DV = Domestic Violence = Deputy Villella

CourtWatch monitored the Villella injunction hearing held on March 2nd, which involved a lengthy conference at the bench so the press could not hear. What wasn't reported in the media is that the "no hostile contact" was the Judge's idea!

In spite of having his own attorney, it appeared to me that the petitioner in this case was intimidated into acquiescing. I hope the petitioner doesn't get a false sense of security thinking that this injunction has any teeth.

There is no wiggle room in Florida Statute 741.31(4)(a)5 for "no hostile contact." Intimate partners have numerous non-verbal ways they communicate with one another. In a healthy relationship, these might constitute an "inside joke" or word/gesture of endearment. In an abusive relationship, they engender fear.

An abuser can be very crafty about the methods they use to intimidate their victim. For example, one woman's husband routinely removed his wedding ring and set it upon the fireplace mantel before he beat her. The gesture terrified her. When she finally had the courage to seek an injunction, and they were in court, he calmly removed his wedding ring and set it on the table.

Needless to say, the meaning was crystal clear to his wife. It was a hostile gesture that communicated his intention to do violence. Yet no one else in the courtroom even realized the implication of his action.

Therefore, the concept of a "No Hostile Contact" order is ridiculous. Imagine the wife in the above scenario attempting to convince a law enforcement officer to arrest her husband because he removed his wedding band. No officer would. And the abuser knows it.

Non-hostile contact orders simply empower an abuser to continue abusing - albeit in a less overtly "hostile" manner than before.

They are simply not enforceable.

Orange County deputy accused of domestic violence

Orlando Sentinel (2/24/10): Ex-boyfriend accuses Orange deputy of domestic violence

While it is always distressing to see a member of law enforcement allegedly engaging in domestic violence, the story told by Deputy Bryan Villella's ex-wife and subsequent partner are frighteningly similar.

What is most concerning is that the judge in this case, Judge Sally Kest, read this injunction request and despite there being a prior history, use of a weapon and physical violence, she merely granted a hearing, without an accompanying temporary injunction. I have been told that the victim is terrified and is currently in hiding.

In his petition dated 2/18, Mr. Carrion alleged that during their 4 year relationship, Deputy Villella battered him numerous times, held a gun to his head while forcing him to clean up his own blood, tased him, coerced him into group sex, dislocated his shoulder, threatened to kill him and his daughter, and threw him out of the home.

And Judge Kest set the case for a hearing on March 2nd WITHOUT granting a temporary injunction?

It appears as though there is a bias of some sort at work here.

Because it is a same sex relationship? Or because it involves a member of law enforcement? Or perhaps because the petition did not allege exact dates and times of the incidents, but was submitted as nearly 7 pages in a narrative fashion, rather than in a more orderly fashion? Judge Kest's response:

The Court finds that the facts, as stated in the Petition alone and without a hearing on the matter, do not demonstrate that Petitioner is a victim of domestic or repeat violence or that Petitioner has reasonable cause to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence. Therefore, there is not a sufficient factual basis upon which the court can enter a Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Domestic or Repeat Violence prior to a hearing. . . . Petitioner may amend or supplement the Petition at any time to state further reasons why a Temporary Injunction should be ordered which would be in effect until the hearing scheduled below.

Mr. Carrion submitted a supplemental affadavit on 2/22 to his petition in an effort to secure a temporary injunction pending his hearing. It was trimmed to 2 pages and included dates of some of the offenses, the most recent one being May, 2009. It was denied. I would assume because it has been several months since the last physical act of violence.

While it has been 8-9 months since he was physically attacked, the Petitioner wrote that he is terrified because Deputy Villella's conduct is finally being investigated by the Orange County Sheriff's Office as a result of an unrelated incident in June 2009 (see Sentinel story). And Deputy Villella knows about Mr. Carrion's attempt to get an injunction - something that could result in Villella losing his job.

Mr. Carrion is wise to remain in hiding.

It is more than disappointing that his allegations, when presented to OCSO last year, were not thoroughly investigated. Mr. Carrion wrote "I cannot count on the police. I went to them for help and got nothing but a reprimand for shaming one of their 'valiant.' After all I told them and proved to them, Bryan was given an award....He is Deputy of the Year.....I am terrified."

And Judge Kest found that Mr. Carrion didn't demonstrate that he had reasonable cause to believe that he was in imminent danger?

Mr. Carrion is very wise to remain in hiding.