
State Attorney John Durrett decided in February to close an investigation into the administration of Alachua County Sheriff Clovis Watson Jr. and not pursue two criminal charges relating to intercepting privileged communications.
Watson served as sheriff from January 2021 to October 2023, when he stepped down. In 2024, Gov. Ron DeSantis directed Durrett, who serves as state attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit, to take over the Florida Department of Law Enforcement case. The case began in February 2023.
The direction from DeSantis, given in Executive Order 24-105, came after State Attorney Brian Kramer, who serves Alachua County, recused himself from the investigation. Kramer cited a conflict of interest since he had endorsed then-Sheriff Emery Gainey for reelection.
Durrett took over in June 2024 and ended the investigation with a Feb. 19 letter.
In the letter, Durrett said the investigation failed to have sufficient evidence for the charges. The first charge stated Watson had an employee intercept privileged communications that are out of bounds for law enforcement, but the case rests on a single witness, Durrett noted.
Durrett said a single witness, who has been promised immunity, isn’t sufficient as Watson can simply deny any alleged order to intercept the communications.
On the second charge, a privileged communication was intercepted. When presented to an attorney involved in the investigation, the attorney pointed out the illegal nature. For this charge, Durrett said the interception was made by a sergeant who “simply made an error in believing that the same exceptions applicable to criminal investigations applied in internal investigations.”
The sergeant, Durrett said, was disciplined, but no evidence shows wrongdoing on the part of Watson to file a criminal charge.
In February, an Alachua County jury awarded a $15 million verdict to a sheriff’s employee who claimed racial discrimination by Clovis and his administration. That decision has since been appealed.
What was the original “intercepting privileged communications” charge? None of the stories I read explain this.
In the story, it says:
“The first charge stated Watson had an employee intercept privileged communications that are out of bounds for law enforcement, but the case rests on a single witness, Durrett noted.”
Thank you. Was the communication intercepted under section 934.03 of the Florida Statutes, Interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited?