Retirement on the Horizon for Chief Schettino

Marco Island’s Police Chief has been under fire by some members of the city council for the last two years. On Thursday afternoon Schettino offered the Interim City Manager, David Harden a letter indicating his intentions to retire from the city on June 15, to facilitate a smooth transition within the department. He will have completed 10 years of service on that date.

Prior to his arrival in Southwest Florida, Schettino had served as the Deputy Police Chief in Ridgefield, New Jersey. He joined the Ridgefield department in 1980, having previously served as an undercover narcotics investigator for the Bergen County District Attorney’s office.

He will have completed 42 years in law enforcement in June of this year.

Harden was hired and began his responsibilities as the City Manager on January 8 of this year and some on the street are already speculating as to why Schettino would choose to leave or whether he was being pushed out.

The relationship between Chief Schettino and City Councilor Larry Honig has continued to sour over the last three years and came to a head at a city council meeting on March 5, 2018. At that meeting, Councilor Honig launched into a direct attack against Chief Schettino and the department. Honig utilized some aspects of an Employee Climate Survey which was authorized in May of 2017. In addition to the survey, Honig quoted anonymous sources without indicating whether the sources were actively employed by the department, had left service within the department, or had been dismissed.

During the meeting, Schettino rose to defend his department and himself, personally. “Shame on you Councilman Honig, it’s a disgrace,” said Schettino, his voice cracking with emotion as he defended himself, his personnel and the department. “We have an outstanding police department of professional men and women that do a great job. Do we have disgruntled individuals? Of course, we do. Do we have people we have had to discipline along the way? Yes, we have, and unfortunately, they aren’t happy,” said Schettino.

“You have been attempting to undermine this department for years,” continued Schettino. “You use a flawed climate survey, and anonymous responses with past and present employees, some of which were part of the 13 open internal investigations we had to clear when I first assumed command of this department. You made sure of their responses to that survey,” said Schettino.

Councilor Honig has denied having any ulterior motives in his attacks on Chief Schettino and the Marco Island Police Department. However, in a congratulatory email to newly-elected Naples City Councilor Linda Penniman, Honig referred to the Marco Island Police Department as a “rogue” organization. Honig went on to tell Councilor Penniman, “We have island wide corruption down here.” That claim was made with no substantiation, explanations or facts attached.

Penniman has since resigned to assist with the care of her ill husband.

Former City Manager Lee Niblock referred to a planned “Valentine’s Day Massacre” about one year ago in an email to Councilor Honig. Councilor Honig has denied publicly his knowledge of any such purging of city staff. Councilors are specifically forbidden by the City Charter from directing, hiring or firing city personnel. They may only give guidance and direction to the city manager and city attorney. All other personnel work directly under the city manager.

Nothing would come of that threat, as Niblock would be charged with a First-Degree Misdemeanor Battery against the Marco Island Academy’s Principal for unwanted sexual advances. He would be dismissed for cause in March of 2018 by the Marco Island City Council.

Brady List Controversy

The city’s police department and Schettino have recently come under attack in an editorial by another publication, calling for it to be “sacked,” and put under the county’s jurisdiction.

It cited the recent disclosure that an officer on the department is on what is referred to as the “Brady List’ with the State Attorney’s Office. The list itself was a direct creation of a case which came before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Brady vs. Marylandwas heard in 1963 and would affirm the responsibility of the prosecution to declare to the defense any exculpatory evidence. That would include the reliability of witnesses, otherwise it amounts to a due process violation.

New trials have been granted for defendants when it was revealed that officers have had disciplinary action taken against them by their departments for breaching ethical guidelines and the moral standards of the position they hold. These actions are a direct result of the prosecution not revealing an officer’s background to the defense.

As a result of this, agencies across the nation have provided to prosecutors “Brady Lists,” or what some refer to as “Exclusionary Lists.” These lists are created that detail names of officers who may meet those criteria which could be called into question and potentially harm cases they are prosecuting, if called upon to testify.

Many jurisdictions throughout the state have failed to create their own lists, but to the credit of some they have made those lists available or are working on making those lists public record. The Office of the State Attorney, 20th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida has created its list, and unfortunately an officer from Marco Island has been placed upon that list.

The Office of the State Attorney, 20th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida came forward as early as 2011 to make the department aware of their concerns regarding testimony by then Sergeant Tige Thompson, regarding a DUI arrest that occurred in 2010. Those concerns were made directly to then Police Chief Thomas Carr, when they advised him that they would not be proceeding regarding the prosecution of that case due to the tainted testimony provided by Thompson and corroborating time stamped audios which substantiated the SAO’s concerns. That meeting was held on May 5, 2011.

At that meeting the State Attorney’s Office requested Marco investigate those concerns and provided that corroborating information to Carr’s office, requesting an update when their investigation was completed.

They would return a second time to make those same concerns known to then Chief Don Hunter on November 25, 2013, and found no report had been generated from the previous administration. Hunter had assumed command of the department after the retirement of former Chief Thomas Carr, who they had met with the first time. They would advise him that Thompson was now considered to be unreliable and was being placed on the “Brady List.”

It is still unclear why the SAO’s office didn’t choose to prosecute on the evidence they had in their possession.

Hunter turned the State Attorney’s Office concerns over to Lt. Linda Guerrero on January 21, 2014 for a report. At the same time, Chief Hunter removed Thompson from the Patrol Division and transferred him to the Investigative Bureau. An Internal Affairs file was opened on May 21, 2014, but no further actions were taken.

On January 26, 2015, the State Attorney’s Office met with now Chief Al Schettino and provided him with the file on Thompson and explained their requests to former Chiefs Carr and Hunter. On February 2, 2015 they would provide Schettino’s office with an official notification of Thompson’s status and the inability to use him for testimony.

Schettino immediately transferred Thompson from the Investigative Bureau back to patrol, in order to minimize any exposure to major cases and possible contamination from that exposure. At the same time, an Internal Affairs Case was activated for review regarding the situation with Thompson.

That investigation was completed in April of 2016. However, discipline could not be imposed due to the case being over the 180-day time limit under the provisions of state law. Thompson had initially been issued a notice to employee on May 21, 2014, which had started the 180-day clock.

On July 5, 2016, Schettino would sustain violations of truthfulness, integrity and non-compliance with directives based upon the internal investigation he had ordered, but because it went beyond the 180- day window, no additional discipline by the department was allowed.

That was reviewed by city legal and staff, who agreed the window to bring action had long been closed.

Schettino did provide the case file to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for their review and possible disciplinary action. They would review the file and decline to take further action.

Schettino’s office would once again submit the same information to the FDLE in May of 2018 and again the agency declined taking further action.

Schettino also conferred with the city’s legal representatives and was advised they saw no way forward on the potential for disciplinary actions.

Since then, prosecution of several cases involving officer Thompson have been dismissed by the SAO’s, including one high visibility case which involved a barricaded subject in December of last year.

Thompson has now been placed on administrative leave and is no longer on patrol or investigative duty.

Officers Dismissed

Schettino’s office was also called upon to deal with the embarrassment of having two on-duty officers involved in a consensual sexual relationship with a vulnerable female subject at separate times.

“There was no excuse for the unethical and unprofessional lapses of judgement by those officers. This department will not tolerate those types of actions and those individuals have paid a high price, both professionally and in their private lives,” said Schettino.

The city is presently being sued by a third officer, however that officer has indicated his desire to drop the suit should the city commit to not pursuing him for attorney fees. Both of the officer’s attorneys have chosen to remove themselves from the case.

“The community needs to know as soon as it came to our attention that we immediately moved to ascertain the truth and deal with the situation in a professional and prompt manner,” said Schettino.

Creation of Department

Marco Island created a separate police agency shortly after a failed experiment with a public safety department which would have seen police officers and fire/rescue personnel cross trained in their duties. That attempt at combining the two services did not work for the fledging city and a referendum was held to determine whether the community desired to maintain a separate police department. That referendum passed and the department was formed.