Opinion ID: 216986
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allegations in Count VIII

Text: On January 20, 2005, Defendant Sheriff Hall hosted a town hall meeting in Gulf Breeze, Florida. Sheriff Hall introduced himself, made some remarks, and opened the floor to questions. During the 2005 meeting, Plaintiff Daniel Thompson asked Sheriff Hall “if he was doing anything about his case.” Thompson “went on to describe his case as involving him being beaten and tased by a Pinellas County Deputy [Farnham] after [H]urricane Ivan.” Pinellas County Deputy Farnham was later convicted of 3 violating Daniel Thompson’s civil rights and was sentenced to 12 months in federal prison for using unreasonable force against Thompson. See United States v. Farnham, No. 3:06-CR-456-RV (N.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2007) (final judgment order). Sheriff Hall stated he knew nothing about the case. “Defendant Sheriff Hall hastily turned around and told Deputy Steve Collier to ‘deal with this.’” After the meeting, news media published articles about Plaintiff Thompson’s confrontation of Sheriff Hall. Sheriff Hall told the media he had looked into the case. Plaintiffs claim that because Daniel Thompson and Ed Knowling confronted Defendant Sheriff Hall at the town hall meeting, “Defendant Sheriff Hall ordered Defendant Utsey to re-open the investigation to bring new criminal charges against Daniel Thompson.” Defendant Sheriff Hall, through Deputy Collier, ordered “Defendant Utsey . . . to record all of the interviews and have the investigation finished before a date certain.” According to Plaintiffs, Deputy Collier ordered Deputy Utsey to “make [the] charges stick.” After the media stories about the meeting were published, Sheriff Hall initiated a supervisor’s inquiry into whether the Thompsons and Knowling were victims of abuse by police. Santa Rosa Sheriff Deputy Tomlinson was assigned the task of investigating the allegations of police misconduct. However, according 4 to Plaintiffs, Defendant Utsey was told to focus on the criminal case against Daniel Thompson and Knowling. In March 2005, Defendant Deputy Utsey interviewed Defendant Deputy Farnham. Plaintiffs claim that although “Defendant Utsey felt that Defendant Farnham’s story [regarding what happened on the evening of September 20, 2004] was not true,” Utsey “did not notify his chain of command nor did he incorporate the inconsistencies into his supplemental report.” Defendant Utsey interviewed other officers on the scene that night, but according to Plaintiffs, “avoided asking any questions about whether there was any misconduct on the night in question” and “intentionally avoided any issues about police misconduct.” Defendant Utsey’s summary of the witness statements was incorporated into a supplement to the offense report from the night of the arrests. Plaintiffs allege Utsey’s supplemental offense report failed to summarize accurately the witness statements. Defendant Sheriff Hall then gave Utsey’s supplemental offense report to the State Attorney, allegedly in order to persuade the State Attorney to prosecute Daniel Thompson. Plaintiffs further allege that “[d]uring the period between October 2004 and March 17, 2005, [they] observed an exponential increase in the presence of the 5 Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s department. Deputies would drive by their properties, stop, and point at their homes.” Cathy Thompson also “observed deputies following her to and from work.”1 Plaintiffs further allege that although Defendant Sheriff Hall learned through his chief deputy that there were complaints about his deputies harassing witnesses, he did nothing to follow up on such complaints.