Viera, FL, July 16, 2025 – The ongoing legal battle over discovery in the petty theft case against Vickie Joyce Conklin took center stage in Courtroom 3F at the Moore Justice Center, where Judge Jonathan A. Skinner heard heated arguments regarding the City of Titusville’s refusal to comply with subpoenas. The case, State of Florida v. Vickie Joyce Conklin (Case No. 05-2024-MM-052659-AXXX-BC), stems from allegations that Conklin removed campaign signs during the contentious 2024 mayoral race.
The Florida State Attorney’s Office is seeking to strike witness subpoenas and treat Conklin’s requests for records from the City of Titusville and Titusville Police Department (TPD) as public records inquiries rather than criminal discovery. Conklin’s attorney, Scott Robinson, argued that the City, specifically TPD, is a party to the case because TPD initiated the investigation and forwarded charges to the State Attorney’s Office.
“This case stems from a mayoral race, and the Titusville Police Department is the investigating agency that brought these charges. They are not some neutral bystander, they are this case,” Robinson said, accusing the City of obstructing access to potentially exculpatory evidence.
Discovery Battle: Subpoenas vs. Public Records
The defense is seeking a court order compelling discovery from TPD and the City of Titusville, including emails, text messages, body camera footage, and internal communications concerning the investigation. Robinson contends that such evidence could show bias, selective enforcement, or political motivation, particularly because Conklin was running against current Mayor Andrew Connors, the alleged victim in the case.
Robinson accused the City of providing inconsistent responses over the past five months, citing skyrocketing costs for records production.
“Before, a records request cost about $20. Now they’re trying to charge nearly $4,000, and they’re turning subpoenas into public records requests,” Robinson argued, calling the City’s actions a “pattern of obstruction.”
The State Attorney and City Attorneys, however, insist that TPD is a nonparty under Florida Rule 1.351 and that objections to subpoenas are self-executing, meaning no court order can compel compliance. Instead, they argue Robinson must pursue a deposition process with good cause shown.
Judge Skinner Questions the City’s Position
Judge Skinner appeared skeptical of the City’s arguments, repeatedly questioning why TPD, the primary investigating agency, would not be treated as a party in the case.
“When you look at it, it’s State of Florida vs. Vickie Conklin, but law enforcement is what gives the State investigative power. They fall under the umbrella of the State,” Judge Skinner said.
However, he also expressed concern about the scope of the defense’s subpoenas, questioning whether broad requests for citywide emails and text messages amounted to a “blank check search warrant.”
“This is about a petty theft of campaign signs that happened one night. How far do we go? Is every employee’s phone discoverable?” Skinner asked, urging Robinson to narrow the requests to specific, relevant communications.
Claims of Political Motivation and Selective Enforcement
Robinson maintained that the case goes beyond a simple theft allegation, arguing that TPD’s investigation may have been politically motivated. He cited:
· Bias against Conklin, noting disparaging remarks made by TPD Chief John Lau and Officer Hutchinson in press conferences and Facebook posts, which Robinson claims have since been deleted.
· Potential election interference, alleging the City rapidly filed charges days before the election, while similar sign-theft cases were historically treated as civil matters.
· Selective enforcement, questioning why TPD assigned a homicide detective to a misdemeanor theft case and whether other potential suspects, like Earl Johnson, who allegedly admitted to taking and destroying signs, were properly investigated.
“We have no photographs of the signs, no clear chain of custody, and conflicting statements. The City charged my client while ignoring other evidence,” Robinson said.
City’s Defense and Next Steps
The City maintains that all required discovery has already been provided by the State Attorney’s Office and that further requests are a “fishing expedition.” The State argued that under Florida law, law enforcement agencies are not automatically considered parties to a criminal case, and the defense must pursue additional records through separate public records lawsuits or depositions.
Judge Skinner did not issue a final ruling on July 16 but stated he would research whether TPD is legally a party to the case for discovery purposes. He emphasized his concern for due process and ensuring Conklin has access to all relevant evidence.
“I am interested in justice. It’s concerning to me that we may, or may not, have these records, and the City may redact them or hide behind costs. I anticipate ruling quickly,” Skinner said.
Judge Skinner is expected to issue a ruling in the coming days on whether TPD must comply with subpoenas or whether Robinson must pursue the information through other legal means.