State’s Attorney Black List – Former Florida MCSO deputy seeks to clear his name

According to the complaint, David Ur was hired by MCSO on May 14, 2020, after completing the police academy and the Sheriff’s Field Training Officer program at the age of 45.

Ur explained that he and his wife moved to the area from New Jersey while she was doing her medical residency in Gainesville. He said he intended to continue a family legacy and fulfill a lifelong dream of having a law enforcement career.
Advertisement
FloridaLungCancerExperts.com

“I come from a huge family of police officers: my brother, my sister, my father, my two uncles,” Ur said. “My grandmother was the first female police officer in New Jersey, Morris County. My son just became a police officer in Delaware.”

On Aug. 13, 2020, Ur states in his complaint that he started working in the patrol division under the supervision of Sgt. Timothy Liberatore and they quickly clashed over Ur’s reporting.

Ur alleges Liberatore was “demanding that Plaintiff modify the facts in official law enforcement incident and probable cause reports.” Ur reported his concerns to then-general counsel for the sheriff, Timothy McCourt, as well as Lt. Michael Joyner and Sgt. Clint Smith.

Ur alleges the complaint escalated Liberatore’s antagonism toward him, so he next went to the agency’s human resource department in November 2020. He said Liberatore made comments that Ur, who is Iranian, is “a little dark” and would be sent to Reddick (a predominantly Black area of Marion County) where he would have to contend with the “monkeys” swinging from the trees.

Ur claims Maj. Louis Pulford initiated an investigation and found Ur’s claims against Liberatore unfounded. Pulford then created retaliatory complaints against Ur related to the operation of his bodycam, taking too long to write an incident report and for untruthfulness. Ur denies all of the allegations.

Ur said he “resigned under duress on May 10, 2021,” nearly a year after he started, due to “Defendant Sheriff’s threat to continue its retaliation with criminal charges for making false reports.”

On May 12, 2021, Ur was arrested “on four counts of making false official statements” in his reports.

Ultimately, the State Attorney’s Office repealed charges multiple times in their state case, but almost three and half years later, 18 of the 20 charges were dismissed by a judge and the other two were dropped by the state attorney.

The defendants filed answers on July 8, denying the allegations of Ur’s complaint.

The defendants indicated that Ur cannot establish that the unofficial custom or practice of Woods was behind any of Ur’s alleged “constitutional injury” and that there is no history of widespread abuse in the department as of the date of Ur’s claim.

They also alleged that “the independent, intervening acts of the State Attorney’s Office acted to break the causal chain and insulate Sheriff Woods from liability.”

The State Attorney’s Office continues to include David Ur on its office’s Brady list of deputies with a troubled history.

The governing rule for handling evidence, established in 1963 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose any evidence favorable to the defendant that is material to guilt or punishment. This includes exculpatory evidence that could negate guilt, reduce a potential sentence or impact witness credibility—even if the witness is law enforcement.

As reported last year, the SAO maintenance of that record is not straightforward.

The conversation about who ends up on a Brady list and what the criteria are for inclusion are also a matter of law enforcement officers’ rights.

In a 2019 article on Police1.com, it explained that being added to a Brady list can significantly impact an officer’s career, and it’s not always for the right reasons. The article listed a few of the reasons why some officers have alleged prosecutors have “Brady listed them.” These include criticizing the district attorney in the newspaper; supporting the wrong candidate in the district attorney’s race; investigating corruption within the prosecutor’s staff; providing testimony that is truthful, but unhelpful to the prosecution; complaining to city officials about corruption in the police department; and failing to apologize to the prosecutor for some perceived slight.

“Officers have also contended their own command staff have colluded with prosecutors to use Brady listings to get around the “red tape” necessary to have an officer investigated, progressively disciplined and finally terminated. In some jurisdictions, once an officer is Brady listed, they can be deemed unfit for duty or unable to perform an essential job function (testify) and can be fired without internal disciplinary processes. An officer’s federal civil rights lawsuit making such a claim resulted in reinstatement and a $812,500 settlement,” the author wrote.

When the issue was raised of whether law enforcement could provide Brady information to the state prosecutors in California in 2019, the “Los Angeles Times” reported that union representatives argued the disclosure could be used by departments to retaliate against officers who were politically unpopular.

In that Oct. 4, 2024, report, the “Gazette” noted that the 31 officers on the Fifth Circuit State Attorney’s Brady list left questions because there were officers not on the list who had been investigated internally for dishonesty. Others were on the list, but internal investigation files reflected their errors were more mistakes than dishonesty.

The “Gazette” asked MCSO and the Ocala Police Department for their policy about disclosing personnel who may have discipline histories that would undermine their credibility. Marissa Duquette, general counsel for MCSO, emailed the sheriff’s policy and wrote by email, “The Commander who oversees the Office of Professional Standards is responsible for notifying the State Attorney’s Office. Our agency does not maintain a Brady list, as it is ultimately up to the prosecution to determine whether an individual’s conduct met the criteria.”

The “Gazette” asked Walter Forgie, deputy chief for State Attorney William Gladson if Ur’s name would be removed from the Brady list since the charges were dismissed.

“We are not modifying our records. A Brady notice was created pertaining to the officer, which is what our system reflects,” Forgie wrote back.

Ur said he was also targeted for arresting a woman on drug charges. That woman, Sara Ridgeway, is the daughter of Julie Herring, who recently ran for sheriff of Dixie County, and David Ridgeway, a major at the Dixie County jail.

“I tried to help her. I’m sympathetic to people who have addiction issues,” Ur said. “I wanted to be a cop so I can help people. I was a good one.”

He wants to go back to law enforcement and is currently exploring that option. However, Ur said the State Attorney’s Office has actively opposed Ur’s bid to get his license reactivated with the state, despite the dismissal of charges earlier this year.

“Being told I was lying and not acting with integrity is the worse allegation you can make against any cop,” Ur said. “The false allegations derailed my career and cost me $205,000 in legal fees.”

Ur said he’s worked seven days a week running a food truck in Palm Coast. He said his wife, now a doctor, has been a constant support but admits, “She would prefer if I didn’t return to law enforcement.”

Ur said he wants to get his story out because this type of retaliatory action in the MCSO is more prevalent than the public realizes.

“I look forward to getting to court on this. There are plenty of witnesses that will come forward that prove this practice continues,” he said. “There are many good men and women who work at that agency. I don’t want anyone else to go through what I have.”

Marie A. Mattox is representing Ur in the lawsuit, and the defendants are represented by Michael P. Spellman. Both law firms are located in Tallahassee.

MCSO did not respond to an inquiry before press time.

Mattox firm also represents Mary Coy, the whistleblower who is suing the MCSO for retaliatory termination after she expressed concerns over inmate medical care.

A former Marion County Sheriff’s Office deputy has sued Sheriff Billy Woods and two deputies individually seeking monetary damages for claims he was unjustly retaliated against after complaining about treatment by his superior, targeted for his race and was even falsely arrested and imprisoned in violation of his 14th Amendment right.

According to the complaint, David Ur was hired by MCSO on May 14, 2020, after completing the police academy and the Sheriff’s Field Training Officer program at the age of 45.

Ur explained that he and his wife moved to the area from New Jersey while she was doing her medical residency in Gainesville. He said he intended to continue a family legacy and fulfill a lifelong dream of having a law enforcement career.

FloridaLungCancerExperts.com

“I come from a huge family of police officers: my brother, my sister, my father, my two uncles,” Ur said. “My grandmother was the first female police officer in New Jersey, Morris County. My son just became a police officer in Delaware.”

On Aug. 13, 2020, Ur states in his complaint that he started working in the patrol division under the supervision of Sgt. Timothy Liberatore and they quickly clashed over Ur’s reporting.

Ur alleges Liberatore was “demanding that Plaintiff modify the facts in official law enforcement incident and probable cause reports.” Ur reported his concerns to then-general counsel for the sheriff, Timothy McCourt, as well as Lt. Michael Joyner and Sgt. Clint Smith.

Ur alleges the complaint escalated Liberatore’s antagonism toward him, so he next went to the agency’s human resource department in November 2020. He said Liberatore made comments that Ur, who is Iranian, is “a little dark” and would be sent to Reddick (a predominantly Black area of Marion County) where he would have to contend with the “monkeys” swinging from the trees.

Ur claims Maj. Louis Pulford initiated an investigation and found Ur’s claims against Liberatore unfounded. Pulford then created retaliatory complaints against Ur related to the operation of his bodycam, taking too long to write an incident report and for untruthfulness. Ur denies all of the allegations.

Ur said he “resigned under duress on May 10, 2021,” nearly a year after he started, due to “Defendant Sheriff’s threat to continue its retaliation with criminal charges for making false reports.”

On May 12, 2021, Ur was arrested “on four counts of making false official statements” in his reports.

Ultimately, the State Attorney’s Office repealed charges multiple times in their state case, but almost three and half years later, 18 of the 20 charges were dismissed by a judge and the other two were dropped by the state attorney.

The defendants filed answers on July 8, denying the allegations of Ur’s complaint.

The defendants indicated that Ur cannot establish that the unofficial custom or practice of Woods was behind any of Ur’s alleged “constitutional injury” and that there is no history of widespread abuse in the department as of the date of Ur’s claim.

They also alleged that “the independent, intervening acts of the State Attorney’s Office acted to break the causal chain and insulate Sheriff Woods from liability.”

The State Attorney’s Office continues to include David Ur on its office’s Brady list of deputies with a troubled history.

The governing rule for handling evidence, established in 1963 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose any evidence favorable to the defendant that is material to guilt or punishment. This includes exculpatory evidence that could negate guilt, reduce a potential sentence or impact witness credibility—even if the witness is law enforcement.

As reported last year, the SAO maintenance of that record is not straightforward.

The conversation about who ends up on a Brady list and what the criteria are for inclusion are also a matter of law enforcement officers’ rights.

In a 2019 article on Police1.com, it explained that being added to a Brady list can significantly impact an officer’s career, and it’s not always for the right reasons. The article listed a few of the reasons why some officers have alleged prosecutors have “Brady listed them.” These include criticizing the district attorney in the newspaper; supporting the wrong candidate in the district attorney’s race; investigating corruption within the prosecutor’s staff; providing testimony that is truthful, but unhelpful to the prosecution; complaining to city officials about corruption in the police department; and failing to apologize to the prosecutor for some perceived slight.

“Officers have also contended their own command staff have colluded with prosecutors to use Brady listings to get around the “red tape” necessary to have an officer investigated, progressively disciplined and finally terminated. In some jurisdictions, once an officer is Brady listed, they can be deemed unfit for duty or unable to perform an essential job function (testify) and can be fired without internal disciplinary processes. An officer’s federal civil rights lawsuit making such a claim resulted in reinstatement and a $812,500 settlement,” the author wrote.

When the issue was raised of whether law enforcement could provide Brady information to the state prosecutors in California in 2019, the “Los Angeles Times” reported that union representatives argued the disclosure could be used by departments to retaliate against officers who were politically unpopular.

In that Oct. 4, 2024, report, the “Gazette” noted that the 31 officers on the Fifth Circuit State Attorney’s Brady list left questions because there were officers not on the list who had been investigated internally for dishonesty. Others were on the list, but internal investigation files reflected their errors were more mistakes than dishonesty.

The “Gazette” asked MCSO and the Ocala Police Department for their policy about disclosing personnel who may have discipline histories that would undermine their credibility. Marissa Duquette, general counsel for MCSO, emailed the sheriff’s policy and wrote by email, “The Commander who oversees the Office of Professional Standards is responsible for notifying the State Attorney’s Office. Our agency does not maintain a Brady list, as it is ultimately up to the prosecution to determine whether an individual’s conduct met the criteria.”

The “Gazette” asked Walter Forgie, deputy chief for State Attorney William Gladson if Ur’s name would be removed from the Brady list since the charges were dismissed.

“We are not modifying our records. A Brady notice was created pertaining to the officer, which is what our system reflects,” Forgie wrote back.

Ur said he was also targeted for arresting a woman on drug charges. That woman, Sara Ridgeway, is the daughter of Julie Herring, who recently ran for sheriff of Dixie County, and David Ridgeway, a major at the Dixie County jail.

“I tried to help her. I’m sympathetic to people who have addiction issues,” Ur said. “I wanted to be a cop so I can help people. I was a good one.”

He wants to go back to law enforcement and is currently exploring that option. However, Ur said the State Attorney’s Office has actively opposed Ur’s bid to get his license reactivated with the state, despite the dismissal of charges earlier this year.

“Being told I was lying and not acting with integrity is the worse allegation you can make against any cop,” Ur said. “The false allegations derailed my career and cost me $205,000 in legal fees.”

Ur said he’s worked seven days a week running a food truck in Palm Coast. He said his wife, now a doctor, has been a constant support but admits, “She would prefer if I didn’t return to law enforcement.”

Ur said he wants to get his story out because this type of retaliatory action in the MCSO is more prevalent than the public realizes.

“I look forward to getting to court on this. There are plenty of witnesses that will come forward that prove this practice continues,” he said. “There are many good men and women who work at that agency. I don’t want anyone else to go through what I have.”

Marie A. Mattox is representing Ur in the lawsuit, and the defendants are represented by Michael P. Spellman. Both law firms are located in Tallahassee.

MCSO did not respond to an inquiry before press time.

Mattox firm also represents Mary Coy, the whistleblower who is suing the MCSO for retaliatory termination after she expressed concerns over inmate medical care.