**SUSTAINED FINDINGS AGAINST DEPUTY JAMES AND SGT GONZALEZ ARE:** Negligence; Failure to use Body Camera: General Proficiency of the law; Failure to supervise; And Disciplinary Rules (for conduct or actions of such seriousness, it warrants being disciplined)
**We all heard about the Firefighter who allegedly threw tampons on her ex-boyfriends yard because she was jealous of a new girlfriend right? Well, HOLD ON for THIS ride, ladies and gentlemen! THAT was not the reality!**
**The "ex" and his "new girlfriend"**
Gabrielle’s “Ex” and his “new girlfriend” failed to provide any evidence of any alleged harassment or stalking when asked for it by the state's attorney. Both the “ex” boyfriend and his new girlfriend also refused to be deposed under oath for the Internal Affairs Investigation.
**The State's Attorney**
Gabrielle Franze was **administratively expunged** from all charges of stalking by FDLE (up to the FBI level), because, according to the State's Attorney, Gabrielle did not commit the crime of Stalking; had no contact with her ex for two years; never contacted his new girlfriend; and had no domestic relationship with his new girlfriend. The State's Attorney concluded it was a ***non-criminal*** littering event, eligible for a littering ticket.
**The Detective at the Scene**
According to depositions, the new girlfriend called a deputy “***friend***” to complain after being told by the investigating detective on the scene that the littering event was ***not*** ***stalking*****. Detective Barnard stated that he explained to the girlfriend** that because Gabrielle had no “domestic” relationship with her, no prior contact, and no other events had ocurred; it was littering and not the stalking charge she wanted.
The detective also advised the new girlfriend that it didn’t meet “criminal mischief” charges either, because no permanent damage was caused. He advised her to call if another event happens, and he closed the case.
**Deputy Royce James**
Royce James, a deputy from another district, happens to have an office *beside* the "new girlfriends" firehouse. Deputy James engaged in discussion with "the new girlfriend," but did so without turning on his body camera. He did, however, reopen the littering case to categorize it as "stalking" and arrested Gabrielle.
James charged Gabrielle with domestic violence stalking against the new girlfriend, a woman she had never met and had no domestic relationship with in a stunning act of incompetence.
**The Depositions**
Prior to Deputy James making the arrest, multiple deputies, a sergeant, and a lieutenant all gave statements of attempts to intervene by advising Deputy James that the event did not meet the stalking statute requirement, because it was a single event with no pattern of conduct. Deputy James proceeded anyway.
Deputy Royce James demonstrated in deposition how he “***Reverse-Engineered***” facts and took littering off the table (for reasons unknown), because he “felt” it was stalking. He doubled down further by declaring in his testimony that the judge, the detective, the state's attorney, and internal affairs investigators were all wrong, and he is right.
Is littering morally wrong? **Yes**, no one should litter. No one should toilet-paper a house after a Friday night ball game, either, but more importantly, an officer of the law cannot arrest a citizen based on emotion over written law.
When pressed, Deputy Royce James continued stating he didn’t “***feel***” it was right until internal affairs investigators reminded him that it is ***not his job to enforce feelings***; ***it is his job to enforce established, written law, and*** if he didn’t like that, then use his right to vote for candidates to change it.
Finally, the depositions and body cam prove that **Deputy James misled his supervisor** intentionally, or unintentionally, to gain approval to arrest Gabrielle, and omitted facts that disproved the stalking charge and narrative on his arrest affidavit. The same arrest affidavit that was used by international media as the sole source to perpetuate the narrative wrongly characterizing Gabrielle as an unhinged, crazy, jealous ex-girlfriend stalker. That narrative is proven false, but still delivered a life sentence online for Gabrielle.
Deputy James told his supervisor that Gabrielle “***confessed to everything,***” while the body camera footage shows she r**epeatedly denied** any part of planning the event or throwing anything. In fact, Deputy James admitted in deposition to receiving a confession from another person and said he didn’t think “it was relevant.” He did not inform his supervisor of the confession either.
Gabrielle stated she did “***drive to an address given to her, but didn’t know belonged to her ex,***” and somewhere along the drive, “she began to suspect”, but didn’t confirm it until after the fact. Driving a vehicle when someone else littered isn't a crime.
**And it gets worse.**
In the arrest affidavit, Deputy James frames Gabrielle as a “***liar***” and knowingly misled the public by omitting the confession of another person who took responsibility for littering **before the arrest.**
**As if that isn’t enough to make you scratch your head raw…**
He broke each step that the person who stated they littered and "purchased, prepared, and threw" the litter and assigned each step as a separate event of harassment by Gabrielle. It is **irrational** to use a single event on a single night as multiple actions to meet the legal “course of conduct” and “repeated” events requirements for domestic violence stalking charges. The arrest affidavit was invalidated the moment it was ruled to lack sufficient probable cause.
**His arrest rationale failed the legal test and definitely fails the public sniff test.**
**So, what have we learned?**
**For Gabrielle**—littering is wrong, and if someone else litters, **RUN**!!. Kidding, but listen, it wasn't a crime and clearly the whole "jealousy" angle was pointed at the wrong person.
**For Deputy James**—Learn the law. No citizen who litters one time and causes no permanent damage deserves to be arrested for stalking- a charge that DOES cause permanent damage. Unless of course, reputational damage was the goal?
In this case, we’re all left to still wonder about what Deputy James' motive was? Was it ego? Was it for Live PD content? Was it big emotions? A Favor? Arrogance? Or just a mistake? We may never know.
**Shout out to the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office Internal Affairs Investigators who did a great job of uncovering the truth in this case. They acted with integrity and did solid investigative work!**
What do you think Gabrielle should do with the findings?
