By Carl Fish
HAINES CITY, FLORIDA — The arrest of a Haines City police officer for allegedly driving under the influence in a marked patrol vehicle has brought attention to more than the conduct of one officer. Records and written responses obtained by the Daily Ridge raise broader questions about hiring decisions, the handling of citizen complaints, compliance with departmental policies and accountability within the leadership of the Haines City Police Department.
The circumstances involve an officer who was initially passed over for employment, then hired following changes in police leadership; a citizen complaint involving an unauthorized trip to Jacksonville that never received the administrative review required by department policy; and a deputy police chief who was notified of the complaint but failed to ensure the matter was properly addressed.
The department has acknowledged that its established procedures were not followed.
Yet its explanation of how that failure was subsequently addressed describes a meeting with the deputy chief and the establishment of additional safeguards. The department did not identify any reprimand, suspension or other punitive disciplinary action against him in its written response.
In a separate incident, Haines City Police acknowledged receiving a citizen complaint about another marked patrol vehicle reportedly traveling on Interstate 4 at approximately 95 mph. The department identified the assigned officer and provided counseling but stated it had no documentation confirming the vehicle was on the interstate.
Taken together, the incidents raise questions about how thoroughly complaints are examined, when administrative reviews are required and whether accountability is applied consistently to patrol officers and the supervisors responsible for overseeing them.
The Daily Ridge’s examination also revealed that the department initially denied having knowledge of the Jacksonville incident, despite records showing that the complaint had been received and addressed at the supervisory level nearly two months before the officer’s DUI arrest.
The available evidence does not establish that these incidents resulted from intentional misconduct by department leadership or that every complaint was improperly handled. It does, however, document one admitted procedural failure and several decisions that warrant examination of the department’s supervisory practices.
An Officer Initially Passed Over for Employment
Joseph Jabar Everett was hired by the Haines City Police Department in July 2026, approximately eleven months after he had been interviewed for a position and not selected.
According to information provided by HCPD, Everett interviewed with the department on August 22, 2025. Although officials indicated that he performed well during the interview, he was not considered the most qualified candidate.
The department acknowledged that Everett’s previous DUI arrest while employed by the Polk County Sheriff’s Office was a factor in that earlier hiring decision.
Everett had been arrested in 2024 while working for PCSO. He subsequently left the Sheriff’s Office, and the criminal charges were dropped. He was not convicted in that case.
By the time Everett was hired in July 2026, significant changes had occurred within Haines City government and the police department.
Former Police Chief Jay Hopwood retired at the end of January 2026. Isaac Jackson subsequently assumed leadership of the department.
Edwin Moran was appointed deputy police chief in March 2026.
Former City Manager Jim Elensky also retired, with his retirement effective May 1, 2026. Loyd Stewart served as interim city manager during the transition, and Joe Halman’s appointment as permanent city manager was announced in July.
According to HCPD, Everett applied to the department three times before ultimately being hired.
The department confirmed that Jackson recommended Everett for employment and that the recommendation received the required approvals through city leadership.
Officials also confirmed that those involved in the hiring decision were aware of Everett’s previous application and rejection.
But another detail involving the hiring process raises an important question.
Everett listed newly appointed Deputy Chief Edwin Moran as a referral on his employment application.
Moran and Everett had previously worked together at the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, and Moran had supervised Everett during their time there.
Moran brought approximately 30 years of law enforcement experience to Haines City. His previous responsibilities at PCSO included serving as a lieutenant involved in training and mentoring newly promoted supervisors.
Despite that professional relationship and Moran being listed as a referral, HCPD stated that Everett’s referral was never discussed with Moran.
That acknowledgment is noteworthy.
The department had a newly appointed deputy chief who previously supervised the applicant at another law enforcement agency. The applicant identified that deputy chief as a referral. The applicant also had a prior DUI arrest that the department acknowledged had been considered during an earlier unsuccessful hiring decision.
Yet, according to HCPD’s response, the referral was not discussed with Moran.
The department has not established that Moran improperly influenced Everett’s hiring. Nor does the fact that Everett was previously rejected mean he was ineligible for future employment.
However, the circumstances raise questions about the depth of the department’s hiring review and why officials did not discuss the applicant with a senior command officer who had firsthand professional experience supervising him.
The issue is particularly relevant because Moran would later become involved in another decision concerning Everett, this time involving the officer’s unauthorized use of a department vehicle.
The Jacksonville Complaint and an Admitted Failure to Follow Policy
On August 16, 2026, approximately one month after Everett joined the department, the Polk County Sheriff’s Office forwarded a citizen complaint to Haines City Police Lieutenant LaTorian Turner.
The complaint concerned HCPD Unit 260, a marked police vehicle reportedly observed traveling northbound on Interstate 95 between St. Augustine and Jacksonville.
According to the complaint, the caller observed the vehicle near mile marker 337 and alleged that it was repeatedly swerving out of its travel lane.
The complaint did not allege that the vehicle was speeding.
Turner subsequently contacted Everett regarding the allegations.
Everett acknowledged operating the department vehicle but denied the allegation that he had been swerving.
The alleged erratic driving was not substantiated.
However, HCPD confirmed that Everett had taken the marked police vehicle to Jacksonville without authorization.
The distinction is important. While the citizen’s allegation about Everett’s driving was not established, the unauthorized travel was acknowledged.
Department General Order 84.4 governs the assignment and use of department vehicles, including restrictions on unauthorized personal travel.
On August 20, Turner issued Everett a documented verbal counseling notice concerning the unauthorized use of the vehicle.
Everett signed the document.
The counseling notice specifically described the action as nonpunitive and intended to reinforce departmental expectations.
There was no unpaid suspension or other punitive discipline identified in that document.
More importantly, the department has since acknowledged that the complaint was not processed according to its established administrative procedures.
Under HCPD General Order 52.1, administrative complaints and supporting documentation are to be forwarded to the Captain of Operations for review.
That review determines whether the matter can be disposed of administratively, requires an administrative inquiry or warrants a formal administrative investigation.
The policy does not automatically require a full internal affairs investigation in every case. It does, however, establish a review process that must be followed before the appropriate disposition is determined.
In Everett’s case, HCPD acknowledged that the required process never occurred.
The department stated:
“The incident was handled at the supervisory level rather than being referred for the administrative review required by General Orders. That was a failure to follow the established process.”
The department also confirmed that Turner had notified Deputy Chief Moran of the complaint.
According to HCPD, Moran instructed Turner to document the incident for appropriate action.
The department did not establish that Moran specifically instructed Turner to issue nonpunitive counseling or directed him to close the matter without further review.
However, when asked whether Turner had consulted command staff before issuing the counseling, the department answered no.
When asked whether Turner was authorized to resolve the matter without referring it for the required administrative review, the department also answered no.
Those responses establish that Turner did take action on the complaint, but the required process was not completed.
They also establish that the deputy chief had been made aware of the incident.
Deputy Chief Moran’s Role and the Question of Accountability
The involvement of Deputy Chief Moran is particularly significant because of his position within the department and his extensive experience supervising and training law enforcement personnel.
HCPD confirmed that Moran was notified of the complaint involving Everett and that he instructed Turner to document the incident.
Yet the matter was never forwarded through the required administrative review process.
In explaining the failure, the department stated:
“Unfortunately, the Deputy Chief did not create a follow up reminder on the matter.”
That explanation raises a question about the responsibilities of senior command staff when they become aware of complaints involving potential policy violations.
Moran was not a newly hired patrol officer unfamiliar with supervisory responsibilities. He was the department’s deputy chief, with decades of law enforcement experience and a professional background that included training supervisors.
The department has acknowledged that a required administrative process was not followed after the complaint reached him.
Following Everett’s October arrest, the department reported that Chief Jackson became aware of the circumstances surrounding the Jacksonville incident the following day.
The department’s explanation described Jackson meeting with Moran to establish additional safeguards intended to ensure that similar incidents are properly addressed in the future.
However, the written response provided to the Daily Ridge did not identify any punitive disciplinary action against Moran in connection with the failure.
No suspension, written reprimand or other disciplinary penalty involving Moran was disclosed in that response.
That does not establish that no additional action occurred. It establishes that the department’s explanation identified a corrective meeting and additional safeguards without identifying punitive discipline.
The distinction matters because the department acknowledged that its own procedures were not followed.
It also raises the question of whether the response to a failure involving senior command staff is evaluated under the same accountability standards applied to officers who violate department policy.
The Daily Ridge previously obtained records involving a separate administrative investigation of Jackson before he became police chief.
That investigation involved Jackson’s unauthorized use of an unmarked department vehicle outside Polk County, in Highlands County.
The allegation was sustained, and Jackson received an eight-hour suspension without pay.
The circumstances of Jackson’s earlier case and Everett’s unauthorized Jacksonville trip were not identical. However, the records demonstrate that a formal administrative process and punitive discipline have been used in connection with unauthorized vehicle use.
HCPD indicated that Jackson’s previous case and other disciplinary precedents were not considered when Everett’s Jacksonville complaint was handled.
In Everett’s case, the administrative review required to evaluate the complaint and determine an appropriate disposition never occurred.
For Moran, the department’s disclosed response to the failure involved additional safeguards rather than any identified punitive disciplinary action.
These distinctions do not establish that any particular disciplinary penalty was required. They do raise questions about how the department determines when counseling is sufficient, when formal review is necessary and how supervisors are held accountable for ensuring that policies are followed.
A Second Citizen Complaint Involving HCPD Unit 223
The Daily Ridge also examined a separate citizen complaint involving another Haines City Police Department vehicle.
On August 30, 2026, at approximately 6:25 a.m., a citizen reported observing HCPD Unit 223 traveling eastbound on Interstate 4 at what the citizen estimated to be approximately 95 mph.
The alleged speed has not been independently verified.
The citizen subsequently filed a public records request seeking information about the vehicle’s assignment, location, speed and operation. Despite repeated inquiries, the citizen reported that the matter remained unresolved. It was not until the Daily Ridge became involved that HCPD provided the written responses detailed in this article.
HCPD Public Information Officer Brooke Hart confirmed that Unit 223 was assigned to Officer Daniel Laguerre.
Hart also confirmed that Laguerre worked a shift beginning at 5:45 p.m. on August 29 and ending at 6 a.m. on August 30.
That places the reported sighting on Interstate 4 approximately 25 minutes after the officer’s scheduled shift ended.
However, Hart stated:
“We have no documentation or record confirming that the officer was traveling on Interstate 4.”
When asked whether a complaint, review or inquiry had been conducted, Hart responded:
“A complaint was received, and a review was conducted to identify the officer to whom the vehicle was assigned at the time of the reported incident.”
The response did not establish whether the department examined GPS information, vehicle tracking data, toll records or other available evidence to determine whether Unit 223 was traveling on Interstate 4.
It also did not disclose whether Laguerre acknowledged or denied traveling on the interstate or operating the vehicle at approximately 95 mph.
Despite being unable to confirm the reported travel, HCPD acknowledged that the officer received counseling.
Hart stated:
“The officer was contacted and made aware of the allegations. During that discussion, he received counseling and was reminded of the responsibilities associated with his position, including the proper use, care, and handling of department-issued equipment.”
The department did not identify any punitive disciplinary action or establish that Laguerre violated department policy.
The concern is not whether the citizen’s allegation should automatically have resulted in discipline. Rather, it is whether the department conducted a sufficient review to determine whether the allegation was supported by available evidence.
When considered alongside the Everett incident and the department’s acknowledged failure to follow administrative procedures, the separate Unit 223 complaint raises additional questions about the consistency and thoroughness of Haines City Police Department’s supervisory oversight.
The October DUI Arrest and the Department’s Initial Response
On October 17, 2026, Everett was arrested by the Orlando Police Department on allegations of DUI and reckless driving.
At the time, Everett was off duty and operating an assigned marked Haines City Police Department vehicle.
HCPD confirmed that Everett lived in Orlando and was authorized to commute between his residence and work in the department vehicle. Officials stated that they did not know why he was in the specific location where the arrest occurred.
Everett was terminated following the arrest.
The criminal allegations remain separate from the department’s administrative findings, and Everett is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
The arrest occurred approximately two months after the Jacksonville complaint and counseling.
There is no evidence establishing that a different administrative response in August would have prevented the October incident.
However, the timing underscores the significance of the review that did not occur.
Had the department followed its established procedures, the Jacksonville incident would have been evaluated through the required administrative process. That process could have resulted in a different disposition, including disciplinary action, depending on the findings.
Whether any such action would have affected Everett’s subsequent conduct cannot be determined.
The October arrest also exposed another issue involving the department’s handling of information.
When the Daily Ridge initially questioned HCPD about Everett’s reported Jacksonville trip, the department responded:
“We have no knowledge of former officer Everett driving his Haines City agency-issued vehicle to Jacksonville. If he did without approval, he would have been disciplined accordingly.”
That statement conflicted with records subsequently provided by the department.
The complaint had been forwarded to Turner in August. Everett had been questioned. His unauthorized travel had been confirmed, and a counseling notice had been issued.
The department also acknowledged that Moran had been notified.
Following additional questions from the Daily Ridge, HCPD confirmed the earlier incident and acknowledged the failure to follow its administrative review procedures.
Officials subsequently explained that Chief Jackson had not been aware of the Jacksonville incident at the time of Everett’s October arrest.
That explanation distinguishes Jackson’s personal knowledge from information already documented and known to other members of the department.
It does not resolve why the department initially represented the Jacksonville incident as unknown when its own records established otherwise.
Questions That Extend Beyond One Officer
The circumstances examined by the Daily Ridge involve different employees, different allegations and different levels of responsibility.
Everett’s unauthorized Jacksonville trip was confirmed. The department acknowledged that the complaint was not processed according to required procedures.
Moran was notified of that complaint, and the department attributed part of the failure to his lack of a follow-up reminder. Its subsequent explanation described additional safeguards but did not identify punitive discipline against him.
In the separate Unit 223 matter, HCPD confirmed that it received a complaint involving Laguerre and provided counseling, but its response did not establish whether the alleged travel or speeding occurred.
Those facts do not prove that department leadership intentionally disregarded complaints or improperly protected employees. They also do not establish that all three matters should have resulted in the same disciplinary action.
They do, however, reveal recurring questions about how complaints are reviewed, how supervisory decisions are documented and what accountability follows when established procedures are not followed.
The hiring of Everett adds another dimension to those questions.
The department knew of his previous arrest and unsuccessful application. It had a deputy chief who had previously supervised him and whom Everett listed as a referral. Yet officials stated that the referral was not discussed with Moran.
After Everett was hired, Moran was notified of a complaint involving unauthorized use of a department vehicle. The required administrative review did not occur.
When the failure became known following Everett’s arrest, the department described a meeting and additional safeguards, without identifying punitive discipline against the deputy chief.
Meanwhile, a separate citizen complaint involving another department vehicle resulted in counseling, with the department providing limited information about how the underlying allegations were evaluated.
The issue is not whether every complaint against a police officer should result in punishment. Allegations must be examined fairly, and discipline should be based on established facts and applicable policies.
The issue is whether the department consistently follows the processes designed to ensure that complaints receive appropriate review, that decisions are properly documented and that supervisors are accountable for their responsibilities.
Everett’s October DUI arrest brought these questions into public view. But the records obtained by the Daily Ridge indicate that the questions extend well beyond the conduct of one officer.
They reach into hiring decisions, supervisory oversight, administrative procedures and the responsibilities of senior police leadership.
Ultimately, the most significant question may not be whether Everett should have received more severe discipline for his unauthorized trip to Jacksonville.
It is whether the Haines City Police Department’s systems of supervision and accountability are functioning as intended, and whether the same expectations for following established procedures apply at every level of the department.
