Complaint from Paige Locke on 5/10/2022
| Submitted | May 11, 2022 |
| Est. Completion | None |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: Michael Locke
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Florida Sunshine Law, I hereby request the following records:
All documents generated related to the 5/10/2022 complaint received by Melbourne Police Department from Paige Locke regarding Michael Locke.
“And I believe genuinely, whether Ms. Locke intentionally did or not, her view of how, for instance, the videos were, was extremely skewed from what the court saw. And I realize that's her perception and her perspective, but that is different than what the court has, which raises the question as to her point of view as to whether there are other aspects that may be skewed or not based upon her perception of things, and I realize it's all different for everyone.”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lsm2hjy6uyvwsl9/110989_Locke%20v.%20Locke%20-%20excerpt.pdf?dl=0
“The Court weighed the mother's exaggerated perception of the photographs and videos as well as her demeanor when weighing the Mother's testimony in its entirety. The Court found her less credible in portions of her testimony.
The Court finds the Father under all these circumstances during the pendency of this case accepted responsibility, he was straight forward, and the Court finds the Father to be extremely credible in his testimony.”
What happened with the following involved Melbourne Police Department and I was trespassed, but it was actually a third degree felony on the part of Paige Locke:
“The Court finds the testimony of Jaymie Gaucher, Director of Center for Child Development (hereinafter "Center"), indicated that the Mother was responsible for the refusal of the Center to release Wilder to his Father during the Father's timesharing. The Mother directed the Center not to release Wilder to his Father. As a result of her direction, the police were called…Ms. Gaucher testified Wilder was happy to see his father, had no fear of him and wanted to leave with his Father at the time of the incident. According to Ms. Gaucher, based on her observations, the Father has always had positive behavior with Wilder. The Court found it concerning that Ms. Gaucher took the Mother and the minor child into her office with her, rather than being with both parents or remaining in a neutral area until everything was resolved. The Court finds it most important from Ms. Gaucher's testimony that Wilder wanted to go with his Father on the day the Father showed up to pick him up. The Mother was responsible for the Police becoming involved at the child's school based on her instructions to the Center not to release the minor child to the Father…”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5chnzxnyy7kv43/Final%20Judgment%20Divorce%20.pdf?dl=0
It’s a violation of Florida Statute 787.03, interference with custody.
The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.
In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 business days.
Sincerely,
Michael Locke
From: Melbourne Police Department
Good afternoon,
I am in receipt of your request.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
From: Melbourne Police Department
Hello,
Please see attached. This is the only item we can release at this time, the exemption is noted in the attachment title.
Thanks,
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
From: Michael Locke
Can you ask that Officer Fitzgerald be more specific in the capias?
From: Melbourne Police Department
Good morning,
I provide records only, feel free to reach out to Officer Fitzgerald at your own convenience, you may leave a message with Dispatch: 321-608-6731.
I provided only the lead sheet of the report only previously, and the proper exemption was cited.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
From: Michael Locke
Understood, I prefer to communicate via written means as it allows for there to be an easily available record of whatever was communicated.
From: Melbourne Police Department
Please advise what your request for records are? I already provided what is available on the Locke incident. I don’t see any additional requests for records in your emails.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
From: Michael Locke
No ma'am. I'm creating public records for later use at this point. I guess I should have said as much. Apologies.
From: Michael Locke
Actually, can you please provide me with all records related to the trespass warning issued by Melbourne PD on 3/1/2019 against myself by Jaymie Gaucher.
From: Melbourne Police Department
Our agency does not have any record in which Jaymie Gaucher has ever been trespassed, from any location in our city. I also do not have any record that this agency was in contact with Jaymie Gaucher for any incident on 3/1/2019.
If you would like us to further research this incident. Please provide a case number and/or the location in which this occurred.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
From: Michael Locke
Melbourne Police Department issued a trespass against me for the Health First Child Development Center on 3/1/2019.
“The Court finds the testimony of Jaymie Gaucher, Director of Center for Child Development (hereinafter "Center"), indicated that the Mother was responsible for the refusal of the Center to release Wilder to his Father during the Father's timesharing. The Mother directed the Center not to release Wilder to his Father. As a result of her direction, the police were called…Ms. Gaucher testified Wilder was happy to see his father, had no fear of him and wanted to leave with his Father at the time of the incident. According to Ms. Gaucher, based on her observations, the Father has always had positive behavior with Wilder. The Court found it concerning that Ms. Gaucher took the Mother and the minor child into her office with her, rather than being with both parents or remaining in a neutral area until everything was resolved. The Court finds it most important from Ms. Gaucher's testimony that Wilder wanted to go with his Father on the day the Father showed up to pick him up. The Mother was responsible for the Police becoming involved at the child's school based on her instructions to the Center not to release the minor child to the Father…”
The above is from the final judgment in my divorce from Paige Locke and details the incident in question.
After the incident I made contact with the Health first Risk Management office and the trespass was immediately lifted.
My assumption is that Health First made contact with Melbourne Police Department regarding lifting the trespass. I’m requesting the records reflecting as much, if they exist.
I’ve attached a copy of the trespass warning and correspondence with Health First.
From: Michael Locke
Also, can I please be provided with all formal and informal complaints ever filed against Officer Fitzgerald?
From: Melbourne Police Department
Please see attached.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
From: Melbourne Police Department
Please see attached.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
From: Michael Locke
As of 8/8/2022 Paige Locke has refused to allow custody as required in the attached court order.
“Whoever, without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly takes or entices, or aids, abets, hires, or otherwise procures another to take or entice, any minor or any incompetent person from the custody of the minor’s or incompetent person’s parent, his or her guardian, a public agency having the lawful charge of the minor or incompetent person, or any other lawful custodian commits the offense of interference with custody and commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.” Florida Statute 787.03(1).
Additionally, Paige Locke had filed a DCF complaint against myself on 6/14/2022 that has since been closed out, so any claims of the interference being justified are extremely suspect.
From: Melbourne Police Department
Please advise what your public records request is. I'm not seeing a request within.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
From: Michael Locke
Does a public record exist explaining why Melbourne Police Department hasn’t charged Paige Locke with interference with custody (Florida Statute 787.03(1))?
From: Michael Locke
There was/is no legitimate purpose provided by Paige Locke’s attorney to the court concerning Paige Locke’s actions interfering with custody.
“The Court finds the testimony of Jaymie Gaucher, Director of Center for Child Development (hereinafter "Center"), indicated that the Mother was responsible for the refusal of the Center to release Wilder to his Father during the Father's timesharing. The Mother directed the Center not to release Wilder to his Father. As a result of her direction, the police were called…Ms. Gaucher testified Wilder was happy to see his father, had no fear of him and wanted to leave with his Father at the time of the incident. According to Ms. Gaucher, based on her observations, the Father has always had positive behavior with Wilder. The Court found it concerning that Ms. Gaucher took the Mother and the minor child into her office with her, rather than being with both parents or remaining in a neutral area until everything was resolved. The Court finds it most important from Ms. Gaucher's testimony that Wilder wanted to go with his Father on the day the Father showed up to pick him up. The Mother was responsible for the Police becoming involved at the child's school based on her instructions to the Center not to release the minor child to the Father…” 05-2017-DR-054881, Doc # 443, factors a and c.
“The Court finds in August of 2020 after injunction had been granted, Wilder acted out two (2) weeks later when he was initially given contact with his Father then abruptly denied contact with his Father by the Mother. Wilder's behavior improved during the Fall 2021 once Wilder was able to have consistent contact with his Father. When Wilder received a referral in the Fall of 2021 was when the Mother failed to allow video contact between Wilder and his Father.” 05-2017-DR-054881, Doc # 443, factor h.
"The Court finds it concerning a Petition for Stalking Violence injunction filed only for the protection of the Mother, not on behalf of the children was at a later date amended to add the children without amending the petition or notice to the Father as to the merits behind adding the children. It was this amended injunction that ultimately led to the Father having no physical contact with his children for close to two (2} years. The Court also takes issue that the Father was arrested for allegedly violating a permanent injunction for the Mother's protection when the injunction had never been served on the Father prior to his arrest." 05-2017-DR-054881, Doc # 443, Factors m.
"The Court does not agree that the videos submitted into evidence provide any evidence of aggressive or abusive behavior of the father. In fact, the Court finds the Mother's perception and testimony regarding these videos as skewed. The Court is concerned and calls into question the credibility of the Mother's testimony given her demeanor while testifying, and exaggerated perception of the events she testified to in these videos. The Court finds in the video of the drop off at the baseball field the Mother was the first to yell at the Father. Furthermore, when the Mother requested the Father to step back, the Father stepped back immediately and did exactly what the Mother requested. The Court did not find the Father was the first to engage in confrontational behavior towards the Mother. The Court finds the Mother appeared to me more the aggressor towards the Father.
The Court finds the second video was not as the Mother depicted. Upon reviewing the video, the Court finds the Father's statement that he is going to kill the Mother was not a credible threat, but rather said in anger and not with the literal intention of actually wanting to kill the Mother. Further in listening to the video, the mother's testimony regarding the child's statement he hated the Father because the Father told the child it was time to go home while the child was playing with a lego was not credible. Upon review of the video, the child told the story very matter of fact and stated he did not want his Father to think he feared him. To the contrary, the child did not appear to be scared of his Father. In fact, the child appeared to care deeply for his Father and stated he did not want his Father to get arrested or hurt. When the Court originally heard the testimony of the Mother prior to seeing the video, the Court expected the video to depict a much worse circumstance based upon how the Mother described this incident. The Mother's testimony was exaggerated and extremely skewed from what the Court saw when watching the video. In fact, in the second video, it was the Mother making demands of the Father to put the children down and the Father immediately obeyed doing exactly as she requested of him. Nothing suggests the Father was inappropriate with the children in any manner from the videos.
The Court weighed the mother's exaggerated perception of the photographs and videos as well as her demeanor when weighing the Mother's testimony in its entirety. The Court found her less credible in portions of her testimony.
The Court finds the Father under all these circumstances during the pendency of this case accepted responsibility, he was straight forward, and the Court finds the Father to be extremely credible in his testimony.” 05-2017-DR-054881, Doc # 443, factor s.
From: Michael Locke
At some point in December of 2020 my son's teacher threw a water bottle at him. Per my son, the water bottle hit him. Per his mother, the principal of his school called DCF and my sons mother. Per his mother, no report from DCF was taken. My sons name is Wilder Thomas Locke. His school is Sabal Elementary. The school is located at 1401 Wickham Road. Melbourne, FL 32935. His teacher at the time was Susan Furtado Matos. The principal of the school is named Paige Trosset. His mother's name is Paige Ann Locke. I am requesting all documentation within Melbourne Police Department’s possession related to this incident.
From: Melbourne Police Department
The most recent report we have is from 7/2, she is listed as the victim. Is this what you’re looking for?
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
From: Melbourne Police Department
Please advise the case number or specifics if you’re looking for a Melbourne Police Department report.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
From: Melbourne Police Department
We have no incidents from December 2020 at Sabal elementary involving your son.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
From: Michael Locke
I attempted to file a complaint last week regarding interference with custody. I was told an incident report would be generated to provide to the court. I believe this was on 8/9/2022. It might have been 8/8/2022 though. Was a report of any kind generated?
From: Melbourne Police Department
Thank you for providing a date for me to research. The CAD is attached.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
From: Michael Locke
Thank you. You are incredibly diligent and responsive. I can’t commend you enough.
From: Michael Locke
I had placed a call to the nonemergency line on 8/23/2022 reporting the crime of interference with custody as committed by Paige Locke. Is there a cad concerning as much by chance?
From: Michael Locke
In Florida, it is a crime for any person, including another parent or guardian, to unlawfully interfere with a parent or guardian’s custodial rights to a minor.
Definition of Interference with Child Custody
Under Florida Statute 787.03(1), the crime of Interference with Child Custody occurs when a person unlawfully and intentionally interferes with a parent or guardian’s custodial rights to a minor child.
Parental Interference
Under Florida Statute 787.03(2), the crime of Interference with Child Custody can be committed by one parent against another parent if the offending parent maliciously interfered with the other parent’s legal right to custody of their child as required by law, custody agreement, or court order. [1]
When one parent is accused of interfering with another parent’s custodial rights to their minor child, it must be shown the interference was done with a malicious purpose, which is a higher standard than if an unrelated person had interfered with the parent’s custodial rights.
Penalties for Interference with Child Custody
The crime of Interference with Child Custody is a Third Degree Felony in Florida and punishable by up to five (5) years in prison, five (5) years of probation, and a $5,000 fine.
Interference with Child Custody is assigned a Level 3 offense severity ranking under Florida’s Criminal Punishment Code. A judge may sentence a person convicted of Interference with Child Custody to probation, but may also impose a sentence up to the statutory maximum of five years in prison.
From: Michael Locke
I have my kids this weekend. I know I'm already in for some form of harassment. Please let it only be from her.
From: Melbourne Police Department
The CAD report is attached.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD180
From: Melbourne Police Department
I do not see any request for records within.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD075
From: Melbourne Police Department
Sir,
I provide public records only. If you have something to report or add to a case, please call 321-608-6731.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD041
From: Michael Locke
I spoke on the phone with a female officer around approximately May 11th. I’m requesting a copy of that recorded call.
From: Melbourne Police Department
Sir,
Officer’s cell phones are not recorded, desk phones are not either.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD041
From: Michael Locke
How do you know the call from Melbourne Police Department was from a “cell phone” or a “desk phone”? Is there a record indicating as much?
From: Michael Locke
Can I please be provided copies of the videos for all body worn cameras pertaining to case MP220027439? Also, can I please be provided copies of the videos for all body worn cameras pertaining to calls responding to 1229 White Oak Circle Melbourne, FL from 4/1/2022- the date this request is filled?
Thank you.
From: Michael Locke
“THE COURT:· Okay.· I just want to make sure. Now, you indicated there was a lengthy quote, you can't recall it, but it was through My Family Wizard and you notified the State Attorneys Office, and it was elaborate. What was the what was the subject of the quote? THE WITNESS:· I've notified the State Attorneys Office on several messages he sent me. On that quote, I don't know if I have -I e-mailed them to the -- Greg Hansen and I don't typically get a response from him, so this most recent quote was something about what he wanted the kids superpower to be. THE COURT:· I don't think I have any further questions.” Page 40 of Motion to Dissolve Iinjunction 04-22-2022_full-1.
From: Melbourne Police Department
Unless the officer made the call from a recorded line in our Communications Center, which is very unlikely, the call would not be recorded. You did not indicate who the officer was, aside from female. I can make sure if you provide the officer’s name.
Concerning you request for body cam under MP220027439 – at this time, we do not have a filing decision from the State Attorney’s Officer, therefore, the video is exempt from disclosure per FSS 119.071(2c).
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD110
From: Melbourne Police Department
I missed replying to the 2nd portion of the request for all BWC from 4/1 – present at 1229 White Oak Cir:
22-27045: withheld per FSS 119.071(2c)
22-27439: withheld per FSS 119.071(2c)
22-29615: withheld per FSS 119.071(2c)
22-33661: a fee will apply
22-37881: withheld per FSS 119.071(2c)
22-41742: a fee will apply
22-50183: no officers responded
22-53342: no officers responded
A fee of $9.00 is due in advance of the work for the two case numbers underlined above.
Checks by mail (make payable to the City of Melbourne):
Melbourne Police Department
Attn: Natasha Saunders
650 N Apollo Blvd
Melbourne, FL 32935
Cash or check in person:
650 N Apollo Blvd
Records Window
Hours of Operations
Tuesday – Friday
8:30 am – 5:00 pm
*If payment is not received within ten business days, your request will be administratively closed*
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD189
From: Michael Locke
To Whom It May Concern:
Please find enclosed a check for $9.00 to satisfy the fee associated with the attached public records request.
Thank you.
Melbourne Police Department
Records Division
650 N. Apollo Blvd
Melbourne, FL 32935
From: Michael Locke
Check should be there on 9/6/2022. Thank you.
Is Melbourne Police Department in possession of a record that clearly states what court order I allegedly violated? The injunction case # is 05-2020-DR-036701, but there’s actually no order entered in the case that reflects communication being allowed via our family wizard. The only thing that says as much is document # 443 in case # 05-2017-DR-054881.
Also, does a record exist reflecting that a Melbourne police officer reviewed document # 443 in case # 05-2017-DR-054881 at any point prior to 8/11/2022 or that Melbourne Police Department was in possession of document # 443 in case # 05-2017-DR-054881 before I submitted as much on 8/11/2022?
Thank you.
From: Michael Locke
Can I please be provided copies of all formal and informal complaints filed against Christopher Colvin?
Also, can I please be provided copies of all formal and informal complaints filed against whoever filed Paige Locke’s complaint on 7/2/2022?
From: Michael Locke
“And I believe genuinely, whether Ms. Locke intentionally did or not, her view of how, for instance, the videos were, was extremely skewed from what the court saw. And I realize that's her perception and her perspective, but that is different than what the court has, which raises the question as to her point of view as to whether there are other aspects that may be skewed or not based upon her perception of things, and I realize it's all different for everyone.” Page 15 of 110989_Locke v. Locke - excerpt.pdf
From: Michael Locke
https://www.muckrock.com/foi/melbourne-10493/complaint-from-paige-locke-on-5102022-128803/
From: Michael Locke
Can I please be provided with the e-mail address for Chief David Gillespie?
From: Michael Locke
My ex wife is again interfering with custody. I placed a call at 11:45AM to 3216086731. Can I please be provided all documentation generated in response to that phone call?
From: Melbourne Police Department
I will let you know when I am in receipt of the check.
If you have a case number you would like to review, please advise.
I would have no way of researching whether an officer reviewed document #443.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD000
From: Melbourne Police Department
A request for Officer Colvin and Cotter’s complaint summary has been requested. Once I am in receipt of it, I’ll respond futher.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD000
From: Melbourne Police Department
There is no request for records within. Please stop including me in non-record request emails.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD000
From: Melbourne Police Department
I do not see any records from 5/10. If you have a case number or location officers responded to, that would be helpful.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD000
From: Melbourne Police Department
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD117
From: Melbourne Police Department
Please advise the date and location.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD378
From: Melbourne Police Department
From 9/2:
A link to the BWC videos under 22-41742 are being sent now via Axon-Evidence.com. Since only have this Muckrock email, that is the email it will be sent to. I’ll notify you when the video from the other case has been sent.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD000
From: Ontario Police Department
Melbourne Police Dept.
Melbourne Police Dept.
Natasha Records Supv Saunders (Badge ID: 704) from Melbourne Police Dept. (https://melbournepdfl.evidence.com) has sent you a link to download evidence on Evidence.com. After clicking on the link below you will download 1 zip or iso files containing the requested evidence. This download may take a while depending on your internet connection.
22-41742
Please note that your access to this link will expire on October 12, 2022 10:18:42 (-04:00).
Afterwards, you will need to contact the sender to request access.
Download link:
[Click here to download] (https://melbournepdfl.evidence.com/axon/download/34b7921b3ba6423285d17a73e20377c1/8547a3875cfb4c7d866a64667567c9d2?token=tv79qCvxJqv590cfMXk%2BUROq6paJDxdP8rQfBxgHXY5QoIowIA8OPvzg4NdMFPjzXtIB6vvWYo%2B20ZH4ExZ2DzvFZa17eZ0P9ynATKz5eQI9FnmZFsbVX9Mu63sIKYtd7hJScC0jUf%2BuZljlzbZ56%2F2Kzv9Ezj0P40rzsw%2BWj1wnYiEQbciuO5R5cI%2BPE4sXmvf0dfktucseMqVj9VCQcK%2BftBdJtYjuhoZ%2BkWPht5k%3D&version=1)
Sincerely,
The Axon Team
SECURITY NOTICE: Axon will not send you emails that request your username, password, security questions, or any other sensitive information. If you receive an email requesting information, it is most likely an attempt to gain access to your account. Furthermore, please verify that any hyperlinks in the message above begin with the proper URL e.g. "https://agencyname.evidence.com". Please forward emails that appear suspicious to help@evidence.com.
-
evidence.com_evidence_package_1_of_1_created_2022-09-12T14_18_42Z
From: Melbourne Police Department
I am in receipt of payment for this quote now from both a USAA Teller’s Check and one from Muckrock News – Which am I processing? If I don’t hear back by 9/14, the one I received first will get processed, which is the USAA Teller’s Check.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
From: Melbourne Police Department
Officer Colvin does not have any complaints on file. Officer Cotter’s will be sent later this week.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD128
From: Melbourne Police Department
The complaints for Officer Cotter are attached.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD195
From: Michael Locke
Have u received the other video as per your statement below:
From: Melbourne Police Department
09/12/2022
Subject: RE: Florida Sunshine Law Request: Complaint from Paige Locke on 5/10/2022
Email
From 9/2:
A link to the BWC videos under 22-41742 are being sent now via Axon-Evidence.com. Since only have this Muckrock email, that is the email it will be sent to. I’ll notify you when the video from the other case has been sent.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
From: Melbourne Police Department
Sir,
I have been reviewing FSS 119.071(2)(1)2 as it applies to this additional video. At this time, the video is exempt from disclosure per that statute.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD051
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Florida Sunshine Law request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 11, 2022. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Melbourne Police Department
I provided a response on 9/30.
Natasha Saunders
Records Supervisor
Melbourne Police Department
321-608-6591
-
~WRD323
Files
pages