State Attorney Will Not Pursue Video Voyeurism Charge Against Ziegler

SARASOTA — After concluding its investigation, State Attorney Ed Brodsky's office will not pursue video voyeurism charges against former Florida Republican Party Chair Christian Ziegler.

Ziegler was accused of sexual battery after a woman that he and his wife, Sarasota School Board member and Moms for Liberty co-founder Bridget Ziegler, have acknowledged having three-way sexual relations with.

Police responded to a wellness check request from a friend of the victim, at which point she alleged that Ziegler had forced himself on her sexually after arriving without his wife for a planned sexual encounter between the three individuals.

Detectives were shown a video of the encounter that Ziegler had recorded with his phone after the woman told detectives "that she was unaware and did not consent" to being recorded during the Oct. 2 encounter.

Police did not find probable cause for sexual battery but did find probable cause for a charge of video voyeurism.

From the SAO's investigation report:

"The Victim recalled being contacted that day by the Defendant to engage in a threesome with the Defendant and his wife. The Victim stated that when she found out the Defendant's wife would not be attending, she was no longer interested in a sexual encounter with just the Defendant and told him this. The Defendant appeared at the Victim's residence anyway, engaged in sexual activity with her, then left her residence. The Victim was drinking alcohol on the day of the incident, which affected her ability to recall many details surrounding the sexual encounter and the aftermath.

"During the investigation, SPD detectives spoke to the Defendant on several occasions. During those conversations it was brought to law enforcement's attention that the Defendant recorded the sexual encounter with his cell phone. The Defendant provided the video to detectives for their review. A review of the video indicated that the sexual encounter was likely consensual; therefore, law enforcement was unable to develop probable cause for a criminal charge of sexual battery. The State also reviewed the video and agrees with SPD's decision. However, because it is a crime in Florida to film a sexual encounter without the knowledge and consent of the other participant(s), law enforcement submitted the above-listed charge for review by the SAO.

"The Defendant could not recall how that subject came up but stated that after the sexual encounter, the Victim asked him via an Instagram "Vanish" message if he had shown his wife the video. (The Instagram "Vanish" feature automatically deletes a message once it has been viewed by the other party to the conversation. To date, law enforcement has been unable to recover any Instagram “Vanish” messages between the Defendant and the Victim, despite numerous attempts to obtain these messages from Instagram's parent company, Meta. It appears that even if the messages were recoverable, they are truly gone for good after about 30 days. That would mean this potential evidence was already gone around the time of the Defendant's first interview on November 2, 2023). In another interview on December 1, 2023, the Defendant added that he asked the Victim before hitting record and she said yes to the recording.

"The video itself does not capture any explicit statements indicating the Victim knew of, and consented to, the recording, either from the Defendant or the Victim. The video shows the phone was visible either in the Defendant's hand or on the bed where the sexual encounter occurred, and the Defendant picked up the phone to end the recording while standing a few feet from the Victim, who was laying on the bed when the recording ended. The video did not appear to be taken from any hidden device or secretive angle that would tend to show that a phone recording a video was being hidden from the Victim.

"Because the video does not conclusively resolve the issue of knowledge and consent, the remaining evidence to be considered along with the video are the conflicting statements between the Victim and the Defendant on the subject. To this end, in every criminal case, there are factors that members of a jury would be instructed to use to consider what evidence they think is more reliable. See Fla. Standard Jury Instruction 3.9. Among these factors are whether the witness (in this case, the Victim and the Defendant would be the only possible witnesses on the issue of knowledge and consent) had an accurate memory, whether their testimony agrees with other testimony and evidence in the case, and whether the witness has made inconsistent statements.

"As mentioned above, the Victim had been drinking alcohol during the hours leading up to the incident and was unable to recall many details surrounding the sexual encounter. In attempting to recall certain details, inconsistencies arose regarding those details. For example, the Victim recalled the sexual encounter taking place over a barstool at the island in the kitchen near the front door of the residence. However, video of the sexual encounter shows it took place in a bedroom. That inconsistency, among others, would be admissible in any trial or hearing for the purpose of arguing that the Victim has also misremembered whether she knew of and consented to the video being taken. More importantly, and independent of any inconsistencies regarding details big or small, the Victim stated in her interview at the SAO that she could have consented to the video being taken she is simply unable to recall one way or another."