Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
City attorney summarizes 11‑year record in Janine Alexander disputes; city says lawsuits dismissed and records provided
Loading...
Summary
City attorney Lee Baggett reviewed internal investigations, criminal charges and three civil lawsuits brought by Janine Alexander over a 2015 incident; Baggett said the lawsuits were dismissed and the city has produced responsive public records, while Alexander renewed allegations about missing video and sought redress.
At the Feb. 1 City of Stuart commission meeting, city attorney Lee Baggett presented a chronological review of complaints, police incident reports and litigation involving Janine Alexander dating to 2015.
Baggett recounted the original 2015 disturbance at a Vista Del Lago condominium, subsequent arrests and criminal disposition (a no‑contest plea in May 2015 to charges including impersonating an officer and battery on an elderly person), later civil litigation (three suits filed in state and federal court) and multiple internal investigations. Baggett told the commission that the civil cases were dismissed by courts and that the city’s insurer paid roughly $45,000 in legal fees defending the matters. He said the city has repeatedly produced records in response to Ms. Alexander's public records requests, though some requests were closed for lack of payment or withdrawn.
Ms. Alexander, who spoke during public comment and again during the discussion, reiterated allegations that evidence was tampered with — specifically she alleged there was a seven‑minute video that the city or other parties did not produce. Baggett and police staff responded that investigators had documented a 54‑second video placed into evidence and that, after repeated searches and internal reviews, no seven‑minute file existed in the city records produced to date. Baggett said the city had produced voluminous records in response to requests in 2023 and more recent inquiries and that if documents are missing the clerk’s office will respond under public‑records procedures.
Baggett also explained that a prior civilian review panel (the Stewart Independent Review Board, SIRB) was dissolved after state law (cited as the Police Officers Bill of Rights statutes) preempted municipal civilian disciplinary review; he said neither the city commission nor an advisory board can conduct the type of civilian disciplinary hearing Ms. Alexander requested because state law governs internal disciplinary procedures for sworn officers.
During the exchange Ms. Alexander said the matter had cost her employment and livelihood; commissioners urged that any outstanding public‑records requests be re‑submitted or clarified so staff could confirm whether any responsive documents remain to be produced. Several commissioners and members of the public recommended legal counsel and community resources for navigating clemency or record‑certification processes.
What the city said it would do next: staff confirmed they have produced records multiple times; the clerk noted some requests were closed for lack of payment; staff asked Ms. Alexander to renew any outstanding requests and said they would fulfil those that remain open and payable.
