coounty state attorney

This is a serious post.
Can anyone tell me where to file a complaint against the local state attorney? He refuses to file criminal charges against a clerk who sold alcohol to an underage driver, who, while intoxicated, ran me down causing serious injuries while I was a pedestrian? This seems to be a violation of FSS 562.11 (1)(a) and (c). The SAO claims the altered ID was too good, and even though the purchaser looked less than 21, the SAO refuses to file charges.
Any serious help would really be appreciated. THANKS. :shock:

The State Attorney is an elected official and by statute can not be sued.
They hold the power of "Prosecutorial Discretion" which means that they file criminal charges only on those cases that meet their criteria.
You may file a complaint with the Attorney General of Florida, or just wait for the next election and work to unseat this person.

Hope this helps.

The State Attorney is an elected official and by statute can not be sued.
They hold the power of "Prosecutorial Discretion" which means that they file criminal charges only on those cases that meet their criteria.
You may file a complaint with the Attorney General of Florida, or just wait for the next election and work to unseat this person.

Hope this helps.

THANK YOU!
I appreciate your information.

FYI, the SAO has seen all of the evidence. One of his assistants came to the crash scene (three of us were run down by the vehicle) and he located a correct DOB (the driver was, in fact, 19 at the time) on the driver's license in the vehicle that hit me, the driver's signed debit slip for the purchase of the alcohol, and the altered DOB on the driver's military ID-- which indicated he was 21 YO.

The store clerk admitted to selling the alcohol. The kid's booking photo and military ID clearly shows him to be a "teen." Yet the local ASA refuses to charge the clerk under FSS562.11 (1) (a) and (c). My certified letter to the SA, requesting an appointment to discuss the situation with the SA, was IGNORED. Everyone, in my opinion, at the SAO involved in the case has shirked their obligations to me.

I am livid over the poor treatment by the SAO and need to file a complaint with someone who has "authority over the local SAO and will take an impartial look at the evidence and the sloven behavior of everyone involved at the SAO. In fact, without ever reviewing current medical records, and fully determining the extensive injuries I suffered, the ASO reduced the charges from "serious bodily injury" (felony), to a misdemeanor even though I had disfigurement, spine fractures, and spent four days in the hospital. My lawyer for the civil portion of the case has not been of any help on the criminal charges. Go figure!

If you can think of any additional information for me, I would be very appreciative.

Thanks again.

Come on now. As a special agent with ABT, I have seen some reeeally good fake IDs in my time. We do what we can to train vendors to spot fake IDs, but convenience store clerks are not experts at fraudulent license identification. You have to understand something called the "reasonable person standard." If the quality of the ID that has been altered is such that a reasonable person could not determine it to be fake, then the clerk cannot be held accountable. The State Attorney is the one who makes that determination.

You need to concern yourself more with the kid who ran you over.

Also, you mentioned it was a MILITARY ID. Check to see what that angle can get you. If he is 19 and in the military, he might well be charged under the UCMJ as well as criminally by the state.

Bottom like is that an SAO has final say over that stuff, provided they do not violate the law themselves in the process. They have full authority to reduce charges or refuse to prosecute. If it was an ASSISTANT state attorney that made that call, you can certainly escalate and try to speak directly to the state attorney him/herself. Remember, they are elected, and execute their office in the way that they feel best represents the wishes of their constituants.

Generally though, SAs in Florida seem to be getting lazier and lazier and more and more affraid of public outcrys. I don't know HOW many DUIs I've seen dropped to Reckless Driving becuase the SAO is just too lazy to work to ensure prosecution. If it doesn't show up on their desk 100% ready to prosecute, it goes into the plea basket or gets dropped.

About 75% of the arrests I make (95% of which are second degree misdemeanors) get dropped because the SAO where I am at just is not familiar with "The Beverage Law" and its easier to drop charges than work to familiarize themselves with the area of law we enforce. Moreso, they are scared to actively prosecute underage possession here because they want to get re-elected and who hasn't had a beer underage? It isn't until someone gets hurt that it matters, and by then it is too late.

Come on now guys, get serious. No other forum on this site as as many moved posts as we do. I admit things were a little out of control here, but we might as well make this a member-only forum if you are going to keep it up... and lets be honest, 90% of the people who use this forum will just leave. As noble as you what to portray your efforts, bottom line is that this forum is pointless if there is no one around to use it.

Disregard the above post, sorry, I got my windows confused.

What I meant to post here is that the clerk only committed a second degree misdemeanor (FSS 562.111 Sale of Alcoholic Beverage to an Underage Person). The clerk would likely only pay a fine anyway, even IF A) prosecuted and B) convicted. Is it really worth your time going after this clerk, who more than likely thought the ID was real, so they will end up having to pay a $100 fine or maybe spend a night or two in jail?

Your best bet is to sue the COMPANY that clerk works for. They have insurance and are more likely to settle with you for monetary damanges.

Disregard the above post, sorry, I got my windows confused.

What I meant to post here is that the clerk only committed a second degree misdemeanor (FSS 562.111 Sale of Alcoholic Beverage to an Underage Person). The clerk would likely only pay a fine anyway, even IF A) prosecuted and B) convicted. Is it really worth your time going after this clerk, who more than likely thought the ID was real, so they will end up having to pay a $100 fine or maybe spend a night or two in jail?

Your best bet is to sue the COMPANY that clerk works for. They have insurance and are more likely to settle with you for monetary damanges.

:shock: THANKS FOR YOUR SUGGESTIONS. I appreciate you taking time to consider my problem.

Just a little more info. While I am currently just an "ordinary citizen," in addition to the disrespect, arrogance, and sloven behavior of the SAO after this crash; at the time of being struck, I was on-duty, assisting at a motorcycle fatality (as an Auxiliary LEO), and was one of three (3) LEO's who were all run-down by the same driver.

All three of us continue to have to deal with serious injuries. My injuries caused me, with 20 years on as an Auxiliary LEO, to have to take early retirement. I had expected appropriate treatment from the SAO, not worse treatment by the SAO than that given to non-LEO personnel.

BUT, My MAIN reason for working so hard on this part of the problem (562.11), now that I am just an "ordinary citizen," is that if the SAO would regularly prosecute the sellers of alcohol to teens who cause car crashes, there would be fewer DUI teen driver crashes.

The SAO prosecutes the suppliers of narcotics with vigor; They should also pursue the sellers of alcohol to teens -- who cause injuries while driving.

The on-going failure of this SAO to prosecute 562.11, when, in my opinion, there is such clear and compelling evidence, is hubris, and needs to be addressed by people who can accomplish more good than I am able to initiate.
Thanks for the info from everyone on this post.
:idea:
:cop:

OK Ordinary Citizen, I have to weigh in to the contrary. If you are indeed an auxilary LEO then you should know the rules of evidence and procedure. Just because the driver, in YOUR opinion, "looked like a teen," does not supply ample probable cause that the clerk should not have sold to him, especially in light of the convincing ID's shown to the clerk. The responsibility lies solely with the driver himself and that is where it should be.

This arguement is so similar to suing or arresting the gun store clerk because they contributed to a death by selling a weapon.

The SAO doesn't have what he needs so let it go.