Viera, Fla. (July 16, 2025) — A judge in Brevard County raised pointed questions Wednesday about whether the City of Titusville and its police department can refuse to turn over investigative records in the misdemeanor theft case against former mayoral candidate Vickie Joyce Conklin.
During a contentious hearing in Courtroom 3F at the Moore Justice Center, Jonathan A. Skinner heard arguments over subpoenas issued by the defense seeking documents from the Titusville and the Titusville Police Department. The case, State of Florida v. Vickie Joyce Conklin (05-2024-MM-052659-AXXX-BC), arises from allegations that Conklin removed campaign signs during the 2024 mayoral race.
At issue is whether TPD, the agency that investigated the matter and forwarded charges to prosecutors, can be treated as a nonparty for discovery purposes, forcing the defense to pursue records through public-records requests rather than criminal subpoenas.
Dispute Over Discovery Access
The State Attorney’s Office has asked the court to strike the defense subpoenas, arguing that law enforcement agencies are not parties to a criminal case under Florida rules and that objections to subpoenas are self-executing. Prosecutors and city attorneys maintain that any additional information must be sought through depositions or separate public-records litigation.
Defense attorney Scott Robinson countered that position, arguing that TPD’s role as the investigating agency places it squarely within the scope of discovery obligations.
“This case exists because of the police department,” Robinson told the court. “They investigated it, framed it, and sent it forward. They are not a neutral third party.”
Robinson is seeking emails, text messages, body-camera footage, and internal communications related to the investigation, asserting that the material could reveal bias, selective enforcement, or political motivation.
Judge Questions the City’s Legal Theory
Judge Skinner appeared unconvinced by the City’s assertion that TPD stands outside the case for discovery purposes, noting that law enforcement functions as the investigative arm of the State.
“Law enforcement gives the State its investigative power,” Skinner said. “They fall under the umbrella of the State, even if their name isn’t on the case caption.”
At the same time, the judge expressed concern that the defense’s requests might be overly broad, likening them to a “blank check” search.
“This is a petty theft allegation involving one night,” Skinner said. “How far does discovery go? Is every employee’s phone fair game?”
Allegations of Political Motivation
Robinson argued that the scope of discovery is justified because the case arose during a heated political campaign and involved the sitting mayor, Andrew Connors, as the alleged victim.
He raised several concerns, including:
- Alleged bias by senior TPD officials, citing public comments and social-media posts critical of Conklin that he claims were later deleted.
- Timing of the charges, which were filed shortly before the election, despite similar sign-removal incidents historically being treated as civil disputes.
- Selective enforcement, questioning why a homicide detective was assigned to a misdemeanor case and whether other individuals who allegedly admitted taking signs were fully investigated.
According to Robinson, the defense has also encountered escalating costs for records production, with estimates rising from nominal fees to nearly $4,000.
“That’s not transparency, that’s obstruction,” he said.
No Immediate Ruling, But Signals of Scrutiny
City attorneys and prosecutors characterized the defense’s requests as a fishing expedition and argued that all required discovery had already been provided through the State Attorney’s Office.
Judge Skinner declined to issue an immediate ruling but said he would research whether TPD qualifies as a party for discovery purposes under Florida law. He emphasized the importance of due process and access to potentially exculpatory evidence.
“I am interested in justice,” Skinner said. “It concerns me that records may exist but be effectively hidden behind procedure or cost.”
A written ruling is expected in the coming days and could determine whether the defense can compel compliance with subpoenas or must pursue records through alternative legal avenues.
This article was originally published by Advocates' Voice and is republished here with edits for length and clarity. The original reporting can be found at https://www.advocatesvoice.com/2025/07/judge-skinner-questions-titusvilles.html