A slap on the wrist and one in the face

Daniel Saylor

Ex-Police Chief Daniel Saylor faced the music yesterday. He stood before Judge Jeffrey Arnold in Orange County courtroom 10A, awaiting his sentence for two counts of Official Misconduct, one count of Solicitation to Commit Official Misconduct and one count of Solicitation to Tamper with Physical Evidence.

Unfortunately, the music was too soft and easy.

By all accounts, Saylor presented himself as a man of character who had done many good deeds in his life.

Scott Bush

By all accounts, perhaps, except that of the child victim whom he failed to protect from his buddy Scott Frederick Bush. Bush is currently out on bond, awaiting trial for two counts of Sexual Battery Victim <12 yrs old, and one count of Lewd/Lascivious Molestation Victim <12.

Saylor's cover up of an investigation into his friend's alleged crimes was not only his undoing, but caused a maelstrom that included lawsuits, a scuffle at a Town Council meeting, and governmental shakeups in the formerly quiet town of Windermere (well, as long as you don't talk about Tiger Woods' "incident" it was quiet).

Saylor's attorney, Mark NeJame, argued that his client had suffered great public embarrassment; loss of his job, his law enforcement certification, and numerous friends (though many were in the gallery to support him); and was truly remorseful.

Please pass the Kleenex.

In reviewing numerous press reports about Mr. Saylor's misconduct, it is obvious that his 1-yr jail sentence (with work release approved by the judge), is like slapping someone on the wrist with a feather. At the time of his arrest, there were over 1,000 pages in FDLE's investigation of Winderemere's police chief. In addition to allegations relating to Bush, Saylor allegedly:

• Accepted a $1000 cash "gift" in 2010 from Raul Carvajal, a subordinate, who sought to have a friend hired by the police department (Carvajal pled no contest to one count of bribery and one count of official misconduct, and was sentenced to 1 day in jail, 3 years probation and 150 hours community service earlier this month - adjudication was withheld);
• Failed to take action when DNA testing identified a suspect in a 2004 home invasion and attempted kidnapping case three years ago;
• Returned a diamond tennis bracelet that had been stolen from police evidence. Additionally, over 20 guns, drugs, cash, and other valuables had reportedly disappeared from the less than secure evidence room.
• Filed false crime statistics.
• Voided tickets for residents and government employees.
• Ordered officers to drive intoxicated residents home rather than arrest them for DUI.
• Used officers to disperse immigrant workers at Bush's home after they had nearly completed work for him then refused to pay them.
• Sold guns meant for law enforcement to civilians.

Additionally, Saylor

• Resigned from the Melbourne Police Department in 1996 after being stopped in Orlando with a prostitute; and
• Was suspended from the Florida Police Chiefs Association in 2009 for "misbehaving" at a conference, unbeknownst to Windermere's government.

With all of that, I find Judge Arnold's comment to Saylor, "You're a talented man and will recover from this blip in the middle of your life" extraordinarily inappropriate. See it here.

This "blip?"

Did he call it a "blip?"

How can one call misconduct and criminal behavior going back 15 years a "blip?"

I call it disgraceful - both Saylor's behavior and the comment made by the judge.

And a one year sentence with the judge's permission to do work release? A slap in the face to Bush's victim, law abiding citizens, and good cops everywhere.

Beware . . . You may not be as protected as you think

Two weeks ago I was in Judge Marc Lubet's courtroom when I heard something that left me somewhat stunned. An alleged sex offender, who was released prior to trial with GPS monitoring through a private company, Court Programs, fled to Honduras in March. As I inquired further, I learned that another alleged sex offender who was awaiting trial with GPS monitoring fled to Turkey in July.

Court Programs uses state-of-the-art technology from SecureAlert to track their clients. The units enable the SecureAlert monitoring center to verbally communicate directly with the client and establish a three-way call with the defendant's local officer. An exclusion/inclusion zone can be programmed, and real-time details about an offender's location delivered. The daily cost to the defendant ranges from $8 to $15.

GPS monitoring can be a win-win for all parties involved. The defendant, who is innocent until proven guilty, can maintain his/her job while awaiting trial. The victim is assured that the defendant's movements are being monitored. The taxpayers avoid having to pay approximately $85/day to house them at the jail.

But it's not a win-win if the monitoring company doesn't do its job and notify law enforcement and the Court when a defendant violates their conditions of pretrial release (or probation).

In talking with members of the court system, I received almost overwhelming approval of the job that Court Programs does. With the exception of occasional concerns about slow service in getting inmates set up with their devices on weekends, they do a good job in providing this much needed service.

The following two Orange County sex offenders have fled this country to avoid prosecution:

Lewis Lopez-Moya [Honduras]
2009-CF-016563-A-O
Lewd/Lascivious Battery (2 counts)
Lopez-Moya's victim, whom he admitted to sexually assaulting, was 14 years old when the offenses occurred in November, 2009. He was granted bond in the amount of $10,000 by Judge Marc Lubet on 12/17/09, put on GPS monitoring through Court Programs, ordered to turn in his passport (which he did on 12/18/10), restricted to Orange County, ordered to have no contact with the victim, and had a curfew imposed. His conditions of release were modified in February, 2010 to permit daytime travel to surrounding counties for work purposes only.

On March 15, 2010, Lopez-Moya's defense attorney was permitted to withdraw from the case. "Irreconcilable differences" was cited as the reason.

On or about March 24, 2010, Court Programs lost contact with the defendant.  That same day, an Order to Take Into Custody was entered, citing that the defendant had knowingly or intentionally altered or tampered with the device. The bond was forfeited.

On March 25, 2010, the bondsman filed a motion to have the bond forfeiture rescinded, citing the failure of Court Programs to adequately notify the bondsman and the Court of defendant's having violated the terms of pretrial release as follows:

Pursuant to the CPI FL [Court Programs Inc, Florida] tracking records, for weeks upon weeks, the Defendant did not reside at [address], Orlando and had been breaching his curfew.  CPI never informed the surety [bondsman] of these breaches and never provided notice to this Honorable Court. As such, the Court's directed program in which the surety had to utilize and rely upon was in breach (emphasis mine).

Pursuant to the CPI FL tracking records, for long periods of time the Defendant's GPS tracker showed that the monitoring was "UNAVAILABLE." The signal for "UNAVAILABLE," usually signifies that the Defendant is or has been tampering with the GPS monitor. CPI FL and Court Programs Inc failed to not only inform the surety, but failed to take appropriate action against the Defendant in which they had been secured by this court to secure.

Attached to the motion was dozens of pages of tracking data, together with two maps that showed that the defendant traveled to Brevard County and was last "pinged" suspiciously close to the Melbourne International Airport.

A hearing was held in July and Judge Lubet granted the bondsman's motion to return the money to him.

Selami Duman [Turkey]
2010-CF-008400-A-O
Solicitation of Minor via Computer; Travel to Meet Minor for Unlawful Act; Lewd/Lascivious Exhibition Using Computer (2 counts)
Duman is a Turkish citizen and was granted a $30,000 bond on June 16, 2010 by Judge Jeffrey Arnold. He was released two days later on GPS monitoring through Court Programs after surrendering his passport.

On July 1, 2010 a hearing on the defendant's motion to have his passport returned was denied. He faced deportation because his employment had been terminated as a result of the arrest and he was unable to obtain a new visa in order to seek employment.

On July 4, 2010 the GPS device either malfunctioned or it was disconnected.  It took Court Programs four days to notify the bondsman that they had lost track of the defendant.

On July 8, 2010, an order was drafted to have the defendant taken into custody.

On July 12, 2010 an Order to Take Into Custody was entered, citing that the defendant had allowed his device to power down on June 18th [this must be a typo on the paperwork - other documentation says it was July 4th] and that all attempts to contact him had failed.

The monitoring device was mailed back to Court Programs with a return address in Turkey.


These defendants either traveled on someone else's passport, used a forged a passport, or managed to secure a duplicate from their governments. We are curious to know how they got out of this country.



Conclusion

Chief Judge Belvin Perry issued Administrative Order 2008-27 on 12/31/08 that governs the use of GPS and SCRAM (alcohol) monitoring devices.  It does not specify a provider for these services.

Court Programs is a privately held company that provides the majority of GPS monitoring services in the county for the Ninth Judicial Circuit. A search of Orange County's Contracts & Purchasing Division records turned up no formal contract. CourtWatch has also been unable to locate a formal Memorandum of Understanding between them and the County, the Court or the Corrections Department.

We are concerned that there is little to no oversight of this company as it is tasked with monitoring some dangerous offenders in our community. While Court Programs has been very successful with nearly all of their clients, even being accused at times of being too aggressive in reporting infractions, two individuals accused of sex crimes against children will most likely never be held accountable for those crimes.

More attention to this matter is needed. Some believe that the Ninth Circuit is responsible for overseeing this matter. Others believe that the County Corrections should handle it. There is a gap somewhere that needs to be plugged. The citizens need to have more leverage and the ability to impose sanctions upon GPS providers when things go awry and our defendants go astray.