V,

Internal Affairs
InternalInvestigation
I.A . 17-4
DFC William Saxer

Investigator: Sergeant. Scott. Clemens

ism,Trus
t
 CHARLOT T E COUNT Y SHERIFF'S OFFICE

I.A . 17-4
S u m m a r y o f Original Incident

On Janu ary2, 2017, Depu tyFirstClass William Saxer(hereinafter"DFC Saxer")

was assigned a grandtheftreportofitems stolenfrom a storage u nit(Case nu mber
1701-000811). DFC Saxercompleted thereportand su bmitted itto Sergeant
Ronnie Pressley(hereinafter"Sgt. Pressley")forapproval. Upon reviewing the
report, Sgt. Pressleydid notfind anydocu mentationconfirming thatDFC Saxer
checked P awn Finderforthestolen itemsorthenamed su spect. Sgt. Pressley
rejected thereportand notedinthecomment fieldforDFC Saxerto check P awn
Finder. Sgt. Pressleyreceived thereportback ashorttimelaterstating inthe
narrative"A check ofpawn listing provided no information, asno items matching
those missing fou nd."

On Janu ary3, 2017, Sgt. Pressleyreceived notification from Detective Corporal

Jacob Hawkins(hereinafter"Cpl. Hawkins")the detective assignedto the case had
done a search ofthesu spect inP awn Finderand withinafew minu tes gota match .
T hatsame day, Sgt. Pressleyhad an administrative qu eryran on P awn Finderfor
DFC Saxerandfou nd he had notloggedinsince Ju ne24,2016.

On Janu ary7, 2017, Sgt. Pressleyhad a meeting with DFC Saxerinreference to

this discrepancy. Sgt. Pressley's intention was forDFC Saxerto explain the
discrepancy, and be honestabou tthefact he did notactuallycheck P awn
Finder. While speaking with DFC Saxer, Sgt. Pressleyasked h im ifhe checked
P awn Finderafterthereport was rejected and he was instru cted to do so. DFC
Saxersaid"yes,"hesearchedthesuspect's name andfou nd nothing. Sgt.Pressley
againasked h im"Did you check P awn Finder?"DFC Saxersaid"yes."Sgt.
Pressleythenasked h im to explain wh ya detective checked itthefollowing day
andfou nd a match forboth thesu spect and itemsstolen which were pawned on
December 19, 2016. DFC Saxersaid he did notknow wh ybecau sehe checked i t
and fou nd nothing.

INT EGRIT Y- P ROFESSIONALISM -T RUST

H D
 CHARLOT T E COUNT Y SHERIFF'S OFFICE

Sgt.Pressleythenpresented the qu erythatshowed DFC Saxerhad notloggedin

since Ju ne24, 2016. Sgt. Pressleyasked h im h o w h e c hecked P awn Finder, bu t
had notlogged in since Ju ne24, 2016? DFC Saxerpau sed, thensaid he did not
check P awn Finderbecau sehe cou ld notgetlogged in. Sgt.Pressleytold DFC
Saxerhe wou ld ratherhave had h im sayhe cou ld notgetloggedin, thanfalsely
docu ment he checked P awn Finderas wellas lieto Sgt. Pressleyseveraltimes.

DFC Saxerfalselydocu mented an official record and then was u ntru thfu lto a
su pervisor wh en confronted with the discrepancy. Based on Sgt.Pressley'sfindings
throu gh hissu pervisoryinvestigation and evidence athand, h e fou nd DFC Saxer
had violated severalpolicies and procedu resand passed allinformationonto his
immediatesu pervisor.

Notification o f Internal InvestigatioM

On Janu ary24, 2017, DFC Saxer was notified he was being investigated bythe
Internal Affairs Unit for Falsification o f Official Do c u ments and Untru thflilness.
He was provided with a ConfidentialityofInternalInvestigationsform which he
signed and u nderstood. DFC Saxerwas also provided with a copyofhisrights
( Law Enforcements Officers Rights) while u nderinvestigation.

j Su mmarv ofCp LJacob Hawkins Statementgivento 1.

On Janu ary24, 2017, atapproximately12:50 P.M., I met with Cpl. Hawkins atthe
Internal Affairs office in order to obtain a sworn recorded statement detailing his
involvement in this case.

Priortotheinterview,Cpl. Hawkins was placed u nderoath andthetermpeiju rywas

discu ssed. Cpl. Hawkins also read and signed the Confidentiality of Intemal
Investigation form. He advised he u nderstood the form and did not have any
qu estionsregarding thecontext ofit.

Cpl. Hawkins advisedon Janu ary3, 2017, whileinmorning review, he was looking
atthereportsfromtheweekend to determinewhich onesshou ldbe assignedto CIU.

INT EGRIT Y- P ROFESSIONALISM -T RUST G E t2

 CHARLOT T E COUNT Y SHERIFF'S OFFICE

While reviewing the reports, Cpl. Hawkins noticed one ofthe cases had a bu nch of
items stolen and a su spect listed. Cpl. Hawkins pu lled that particu lar case and
reassigneditto Det. B u ms in CIU. Shortlyafterthe case was assignedto Detective
Christopher B u ms (hereinafter "Det. Bu ms"), Cpl. Hawkins advised he was
approached byDet, Bu ms. Det. B u ms told h im as soon as h e looked overthecase
he immediatelychecked P awn Finder and fou nd the su spect listed in the case had
pawned several items matching the stolen ones listed in the original report, Cpl.
Hawkins said he knew prior to assigning the case to Det. B u ms that the original
depu ty( DFC Saxer) had pu tin his reportthat P avm Finder had been checked with
negativeresults. Cpl. Hawkins asked Det, B u ms ifthe results wereinP avm finder
at the time ofthe report and Det. B u ms advised theywere. Cpl. Hawkins took a
look atthe information Det. B u ms pu lled u p, and itdid appear to h im as well the
transactions were in the P awn Finder System at the time DFC Saxer said he had
c h e c k e d it.

Cpl, Hawkins thensentan emailto Sgt. Pressleyletting h im know DFC Saxersaid

he checked P awn Finder in his report, wh en in fact he never did. I asked Cpl.
Hawkinsifthere was anything elseIdidn'tcoverorifhehad anyotherinvolvement
inthiscase.Cpl. Hawkins advisedhe personallyloggedintoP avm Finderto seeh o w
easyitwas to u se. From whatheremembered hesaiditwas"su pereasy,"he pu tthe
su spects name in and right awayitshowed allthe transactions matching the items
pawned.

B S u m m a r y o f Sgt. Ronnie Presslev's Statement given to LA . I

On Janu ary24, 2017, at approximately1:35 P.M., I met with Sgt. Pressleyat the
Internal Affairs office in order to obtain a swom recorded statement detailing his
involvement in this case.

Priorto theinterview, Sgt. Pressleywas placed u nderoath andtheterm perju rywas

discu ssed. Sgt. Pressley also read and signed the Confidentiality of Intemal
Investigation form. He advised he u nderstood the form and did not have any
qu estionsregarding the context ofit.

INT EGRIT Y- P ROFESSIONALISM -T RUST 6 E I3

 CHARLOT T E COUNT Y SHERIFF'S OFFICE

Sgt.PressleyadvisedDFC Saxerwas assigned atheftofsome materialsfroma mini

storage on Florida St. DFC Saxer took the report, which tu med ou t to be stolen
items su ch as Ryobi tools, drying fans and dehu midifiers. T h e report was later
su bmitted and checked by Sgt. Pressley. Sgt. Pressleynoted at the end of DFC
Saxer'sreporttherewas nothing mentionedabou tchecking P awn Finder.He rejected
the report, and sent itback to DFC Saxer advising h im he needed to check P awn
Finder before su bmitting it. DFC Saxer fixed the report and sent it back to Sgt.
Pressley, noting he c hecked P awn Finder for the stolen items and no resu lts were
fou nd. T herefore, Sgt. Pressleysigned offand approvedthereport.

On Janu ary3, 2017, Sgt. Pressleyreceived an email advising one of his detectives
had checked P awn Finder, and almostinstantlycame u p with a hitforthe name of
the su spect and theitems. Becau se there was a discrepancy, Sgt. Pressleygot with
aP awn Finderadministratorand asked thata qu erybe ru non DFC Saxer'slastlog
inon P awn Finder. Sgt. Pressleywas advised the lasttime DFC Saxerlogged into
orc hecked P a w n Finder was o n Ju ne 24, 2016.

On Janu ary7, 2017, Sgt. Pressleycalled DFC Saxerinto the office to speak to h im
abou tthe situation. Sgt. Pressleysaid he wanted to give DFC Saxerthe benefit of
the dou bt. Maybe someone else on the squ ad had ru n P awn Finder for h im? Or
maybe there was some othersortofhiddendiscrepancyasto wh yhepu tinhisreport
it was checked, wh en itreallynever was? Wh en DFC Saxer arrived at the office,
Sgt.Pressleyshowed h imthereportandsaid"Iasked you to check P awn Finderand
you didn't.""Did you ordid you notcheck P awn Finder?" DFC Saxerreplied"yes."
Sgt. Pressleyasked h im again "Did you check P awn Finder?" Again, DFC Saxer
told h im"yes."

At this point, Sgt. Pressleyshowed DFC Saxerthe printou tfrom the detective wh o
fou nd the information. Sgt. Pressleyasked h im"then wh ywas this fou nd the next
byju st a simple qu eryin P awn Finder?"DFC Saxer answered back "I don't
know, Icou ldn't find anything." Sgt. Pressleysaid he asked DFC Saxer one more
time"Did you check P awn Finder?"He responded"yes." Sgt.Pressleythenshowed
DFC Saxerthe printou tforthe qu eryshowing he hadn'tloggedin since Ju ne2016.
Sgt. Pressleysaid he asked DFC Saxer "T ell me wh y you haven'tlogged in since
Ju ne2016 and you 'retelling me you logged in yesterday?" DFC Saxer pau sed and
said"Ididn'tcheck it."Sgt.Pressleyasked h im wh y, DFC Saxerreplied"Icou ldn't

I NT EGRIT Y- P ROFESSIONALISM -T R U S T P A G E I4
 CHARLOT T E COUNT Y SHERIFF'S OFFICE

getlogged in." Sgt. Pressleysaid he then asked DFC Saxer wh yhe didn'tju sttell
h imthat,insteadoflying to hisface 3 times.DFC Saxerdidn'thavean answer. Sgt.
Pressleysaid he then gave ita dayor two and decided to send itu p the chain of
command for policyviolations.

On Janu ary8, DFC Saxercame to Sgt. Pressleyand asked h im what he was going
to do abou tthesituation. Sgt.Pressleytoldh im he wou ldleth imknow, DFC Saxer's
replywas"Well I'vegotsomething to talk to you abou t wh en you decide." A little
while later, Sgt. Pressleyhad Corporal Svend Hansen(hereinafter"Cpl. Hansen")
and DFC Saxer meet h i m beh ind th e W i n n Dixie at 17and Bermont Rd to talk abou t
thesituation. Upon theirarrival, Sgt. Pressleyadvised DFC Saxerhe was going to
docu ment the incident and forward it u p the chain of command for a written
reprimand. DFC Saxerreplied"Ifthat'sthecase you can expect myresignation."

Sgt.Pressleyexplainedto me DFC Saxerhas made itknown du ring thepastyearhe

hasn't been happy, which has reflected in his dailyactivity on the squ ad. Sgt.
Pressleysaid after DFC Saxer made the statement abou t resigning, he and Cpl.
Hansen tried to reason with h im byexplaining the reason for his u nhappiness was
notaresultofSgt. Pressleyrecommending discipline.Sgt. Pressleytold DFC Saxer
his recommendation of discipline was becau se he lied and was u ntru thfu l. Sgt.
Pressleysaid he and Cpl. Hansen talked to DFC Saxerfora while. Intheend, DFC
Saxer said he wasn't going to resign at this point and wou ld take whatever
pu nishment he receives.

Since this incident, DFC Saxer has been pu ton a Performance Improvement Plan.
According to Sgt.Pressleytherehavebeenseveralinstances inthepastyearofwhich
DFC Saxer hasn't thorou ghly investigated or docu mented things in his reports.
T herehavealso beenissu eswith DFC Saxernotsu bmitting evidence as well. T hese
issu esareallbeing docu mented and handled separately.

INT EGRIT Y- P ROFESSIONALISM -T RUST P A G E I5

 CHARLOT T E COUNT Y SHERIFF'S OFFICE

Su m m a r y o fP et. Ch ristoph er Bu rn's Statement given to LA ,

On Janu ary24, 2017, at approximately2:15 P.M., I met with Det. B u ms at the

Intemal Affairs office in order to obtain a sworn recorded statement detailing his
involvement in this case.

Prior to the interview, Det. B u ms was placed u nderoath and the term peiju rywas
discu ssed. Det. B u ms also read and signed the Confidentiality of Intemal
Investigation form. He advised he u nderstood the form and did not have any
qu estionsregarding the context ofit.

Det. B u ms advised the moming ofJanu ary3, 2017, he received a case assigned to
h im byCpl. Hawkins. Det. B u ms said helookedoverthecase and notedthere were
several items stolen so he immediately checked P awn Finder. He entered the
su spects name and the datesgivenfrom theoriginalreport. He was ableto locate7
Ryobi tools which had been pawned bythe su spect, matching the description given
byDFC Saxer.

Det. B u ms advisedhe did readin DFC Saxer'sreportthatP awn Finderwas checked

and no items were fou nd matching that description. Det. B u ms said he thou ght i
t
was strange, thereforehe reporteditto Cpl. Hawkins. He told Cpl. Hawkins thathe
c hec ked P a w n Finder and fou nd th e stolen items in a matter o f minu tes after
receiving the case. Det. B u ms said the items had been pawned two weeks priorto
h im receiving the case. Knowing sometimes there is a delay with pawn shops
entering the information, two weeks is well ou tside of that window. Det. B u m s
thou ghtitwas strangetheitemsweren'tfou nd wh en DFCSaxersaidhe hadchecked
P awn Finder, so he lethisimmediatesu pervisor(Cpl. Hawkins)know.

Su m m a r y o f DFC William Saxer's Statement ^v e n to I. A .

On Janu ary26"^,2017, atapproximately2:45 P.M., I met with DFC William Saxer

at my office in the district fou r headqu arters in order to obtain a swom recorded
statementdetailing hisinvolvementinthis case.

Priorto theinterview, DFC Saxerwas provided anyand allmaterialrelated to this

case. He was given ample timeto read overand review alltheavailable

INT EGRIT Y- P ROFESSIONALISM -T RUST 6 E 16

 CHARLOT T E COUNT Y SHERIFF'S OFFICE

information. DFCSaxerchose notto review anyofthe materialIprovided h im

with and elected to move rightinto theinterview. At 3:00 P.M., DFC Saxerwas
placed u nderoath and theterm peiju rywas discu ssed.In addition, DFC Saxer
signed and acknowledged thathereceived the Garrityadvisory.

DFC Saxeradvisedon Janu ary2, 2017, he was assigned acomplaintwhere an

individu alhad some floorfansand Ryobi tools stolenfrom his bu sinessand
su spected one ofhisemployees. DFC Saxersaid hetook thecomplaint, obtained a
statement, and obtaineda description ofthe stolenitems. Afterhecompleted the
reporthe sentitto Sgt. Pressleyforfinalreview and approval. Sgt. Pressley
rejected thereportand sentitback to him asking ifhehad anywayoflocating the
su spect orifhe had checked P awn Finderto seeifanyofthestolenitemshad been
pawned. DFC Saxeradmitted atthattime he h ad notchecked P awn Finder. I
asked DFC Saxerifhe had thename ofthesu spect atthatpoint, he advisedthe
su spect worked forthe victim. T h e victim provided h im with thename ofthe
su spect and a possible address.

Iasked DFC Saxerifhe was familiar with P awn Finderand he said"yes." Ithen
askedDFC SaxerifP awn Finderissomething the depu tiesare expected to check
wh en working a complaint ofstolen items. His response was"Ifyou havean item
thatcan be identifiedthen yes, it'sone ofthesteps." DFC Saxersaid"T o tellyou
thetruth,Icompletelydidn'tremember thatstep." DFC Saxerwenton to saythe
firsttimeitentered his mind he needed to check P awn Finderwas wh en Sgt.
Pressleysenthisreportback to him and asked him abou tit. Atthatpoint,DFC
Saxer advised h e went into P a w n Finder and fou nd ou t his ac c ou nt h ad b e c o m e
inactive. He thensaid"1hateto sayitbu titwas a piss poordecision on mypart,a
veryidiotic decision, bu t1ju stwroteinthereportIdid and Ididn'tlocate
anything." Afterhe pu tin his reporthe checked P awn Finderand didn'tlocate
anything he sentthereportback to Sgt. Pressley.

Abou t2 to 3 dayslater(following hisdaysoff),DFC Saxeradvised Sgt.Pressley

called h im into theoffice to talk to him. Wh en he arrived, Sgt. Pressleyasked h im
ifherecalled thereportregarding thestolentoolsandfansand hetold him"yes."
He said Sgt. Pressleythenasked h im ifhe actu allychecked P awn Finder. DFC
Saxer'sresponseto me was"At first1think itwas anotherpiss poordecision itwas
INT EGRIT Y- P ROFESSIONALISM -T RUST
H I
 CHARLOT T E COUNT Y SHERIFF'S OFFICE

more ofa pridething,"...."Iwas thinking ok thisis where it'sgoing to happen and

Imade the stu pid mistakeofsaying yesagain." Sgt. Pressleyasked h im againifhe
checked P awn Finderand his responseto me was "Iprettymu c h kind ofstu ck to
mygu ns, Ithink ou tofsheerembarrassmentand told h im yesagain." Atthis point
DFC Saxersaid Sgt.Pressleypu lledou ta cou ple pieces ofpapershowing he did
notlog into P awn Finderforseveral months, at which timehethentold Sgt.
Pressleyhe did notand admitted he had lied allalong.

AfterSgt. Pressleyaddressedthe situ ation he sentDFC Saxerback ou ton the road

and told h im he wou ld needtimeto figu re ou twhat he was going to do and get
back with him. Laterthesame day, Sgt. Pressleypu lled h im offto theside and
explainedtheseverityofwh athe did. DFC Saxersaid heagreed and stated to me
"Itgoes againstthecore valu es ofthe agency." DFC Saxersaid atthetime itwas
prettyembarrassing bu the listened to what Sgt. Pressleyhad to say. Sgt. Pressley
talked abou tthereportagainand asked DFC Saxerifhefeltthere was anything
externallyaffecting h im atwork. 1 - Employee Med Info

1 - Employee Med Info

Aftertheirconversation, Sgt. Pressleytold DFC Saxerhe wou ld be forwarding the

incident u p the chainofcommand. DFC Saxersaid hetold Sgt. Pressleyhe knew
h o w itwas going to go becau seone ofthe big no no's ofthe agencyislying. DFC
Saxer wenton to sayhe figu red the agencywou ld eithertellh im he's ou tofhereor
they'regoing to ask h im to resign. DFC Saxersaid atone pointhe did sayto Sgt.
Pressleymaybe itwou ld be betterifheresigned himself. Sgt. Pressleytold h im to
slow down and rethink what he was saying. Sgt. Pressleytalked to h im abou tthe
fact he had22 years with theagencyand only3 more yearsuntilhe reaches his2 5
years. Sgt. Pressleytold h im to hang inthereseeh o w thingspan ou t. Sgt. Pressley
senth im h o me earlythatdayand told DFC Saxerto think abou titand talk itover
with h is wife.

DFC Saxersaid whilehe was off, he spenta lotoftimethinking thingsoverand

talking with his wifeand decided notto resign. He said that wou ld be ru nning
awayfrom the problem, he knows he needs to take accou ntabilityfor whathe did.
INT EGRIT Y- P ROFESSIONALISM -T RUST PAGE I8
 CHARLOT T E COUNT Y SHERIFF'S OFFICE

DFC Saxercontinu edto sayhe needsto take whateveritisthe agencygives him

regarding discipline and learnfrom it. At the conclu sionoftheinterview Iasked
DFC Saxerifthere was anything Ihadn'tcovered orifthere was anything he
wanted to sayto thecommand staff. DFC Saxersaid"Nothing otherthanthis was
an idiotic decision and Idon'tknow whatI was thinking atthetime, Ithink itwas
more ofaju stletme getthisdam thing offmycompu terscreen and getitsent."
He went onto say"It'snotsomething I'm prou d ofand it'ssomething Iwill never
do again"..."I'velearnedfromthissituationand I'vetakenthestepsto getmyhead
screwed back on straightand I'm willing and ableto take and accept any
pu nishmenttheagencyseesfit."

CONCLl J f r CW

Du ring the cou rse ofthis investigation, Ihave reviewed the original complaintand
Sgt. Pressley's memo regarding the chain of events involving DFC Saxer. I have
also obtained all witness statements and su pporting information, along with
Charlotte Cou ntySheriffs Office General Order 3.50(the policygoverning guideiinBsfor
AppropriateConduct/Disi
cplinaryProcedures).
Based on thestatementsprovided bySgt. Pressley, Cpl. Hopkins, and Det. Bu m's
itisclear DFC Saxerviolated policies and procedu res(Falsifying an Official
Docu ment and Untmthfu lness)byhis actions. T h e fact isDFC Saxerdocu mented
in hisofficial ACISS reportthathe checked P awn Finderforthestolenitemstaken
from the victim and no resu lts werefou nd, wh en infact he neverdid. T his is
su pported byDFC Saxer'sown confession, as wellasdocu mentation showing he
hadn'tloggedinP awn Findersince Ju ne2016. T hiswas also notedbyCpl.
Hawkins and Det. Bu m's aftertheyreceived thecase to fu rtherinvestigate.

Det. B u ms told Cpl. Hawkins that he c hecked Pawn Finderand fou nd thestolen
itemsin a matterofminu tes afterreceiving thecase. Det. B u ms saidtheitemshad
been pawned two weeks priorto h im receiving thecase. Knowing sometimes
thereisa delaywith pawn shops entering the information, two weeks is well
ou tside ofthat window. Det. B u ms thou ghtitwas strangetheitems weren'tfou nd
wh en DFC Saxersaid he had checked P awn Finderin his original ACISS report.

INT EGRIT Y- P ROFESSIONALISM -T RUST G E I9

 CHARLOT T E COUNT Y SHERIFF'S OFFICE

Itis also clear DFC Saxer was u ntru thfu l and blatantlylied to his direct su pervisor
(Sgt.Pressley)threetimesbeforefinallytellingthetruth. Sgt.Pressleyshowed DFC
SaxerhisACISSreportandsaid"Iaskedyou tocheck P awn Finderand you didn't."
"Did you or did you not check P awn Finder?" DFC Saxer replied "yes." Sgt.
Pressleyasked h im again"Did you check P awn Finder?" Again, DFC Saxer told
h im"yes."

At this point, Sgt. Pressleyshowed DFC Saxerthe printou tfromthedetective wh o

fou nd the information. Sgt. Pressleyasked h im"then wh ywas thisfou nd the next
day, byju sta simple qu eryinP awn Finder?"DFC Saxeranswered back "Idon't
know, Icou ldn'tfindanything." Sgt.Pressleysaid he askedDFC Saxerone more
time"Did you check P awn Finder?"He responded"yes." Sgt.Pressleythen
showed DFC Saxerthe printou tforthequ eryshowing he hadn'tlogged in since
Ju ne2016. Sgt. Pressleysaid he asked DFC Saxer"T ell me wh yyou haven't
loggedinsince Ju ne2016 and you 'retelling me you logged in yesterday?" DFC
Saxerpau sed and said"1didn'tc heck it."

T hisinvestigatorfindsthereisapreponderance ofevidencetoindicate DFC William

Saxer violated Charlotte Cou nty Sheriffs Office Manu al G.O. #3.50 F.4.C.4
Falsifiactian ofOffiical ODCuiriEntsandthechargeisSUST AINED. DFCSaxerviolatedthe
above mentioned policy bystating in his original ACISS report he checked P awn
Finderdu ring hisinvestigation, wh en infact he did not. DFC Saxer's ACISS report
was sent back to h im bySgt. Pressleybecau se nothing was noted abou t checking
P awn Finder. DFC Saxerfixed the report and sentitback to Sgt. Pressley, noting
hechecked PavraFinderforthestolenitemsand no resultswerefou nd. Sgt.Pressley
took DFC Saxerathis word and approvedthereport.

Inaddition, thisinvestigatorfinds thereis a preponderance ofevidence to indicate

DFC William Saxer violated Charlotte Cou ntySheriffs Office Manu al G. O. #3.50
F.4.d.51iintrutfifuinessandthechargeisSUST AINED. DFCSaxerviolatedthe
above mentioned policybybeing dishonestand lying to hisimmediate su pervisor
(Sgt. Pressley)wh en askedifhe had checked P awn Finderdu ring hisinvestigation.
DFC Saxerliedon threeseparate occasions to Sgt. Pressleywh en qu estioned abou t
checking P awn Finder. DFC Saxer wou ld notadmithe neverchecked P awn
FinderuntilSgt. Pressleypresented h im with theprintou tforthequ eryshowing he

I NT EGRIT Y- P ROFESSIONALISM -T R U S T P A G E I 10
 CHARLOT T E COUNT Y SHERIFF'S OFFICE

hadn'tlogged in since Ju ne2016. DFC Saxer'sactions were blatantand his

dishonestyreflected poorlyon the Sheriffs Office and itscore valu es

I, the u ndersigned, do herebyswear, u nder penaltyof peiju ry, to the best of my

knowledge, information, and belief, Ihave not knowinglyorwillfullydeprived, or
allowed anotherto deprive, the su bject ofthe investigation ofanyrights contained
inss. 112.532 and 112.533, FloridaStatu tes.

Sc ott Cl e m e n s
Sergeant, Intemal Affairs
CharlotteCou ntySheriffsOffice

INT EGRIT Y- P ROFESSIONALISM -T RUST PAGE I11

 Redaction Date: Monday, March 05, 2018 11:07:31 AM

Total Number of Redactions: 2

By Exemption:

"Medical information pertaining to a prospective, current, or former officer or employee.

§119.071(4)(b), F.S." (Employee Med Info): 2 instances

By Page:

Page 9 - "Medical information pertaining to a prospective, current, or former officer or

employee.
§119.071(4)(b), F.S." (Employee Med Info): 2 instances