Scot Peterson, the former Broward Sheriff's Office Deputy who was cleared of charges stemming from his inaction during the Parkland school massacre, is gearing up for another day in court. This time, he's battling for Broward Sheriff's Office to foot his hefty legal bill. Following his acquittal on June 29, 2023, of felony child neglect and multiple other charges, Peterson's seeking reimbursement for his successful defense, as reported by Local 10 News.
At the heart of this legal aftermath is a near $250,000 invoice — a tab Peterson insists the sheriff's office should pay, as per NBC Miami. His argument stands on Florida law, which suggests law enforcement officers who prevail in litigation "arising from the performance of their officials duties while serving a public purpose," should have their legal expenses covered. Contrary to this law, Broward Sheriff's Office has repeatedly refused to cover the costs, claiming that Peterson's "actions and omissions giving rise to (Peterson's) criminal charges were a material departure from Broward Sheriff's Office's written policies, and procedures."
During the tragic event of February 14, 2018, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Peterson was accused of not engaging shooter Nikolas Cruz as the tragedy unfolded. His failure to act led to his charges, focusing on the victims on the third floor, where the shooting continued for over a minute after his arrival. However, as Local 10 News documented, he did not face charges for the 11 slain and 13 wounded before he reached the scene.
The ex-deputy, who retired a week following the shooting and was formally fired on June 4, 2019, is also battling findings from an internal affairs investigation that led to recommendations of his firing — even though he had retreated into retirement. Broward Sheriff's Office's attorney holds firm that Peterson's dissonance with the department's standards nullifies their responsibility to pay his fees. Furthermore, they argue that Peterson missed the deadline to submit the required documentation, weakening his claim to the funds.
Representing himself, Peterson is due back in the same courthouse where just under a year ago, a jury delivered a verdict in his favor, delivering tears of relief rather than judgment. NBC Miami details that in his petition for reimbursement, Peterson quotes a defense expert who deemed his decision not to enter the fraught building "a reasonable one based on the policy he was following." The question of reasonable actions and the specter of policies followed or broken now looms over the courtroom as Peterson, once more, awaits a ruling—not of guilt or innocence but of compensation claimed due. On Wednesday, this man with his fate long intertwined with the law, will confront the legal system's arithmetic on worth and redemption in the very setting where his name was once cleared, and his freedom restituted.
