BY JENNIFER CABRERA

LIVE OAK, Fla. – 3rd Judicial Circuit State Attorney John Durrett has notified the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) that he will not prosecute former Alachua County Sheriff Clovis Watson on two criminal charges.

Click here to read the letter.

FDLE sent its investigative report to Durrett after Governor Ron DeSantis assigned the case to the 3rd Judicial Circuit because 8th Judicial Circuit State Attorney Brian Kramer declared a conflict of interest in the case.

The February 19 letter describes two offenses and states that “Insufficient evidence has been developed and presented to establish a criminal act on the part of Mr. Watson as it relates to either offense.”

Interception of privileged communications

The letter states that the only evidence to support the first charge, interception of privileged communications, is the testimony of an immunized witness, Captain Kutner, who indicated that he was directed by Undersheriff Joel Decoursey to monitor and intercept privileged communications and that he would in turn reveal the contents of this monitoring to the Undersheriff and the Sheriff. A lieutenant reportedly indicated in a sworn statement that “they” had personally witnessed Kutner monitoring privileged communications.

However, the FDLE report stated, “Captain Kutner was the only Chief Inspector of the five that were interviewed to report being instructed to do so,” and Durrett concluded, “The entire charge rests upon the immunized testimony of a singular witness.” Durrett wrote that the Sheriff and Undersheriff “can simply deny or not speak at all,” so the charge “cannot be proven beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.”

Official misconduct

Durrett wrote that there is also a lack of evidence to support the second charge, official misconduct. The investigation reportedly found that a Sergeant with the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office unlawfully intercepted and recorded a phone conversation with an attorney; the recording was furnished to the attorney, who brought the issue to the attention of the Sheriff’s Office and made the agency aware that the exception for law enforcement investigations did not apply in that case.

Durrett wrote, “Here, the Sergeant simply made an error in believing that the same exceptions applicable to criminal investigations applied in internal investigations. The Sergeant was disciplined for the error. This action stands in contrast to Captain Kutner who indicated he was directed to unlawfully intercept communications involving the same attorney.”

Regarding the recommended criminal charges against Watson for destroying (or ordering the destruction of) the recording, Durrett wrote, “All sides agree the conversation should not have been recorded. A copy was provided to the attorney who was recorded. The officer was disciplined… [W]ithout evidence to implicate Mr. Watson in the destruction a criminal charge cannot ethically be filed.”