17,700 Emails and Counting: Titusville Faces Scrutiny Over 2024 Election Interference Allegations

Mayor Andrew Connors and Titusville City Council members discuss hiring outside attorneys during a specially called meeting on March 20, 2025

TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA - In a startling revelation stemming from ongoing legal proceedings, the City of Titusville is facing growing scrutiny over the possible mishandling of public records related to the 2024 local elections. A recently filed Motion to Compel, submitted as part of the defense in a criminal case against former mayoral candidate Vickie Conklin, reveals that the City of Titusville has over 17,700 emails resulting from searches of just three names, none of whom were elected or employed by the city at the time.  

The motion to compel seeks access to critical evidence, including internal emails, showing how the City and its officials may have politically targeted candidates like Conklin or used their positions to suppress dissent during the campaign. 

Screenshot from the controversial video featuring Titusville Police Chief John Lau and Deputy Chief Todd Hutchinson in uniform, using city resources to publicly address 2024 mayoral candidate Vickie Conklin. 

A Video Response That Raised Eyebrows 

During the 2024 campaign season, prior to any allegations of sign theft, Titusville Police Chief John Lau and Deputy Chief Todd Hutchinson released a video titled “TPD Facts and Community Policing.” The video was a direct response to statements made by Mayoral candidate Vickie Conklin, who had publicly criticized the department’s approach to community engagement.

In a campaign interview, Conklin emphasized the importance of building relationships between police and youth, stating: “I suggested if an officer drives by and they see a bunch of kids shooting (basketball) hoops, they need to get out of their car, park their car, and they need to go shoot hoops with these kids. They need to bond with these kids.”

She also recounted a prior exchange with Chief Lau, suggesting that he either believed such efforts were already in place or did not share her vision for more hands-on community policing.

In their response video, Chief Lau and Deputy Chief Hutchinson took a strikingly emotional tone, which Conklin’s legal team cited in a Motion to Compel, arguing it reflected bias and retaliation. The police officials described Conklin’s remarks as “appalling” and “unacceptable,” and asserted:

“We will not accept these types of lies.”

The rhetoric and delivery marked a notable departure from the professional neutrality expected of law enforcement officials, particularly when addressing a political candidate who, if elected, could have been their boss.

Shortly after its release, the video was quietly removed by the City of Titusville, with no public explanation—a move that has only fueled further concerns about the politicization of public offices during the campaign season.

Prejudicial Press Conference Before Charges Filed

On October 29, 2024—just one week before the election—Chief John Lau held a press conference announcing that the city had determined Ms. Vickie Conklin had committed petit theft, referencing the alleged removal of a campaign sign belonging to Mayor Andrew Connors. At the time, no formal charges had been filed by the State Attorney’s Office.

Lau characterized the incident as “much more than just a theft,” framing it as “an ethical attack on our democracy and what it’s supposed to be.” He further asserted that the Titusville Police Department “could have made a hands-on arrest,” a statement many interpreted as a public presumption of guilt that violated Conklin’s due process rights.

However, what Chief Lau failed to disclose during the press conference was a critical detail: according to the motion, Mr. Connors had told a Titusville Police officer that he intentionally placed the signs to provoke Ms. Conklin. He is quoted as saying: “Now I’m going to get real creative with it… I’m going to get Vickie on this pro-abortion amendment for baby killing, which I can actually do and is way worse than what I did the first time.”

The omission of this statement, which strongly suggests intent to bait a political opponent, raises significant concerns about selective disclosure by the police department and whether the criminal allegation was used as a political weapon. Legal experts say such evidence, if withheld or downplayed during a public law enforcement announcement, can mislead the public, prejudice an election, and violate ethical standards for police communication during an active investigation.

Social Media Chatter Adds to Ethical Concerns

Officers assigned to the case, as well as their family members, were observed on social media actively discussing the investigation before and during the election. While the specifics of those discussions remain under review, such public commentary by those connected to law enforcement is highly inappropriate in an open case and raises further concerns of bias and improper influence.

Observers say this kind of casual, public discourse by those with inside knowledge of a politically charged investigation not only taints the presumption of innocence, but contributes to a broader erosion of public trust in the city's institutions, viewing the case. “This is either gross incompetence or a deliberate misuse of public office.”

Amy Matthews, formerly the Titusville Police Department's Public Information Officer (PIO), was hired as the City's Public Information Officer in late 2024 with a salary of $89,250 and an approved $31,000 city vehicle. Emails reveal her involvement in coordinating media pushes related to the Vickie Conklin investigation before the State Attorney's office filed charges.

Election Interference or Bureaucratic Overreach?

The 2024 local elections in Titusville were already contentious, with outsider candidates challenging the status quo and pushing platforms centered on transparency, environmental accountability, and police oversight. Some of those candidates now say they were quietly targeted by a coordinated effort to undermine their campaigns through information suppression and bureaucratic intimidation.

In light of the revelations contained in the motion to compel, such as over 17,700 emails referencing non-elected candidates, many citizens are now raising concerns about whether government power was used to chill dissent or manipulate public perception.

One resident who followed the campaign closely expressed alarm:

“It felt like the system was rigged before anyone even cast a vote. Watching city officials go after certain candidates while protecting others—it didn’t feel like democracy. It felt like a warning to stay in your lane.”

This sentiment is growing among voters who believe the city’s actions—whether through selective enforcement, public shaming, or delayed transparency—may have unfairly influenced the outcome of the election and undermined public confidence in the process.

A Pattern of Delay and Denial

The motion also accuses the City of systematically delaying or ignoring legally valid public records requests in violation of Florida's Sunshine Law. This includes failing to provide logs, metadata, and email contents in a timely manner, despite multiple written requests and formal follow-ups.

In Florida, public records laws are among the strongest in the nation. Citizens have the right to access government records unless specifically exempted by law. Legal experts warn that any attempt to obstruct or delay these requests could constitute a serious abuse of power.

Public Demands Transparency

Public concern has escalated rapidly. At recent City Council meetings, residents have called for full transparency, urging city officials to immediately release all emails and internal communications related to the 2024 elections. Many believe the withheld records could reveal improper coordination, targeted enforcement, or political retaliation.

“This isn’t about party lines,” said one concerned citizen. “It’s about the integrity of our elections, the accountability of those in power, and the public’s right to the truth. If we allow this to be buried, what message does that send for the next election?”

What Comes Next

As the court weighs the Motion to Compel, the implications extend far beyond a single criminal case. If granted, the motion could force the City of Titusville to release thousands of internal records, potentially exposing behind-the-scenes political maneuvering, misuse of power, or suppression of dissent during the 2024 election cycle.

A hearing on the motion was scheduled just one day after it was filed. It is now officially set for Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at 2:30 PM, before Judge Jonathan Skinner at the Moore Justice Center in Viera.

With the public watching closely and demands for accountability growing louder, this hearing may mark a pivotal moment, not just for the case of Vickie Conklin but for the broader conversation about transparency, political fairness, and the role of government power in local elections.