Former Alachua County Sheriff Clovis Watson Jr. Cleared of Wrongdoing

ALACHUA ‒ Former Alachua County Sheriff Clovis Watson Jr. will not face criminal prosecution following a decision by State Attorney John F. Durrett of the 3rd Judicial Circuit.

In a letter dated Feb. 19, 2025, to Inspector David Snowden of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s (FDLE) Orlando Regional Operations Center, Durrett stated there was insufficient evidence to support two criminal charges brought against Watson.

The case was reassigned to Durrett’s office after 8th Judicial Circuit State Attorney Brian Kramer cited a conflict of interest. The FDLE submitted its investigative report to Durrett following the reassignment by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The investigation focused on two potential offenses: interception of privileged communications and official misconduct.

On the first charge, Durrett said the only supporting evidence was the testimony of an immunized witness, Capt. Kutner, who alleged he was directed by Undersheriff Joel Decoursey to monitor and intercept privileged communications. Kutner claimed he relayed the content of the intercepted communications to both Decoursey and Watson. A lieutenant reportedly stated in a sworn affidavit that “they” had personally witnessed Kutner conducting the monitoring.

However, the FDLE report noted that Kutner “was the only Chief Inspector of the five that were interviewed to report being instructed to do so,” according to Durrett’s letter.

“The entire charge rests upon the immunized testimony of a singular witness,” Durrett wrote. “The Sheriff and Undersheriff can simply deny or not speak at all,” he added, concluding the allegation “cannot be proven beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.”

On the second charge of official misconduct, Durrett found a lack of evidence to implicate Watson. The FDLE investigation revealed a sergeant in the sheriff’s office had unlawfully recorded a phone conversation with an attorney. The recording was later given to the attorney, who alerted the agency to the violation, pointing out that the law enforcement exception did not apply.

“Here, the Sergeant simply made an error in believing that the same exceptions applicable to criminal investigations applied in internal investigations,” Durrett wrote. “The Sergeant was disciplined for the error. This action stands in contrast to Captain Kutner who indicated he was directed to unlawfully intercept communications involving the same attorney.”

Durrett also declined to pursue charges related to the destruction of the recording or orders to destroy it, citing a lack of evidence tying Watson to the act.

“All sides agree the conversation should not have been recorded,” Durrett wrote. “A copy was provided to the attorney who was recorded. The officer was disciplined…without evidence to implicate Mr. Watson in the destruction a criminal charge cannot ethically be filed.”

#     #     #

Email cwalker@

alachuatoday.com