him.  They are his or her enforcers in the building.  Deputies who oppose the sheriff keep quiet.  Deputies who do not kow tow to the political line of the sheriff can be fired, and, a reason for firing can always be ginned up.  The schemers, manipulators, back-stabbers, and brown-nosers can gain promotion through accusations against fellow deputies.  Once an Internal Affairs investigation is launched, and it drags on interminably, the life of a deputy is living hell.  Chief deputies become masters at conniving to gain the top position and to destroy or sideline rivals.  A Chief Deputy can create factions, a sort of divide-and-rule strategy to keep hold of his position and to divide the collective bargaining effort.  Golden deputies can step out of line without losing their jobs, while reliable, straight-shooting deputies can be eliminated for one small mistake.  Innovation is not likely to come from deputies because innovation always entails a critique of the status quo--whatever bureaucratic momentum enjoying the favor of the sheriff--at the risk of one's career.  Better simply to survive than to propose an innovative policy or program.  Or, if not survive, leave for a better job.

In that bureaucratic culture fostered by a political sheriff and reinforced by a conniving, manipulative Chief Deputy, a bureaucratic reign of terror is not hard to institute and perpetuate.  You do not need to victimize everyone.  You only need to victimize a few to terrorize the many.

And thus we come to the truly sad and tragic story of Deputy Sheriff Ozell Powell, an Army veteran, a father, a husband, a sufferer of Multiple Sclerosis, and a victim of an unsubstantiated, vicious Internal Affairs investigation instigated by Commander Tharp and backed up by Sheriff Morgan over the non-stealing of a $2.00 baseball card.  Yes, that is not a typographical error.  This kinetic duo of the ECSO supported by the ECSO's General Counsel launched an Internal Affairs investigation over a two dollar baseball card that Deputy Powell had put in his pocket for safe keeping while waiting to give it to Sheriff Morgan.  Deputy Powell would have his heart broken, his stress levels rise, hardship for his wife and children as they would lose their medical insurance, and he would eventually die after resigning.  If you do not know, stress exacerbates and brings on episodes of MS.  Thus, launching a completely unnecessary Internal Affairs investigation of a deputy with MS over a non-crime could be considered a form of unusual punishment, if not torture.

This is a story that does not make the box score, but tells you everything you need to know about Sheriff Morgan's callousness, ruthlessness, and utter disregard for the health and welfare of his deputies.  It seriously calls into question his judgement as the chief law enforcement officer of the county.  If you want to invoke terror, make an example of a sacrificial victim.

THE ILL-FATED ACTION AND REACTION

The termination of Deputy Powell from the ECSO on May 16, 2013, was probably preventable had Deputy Powell and Sheriff Morgan interacted differently.  The sequence of events shows Deputy Powell filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint in April 2013 against Sheriff Morgan; soon thereafter Sheriff Morgan launched an Internal Affairs investigation of Deputy Powell accusing him of stealing a $2.00 baseball card; in December 2013, Deputy Powell sued Sheriff Morgan in U.S. District Court in Pensacola alleging that Sheriff Morgan had discriminated against him on the basis of his MS illness.  Such harassment is illegal of a protected person under the Americans with Disability Act.

Deputy Powell's action were ill-advised for two reasons.

One, Sheriff Morgan soon after retaliated by personally directing the Internal Affairs office to launch an investigation of Deputy Powell for stealing a $2 baseball card.  And two, on September 30, 2015, the U.S. District Court in Pensacola determined that "There is no evidence in the record to support Powell’s claim of constructive discharge or any other adverse employment action."  In fact, the Court noted that up until Deputy Powell filed his EEOC complaint, Sheriff Morgan had accommodated all Deputy Powell's requests for leave and accepted all his certificates of fitness for duty.

Furthermore, the Court found that Sheriff Morgan's actions of placing a surveillance camera at the front desk, requiring Deputy Powell to submit two certificates of fitness for duty, and allowing him to work at the front desk in civilian clothes without a badge and weapon "is wholly insufficient to demonstrate an objectively hostile workplace.... Even accepting his statement that he was not allowed to work in uniform or was not given his firearm and commission card, these conditions do not come close to the type of conduct that has been found to create intolerable working conditions. Absent an adverse employment action, Powell cannot demonstrate a prima facie case of disability discrimination."

Regarding the Internal Affairs investigation, the Court found "There is nothing to show that it was based on anything other than as represented—an investigation into a suspected incident of theft. Powell was placed on paid leave during the investigation, and ultimately, the investigation exonerated him of any wrongdoing."

But, a close reading of the Internal Affairs investigation makes it clear that had anyone in a command position thought for one minute, there would have been no investigation.  The factual basis for believing that Deputy Powell had stolen a $2 baseball card is completely lacking.  The facts justifying the investigation are ludicrous.  Given the degree of ludicrousness, the Internal Affairs investigation appears to be clearly an act of revenge by Sheriff Morgan for Deputy Powell's filing of an EEOC complaint.

THE "CRIME" OF DEPUTY POWELL

The essential facts are these: 1) On April 18, 2013, Bobby Marinin brought a baseball card inside a "grimy" envelope marked "from Bobby to Shuruff" to the administration lobby and gave it to Deputy Powell; 2) Deputy Powell put the baseball card in his pocket and the "grimy" envelope either on top of the trash can or in his desk drawer; 3) Bobby Marinin called the Sheriff's office a few times asking if the Sheriff had received the package; 4) Patricia Yvarra, an administrative assistant, finally received the call from Marinin and went to the lobby; 5) Yvarra asked Deputy Powell  for the package; 6) Deputy Powell took the baseball card out of his pocket and retrieved the envelope, put the card in the envelope, and gave both to Yvarra; 7) Yvarra then went upstairs with the card in the envelope and gave them to Anita Brooks-Ingram, Sheriff Morgan's administrative assistant; 8) Brooks-Ingram then went to Commander Tharp and Sheriff Morgan to relay a story of theft; 9) Sheriff Morgan directed Brooks-Ingram and possibly others to run the theft story past Legal; and, 10) Sheriff Morgan directly ordered an Internal Affairs investigation the next day.

The complainant was Sheriff Morgan.  Sheriff Morgan claimed he was the victim of a crime.

There are some other details that are contested, specifically what Deputy Powell intended to throw away and whether the "grimy" envelope was in the trash can or his desk drawer.  While those facts were never determined by the IA investigators, the evidence suggests that it was the "dirty and grimy" envelope that was going to be thrown away.  That quoted description comes from Bertha Lewis' interview with the IA investigators.  While the description came from Sgt. Pittman, Lewis twice agreed with that description and never contradicted it, having first described it herself as "grimy."  She was standing next to or near Deputy Powell when the envelope was delivered.  She told the investigators (pages 36-37 pdf) that Deputy Powell had told her he intended to call Sheriff Morgan's office to have them take possession of the baseball card and that for the two hours or so since the card had been delivered that Deputy Powell had been "quite busy."  In fact, Lewis' statement indicates that in the scheme of things that day, the delivery of the baseball was trivial.  She certainly did not take special note of it.

In other words, amongst all the duties and tasks Deputy Powell was responsible for, processing reports and other tasks, during a time period when he was "quite busy," he had simply forgotten or been distracted enough not to call upstairs to the Sheriff's office.  When asked by Yvarra to give her the package he readily gave it her without a second thought.  The IA investigators noted that the surveillance camera footage showed that Deputy Powell had never left his duty station and appeared to be busy.  He had certainly not made any furtive movements towards the baseball card.

The following quote is from the original statement of Patricia Yvarra and apparently formed the basis of the IA investigation (page 52 pdf):

"On April 18, 2013 at or around 14:15 hours, I went to the Sheriff's office Administration lobby to pick up a package that was left for the Sheriff from 'Bobby.'  When I got there Officer Ozell Powell Jr. was working so I asked him if there was a package left there for the Sheriff from 'Bobby' he [sic] pulled a baseball card out of his shirt pocket and an envelope out of the trash can or his desk drawer and he said 'I was just getting ready to throw it away.'"

Do you see probable cause that a "petit theft" had been committed?  Who stole the baseball card?  Nobody.  Let's launch an Internal Affairs investigation to confirm that nobody stole the baseball card.

Can you imagine if someone in Escambia County had called the Sheriff's Office and stated exactly what Yvarra stated?  Do you think the Sheriff's Office would have dispatched a deputy to investigate the "theft" of a $2.00 baseball card?  You can almost hear the dispatcher rolling on the floor howling in laughter.

However, on April 19, 2013, Sheriff Morgan directly ordered that an Internal Affairs investigation commence against Deputy Powell.  Sheriff Morgan loves to claim that he has three decades of law enforcement experience.  Yes, it shows.

Sgt. Barnes's Internal Affairs investigation determined that the accusation of "petit theft" was "unsubstantiated." 

But wait, it gets worse.

We do not know what Brooks-Ingram precisely told Commander Tharp and Sheriff Morgan.  We only know what she under oath told Sgt. Scott Allday with Sgt. Wayne Pittman attending.  And the story she told, sworn to be true, is so stupid that only someone intent on using any pretext for revenge would have acted on it.

Brooks-Ingram told the investigators that she first told Commander Tharp what had happened, that is, her hearsay story of what transpired in the lobby.  Then she told Sheriff Morgan the same hearsay story.  Sheriff Morgan then directed "us," presumably her, Yvarra, and Commander Tharp to go to Legal (see page 21 pdf).

Now, hearsay may not be exactly correct.  Brooks-Ingram did not witness anything in the lobby.  The only thing Brooks-Ingram witnessed was afterward Yvarra being "upset" about Yvarra's interpretation of Yvarra's observation of Yvarra's interaction with Deputy Powell.

The investigators asked Brooks-Ingram how Yvarra had reacted to what had transpired in the Administration lobby.

Here is the exact statement Brooks-Ingram stated under oath that she presumably told Commander Tharp and Sheriff Morgan of Yvarra's reaction (page 21 pdf):

"Yes she said she was pretty upset and she said uh, I can see, nobody puts trash in their pocket.  Uhm if he had just reached into the trash can and pulled out the envelope with the card in it, she would have thought nothing of it.  But the fact that he reached over to get the envelope out of the trash and then pulled it out of his pocket, the card, she said again that you know people don't just throw trash in your pocket to throw away later."

In closing the interview, Sgt Allday asked Brooks-Ingram if there was anything she wanted to say that he had not thought of asking her (see page 23 pdf).  She told Sgt. Allday that she and Yvarra began speculating about "why would he just put that in his pocket and our first thoughts, both of us, were well I wonder if the card is worth any money."  Apparently, Yvarra and Brooks-Ingram went down to Legal where they spoke with a woman named Carrisa.  Having convinced themselves that Deputy Powell intended to steal the card because it was worth money, Brooks-Ingram told the investigators that "Carissa tried to look it up online and uh saw, uh couldn't, you have to become a member and all like that, uhm, what they did, what she did is pick up the phone and call a card dealer place and uhm they said it [sic] worth about ten or twenty dollars."  Note, on page 17 (pdf) the card is worth $2.00, not $20 or $10 and there is no evidence provided that anyone quoted those higher figures.

And, what did Yvarra tell the investigators under oath?  She was interviewed 14 minutes after the interview with Brooks-Ingram had commenced.  She stated a number of things (see page 29 pdf) of relevance.  She thought it "odd" that the envelope and the baseball card had been separated.  She did not ask Deputy Powell why he had the card in his pocket and she did not ask what he was going to throw away.  So, however "odd" she believed Deputy Powell's behavior at that moment, she had no desire to resolve the question in her mind about the "oddness."  She told Brooks-Ingram "it just seemed odd to me that he pulled the card out of his pocket and the envelope from somewhere else."  She continued (page 30 pdf), "I didn't think anything of it, until he pulled the envelope out of the, from somewhere else.  I didn't understand why the card and the envelope weren't still together."

Sgt. Allday immediately asked Yvarra, "Did you think he was trying to steal it or..." and Yvarra interjected, "No.  That thought never crossed my mind.  It was just odd that it was."

So, the only witness to the "crime" of "theft," Patricia Yvarra, did not think that Deputy Powell was trying to steal the card or had stolen the baseball card.  Her only reaction or interpretation of the event was that it was "odd."

Looking at the bureaucratic culture of the ECSO, what would deputies conclude?  All you have to do is have a secretary believe your behavior is "odd," even if it was not; if you are already a target of the Sheriff's wrath--whether you know it or not--and the "oddness" of your behavior can be twisted and misconstrued into a criminal act, then you will be subjected to an Internal Affairs investigation.  Memo to deputies: do not act odd.

Interestingly, Sgt. Allday then ended the interview with Yvarra and asked no follow-up questions about what Brooks-Ingram had said to Commander Tharp and Sheriff Morgan, or, what Brooks-Ingram had said to Carissa in Legal, or what Carissa in Legal had done with that information.  Surely, here was an opportunity to possibly impeach Brooks-Ingram's credibility, but the investigators did not take it.  Why?  I can only speculate, but it would take investigators with stones the size of Everest to impeach the Sheriff's own administrative assistant.

In fact, it is not clear that Yvarra witnessed any subsequent conversations that Brooks-Ingram had.  It would appear that she may not have been a witness to what transpired after she told Brooks-Ingram that she had observed something "odd."  After all, if Yvarra did not think that Deputy Powell had intended to steal or had stolen the baseball card, would she not have told her superiors before Sheriff Morgan told Brooks-Ingram to go down to Legal?  In other words, there is no corroborating statement that anyone had tried to determine the value of the card or what had actually transpired in the lobby.  It certainly appears that neither Sheriff Morgan nor Commander Tharp ever asked Yvarra if she thought that Deputy Powell had tried to steal or had stolen the baseball card.

It also appears that the impetus to launch the IA investigation came not from Yvarra, who was a witness, but from Brooks-Ingram who had no first-hand knowledge of the event in question.  Yet, the IA record does not contain the initial statements that Brooks-Ingram told Commander Tharp and Sheriff Morgan.  Sheriff Morgan apparently used hearsay evidence of dubious value to launch an Internal Affairs investigation against a Deputy who had recently filed an EEOC complaint against the Sheriff.

What is clear is that at no time did Sheriff Morgan and Commander Tharp reason that the most probable explanation for the separation of the "grimy" envelope and the possibly pristine or cleaner baseball card is that Deputy Powell, a squared-away troop, did not want to dirty his uniform or clothes.  For all Sheriff Morgan's experience in the U.S. Air Force and whatever experience Commander Tharp has in law enforcement, that simple idea--keeping one's uniform or clothes clean and saving yourself some money at the cleaners--never entered their mind.  These two brilliant law enforcement officials could not fathom Deputy Powell's reason for putting the "grimy" envelope in his trash can or desk drawer and the cleaner baseball card in his pocket.

That Brooks-Ingram's statement is ludicrous is not at issue.  Sheriff Morgan using that ludicrous statement to launch a vindictive attack on Deputy Powell via an Internal Affairs investigation is the issue.

CONCLUSION

Deputy Ozell Powell believed, wrongly it turned out, that he was being discriminated against on the basis of his disabled condition and filed an EEOC complaint against Sheriff Morgan.  Very soon thereafter, Sheriff Morgan used a ludicrous hearsay statement from his administrative assistant who did not witness the event--an alleged theft of a $2.00 baseball card by Deputy Powell--to launch an Internal Affairs investigation of Deputy Powell.  The other administrative assistant who interacted with Deputy Powell in taking possession of the baseball card and giving it to Sheriff Morgan's administrative assistant never thought that Deputy Powell had stolen or had intended to steal the baseball card.  On the basis of groundless speculation--it is odd to put a "grimy" envelope in a trash can or your desk drawer and keep the cleaner baseball card in his shirt pocket--Sheriff Morgan launched an Internal Affairs investigation of Deputy Powell for theft.  Any rational person would conclude that Sheriff Morgan's action did not reveal sound legal judgement, an efficient use of Sheriff Office resources, and was, in fact, a cowardly act of revenge on Deputy Powell for having filed an EEOC complaint.  Sheriff Morgan may have rightly felt miffed that Deputy Powell had filed an EEOC complaint after Sheriff Morgan had treated Deputy Powell fairly for a couple of years or so.  But, from the point of view of the Sheriff, using Deputy Powell as an example of how easy it is to launch an Internal Affairs investigation, Sheriff Morgan could intimidate his subordinates and instill fear.  He could make them fear that the slightest, most innocuous behavior deemed "odd" by an administrative assistant could be met with an Internal Affairs investigation.  The other message was that if you file an EEOC complaint, it is almost guaranteed that I will make your life a living hell by finding grounds to launch an Internal Affairs investigation.  And, the message it gives to favored officers and deputies, if you harass someone in a protected status and that person is a real or imagined opponent of the Sheriff, I have your back.  Even if the factual basis is ludicrous beyond belief, no deputy could feel safe.  If that is not bureaucratic terrorism, then what is it?