Division Chief Prosecutor Drops Santa Fe High School Faculty’s Cases, No Charges for “Pedo-Yeck”

Editor’s Notes: Below this article is a transcription of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) report but it is edited to omit names of student witnesses. Adult witness names are not redacted but cuts have been made to remove personal information. Grammar and structure changes were made in the transcript for smoother readability. Additionally, there were three reports for the three defendants, but all contain the same narrative so only one transcript is included.

On January 8, the Eighth Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office (SAO8) Division Chief Prosecutor of Crimes Against Women and Families, Omar Hechavarria, declined to prosecute Alachua County Public Schools (ACPS) employees David “Mac” Rendek, Michele Faulk and Timothy Wright (now-retired), filing a disposition of dropped and abandoned.

The charges stemmed from the trio allegedly not reporting sexual misconduct by Santa Fe High School (SFHS) baseball coach Travis Yeckring. Wright and Rendek held the respective positions of principal and assistant principal at SFHS, while Faulk is employed as the school’s athletic director. 

SAO8 published a memorandum giving a legal analysis into their decision.

The memorandum says the FDLE told SAO8 they have no plans to press charges against Yeckring, who was nicknamed “Pedo-Yeck” by SFHS students.

"Given FDLE's explicit acknowledgment that no probable cause exists to charge Mr. Yeckring with an underlying act of child abuse, the State Attorney's office concludes that the essential element of "known or suspected child abuse" necessary for the prosecution of the defendant(s) under FS 39.205 [Failure to report suspected child abuse] and FS 827.03(2)(d) [Child neglect] is legally insufficient." - SAO8 Memorandum

On June 19, 2025, FDLE Special Agent (SA) Rebekah McKinzie pressed charges via sworn complaint against Rendek, Faulk and Wright for one count of child neglect and one count of failing to report suspected child abuse. 

Faulk and Rendek were suspended in November 2024 after the City of Alachua and Alachua County School Board (SBAC) were sued in a now-dismissed negligence lawsuit stemming from the trio in question failing to protect a victim from Yeckring’s sexual harassment.

In September 2025, GnvInfo confirmed with ACPS Communications Director Jackie Johnson that Faulk and Rendek were still suspended. She advised Rendek was working as an assistant principal at Bulchholz High School at the time of his suspension.

GnvInfo reached out to Johnson again amid the recent dispositions. She confirmed that Faulk and Rendek, along with Yeckring, all remain on administrative leave. “The district is reviewing the situation to determine next steps,” Johnson stated, confirming the situation remains "under review" on Friday.

Police Report Transcript 

Principal Timothy Wright, Athletic Director Michele Faulk and Assistant Principal David Rendek were school administrators at SFHS in Alachua, Florida. Michele Faulk was also listed as the Title IX investigator for SFHS. The Title IX investigator is tasked with documenting and investigating sexual harassment, and other forms of harassment, and is provided additional training on their role and responsibilities. While the co-defendants are assigned a different role within the school system, they each bear the responsibility to "provide and maintain a safe atmosphere which will encourage positive behavior and high achievement," "encourage open communication among students, parents/guardians, community agencies, and school personnel" and "investigate any and all concerns raised that may affect the health, safety, or welfare of students and staff.” These responsibilities are outlined in the Student Code of Conduct are just a few of the responsibilities listed in writing and distributed to both students and parents. Additionally, they are required to abide by district policies to include an anti-harassment policy which states, "It is the policy of the Board to maintain an educational and work environment which is free from all forms of unlawful harassment, including sexual harassment." Employees are responsible for reporting any form of unlawful harassment. Furthermore, Florida State Statute outlines that employees of Florida schools are mandatory reporters. This designation as a mandatory reporter requires them to report to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) if they have reasonable cause to suspect child abuse, child neglect, and abandonment. The co-defendants are experienced school administrators that know what their responsibilities are at the school level, district level, and statutorily when it comes to complaints of child abuse, child neglect, sexual harassment, battery, stalking, and inappropriate teacher/student interactions. Wright, Faulk, and Rendek were made aware multiple times by students and staff of SFHS that school employee and baseball coach Travis Yeckring was inappropriately and unlawfully interacting with female students at the school over a several year period. The co-defendants did not conduct legitimate internal investigations into the complaints, document, forward the complaints to the SBAC, report the complaints to the DCF, nor did they report the complaints to law enforcement so that they could be appropriately investigated in a timely manner.

Witness 1 Earl Findley met with Faulk and Yeckring about his son and the baseball team. The meeting was not going well and as he left, he held up his cell phone to both Faulk and Yeckring and told them he had proof of Yeckring communicating with female students on social media. Findley did not show Faulk and Yeckring the posts. Faulk did not try to speak with Findley or ask him about his assertion that Yeckring was communicating with female students on social media. 

Findley then met with Wright two days later. Findley relayed to Wright that for three or four years, he had heard rumors of Yeckring flirting with female SFHS students. Findley has heard of five girls who Yeckring targeted, but he only knew the names of two of the victims. Findley told Wright about Victim 1 and that he had knowledge she had been targeted by Yeckring the previous year and had reported the incidents to the front office. Findley also told Wright that Yeckring had communicated with Witness 2 (Female SFHS Student) via Instagram’s Direct Message (DM). Findley learned secondhand about this from Witness 2’s mother.

Findley followed up with Wright approximately a week later for an update. Wright had not contacted Witness 2 nor had he spoken with her parents although he said he attempted to speak with her mother. 

It is important to note that unless Wright spoke with Witness 2, he would not be able to determine if she had been a victim of a crime or if she was corroborating witness for Yeckring’s inappropriate actions.

Witness 2 was interviewed by FDLE SA Barry Kays and provided corroborating information regarding Yeckring’s actions. 

In early February 2021 (senior year), Witness 2 met with Yeckring when she started dating one of his baseball players. Yeckring first spoke to her and said hi when she was waiting for her boyfriend after practice. After meeting Yeckring for the first time, Yeckring would then try to engage Witness 2 in conversations. Witness 2 found these conversations awkward and would make excuses to leave. Yeckring would ask Witness 2 about her relationship with her boyfriend. Witness 2 was told by friends that Yeckring would stare at her when her back was turned. She would try to avoid contact with Yeckring so she never caught him staring at her. During one of the conversations Witness 2 had with Yeckring, he told her that he had a dog and unsolicited showed her a picture that was supposed to be of his dog. Instead, it was a close-up selfie of Yeckring with a dog on his chest. 

There were many other times when Yeckring would position himself to be close to where he would know Witness 2 to be due to her taking photographs for the yearbook. Yeckring would wait for her in the hallways. The encounters were so frequent and awkward that she would take different routes to her destinations just to avoid contact with Yeckring. Based on Witness 2’s statements, it is clear that Yeckring’s course of conduct was causing her distress, such that it altered her behavioral patterns, and she chose alternative routes in order to limit and/or avoid any interaction with him. 

Shortly after Witness 2 graduated, Yeckring sent her a DM through Instagram that was flirty. Even though Witness 2 was 18 at the time she found Yeckring’s contact through Instagram upsetting.

Victim 1

In October 2022... Yeckring initiated a conversation with Victim 1, a 15-year-old female SFHS student, about her clearly observable injury. Prior to this conversation, they had never spoken. During this conversation, Victim 1 discussed with Yeckring about her cat which caused the injury. Yeckring asked to see a picture of her cat and she complied and showed him a photograph of her cat on her phone. Yeckring told her he had a dog and how much he loved dogs. Unsolicited, Yeckring showed Victim 1 his cell phone screen which displayed a photograph of a small dog. The dog was the only subject in the photo. Yeckring then looked at his phone and appeared to scroll through photographs. He then turned the phone back around where it would face Victim 1 and once again showed her another unsolicited photograph. Victim 1 described Yeckring “smirking” as he turned the phone to show the photograph and Victim 1 described the photograph as a “nude photo” or “like a semi nude photo.”

Victim 1 described the second photograph as a selfie taken at a high angle. Yeckring was lying down on his back by a bed. Yeckring wore no clothes. Covering his groin was a dark blue or dark gray sheet or thin comforter. The sheet was draped horizontally and low on his body so that she could see the “V” area of his lower abdomen, his “public area,” and the top of his hips. She could see “a lot of his pelvic region.” She estimated that the sheet or comforter was approximately five inches below his belly button. Yeckring’s hip bones were uncovered. The skin below and to the right of his bone was exposed. She could not see his genitals or the shape of them as the small dog was lying on his lap. She could not see pubic hair. She said it was “pretty obvious,” “pretty evident,” and “pretty apparent” that Yeckring wore no underwear. He wore no shirt. His torso was not muscular. His face was not captured in the photograph, but she described his naked torso as being the same build and skin color as what she saw of him at that first encounter. Victim 1 made an excuse so that she could leave the situation. 

Victim 1 had a second encounter with Yeckring approximately a week later. She tried to avoid interacting with Yeckring but as she passed him in the hallway he called out to her, “Hey, girl,” and then engaged her in another conversation. During the conversation, Yeckring told Victim 1 that she looked like someone he knew. Victim 1 asked who she looked like and Yeckring replied that he did not want to make her mad or jealous. He went on to tell Victim 1 that she looked like another female student and that Victim 1 was beautiful, unique, and that she was not like other girls. He then told her that she was different and pretty in her own way. This shocked and scared Victim 1. Yeckring told Victim 1 to go to class.

Victim 1 was very upset and went to class. Upon arriving in her classroom, she told her teacher what happened during both encounters. 

Victim 1 was confused which teacher she told first but FDLE SA Kays was able to confirm that she first reported the incidents to Witness 3 (Biology Teacher Lauren Chandler). 

Chandler clearly remembered in October 2022, Victim 1 complaining about Yeckring right when she entered her classroom. She also remembered that Yeckring was stationed close to her class. Chandler relayed that Victim 1 was really upset when she entered the classroom. Victim 1 told Chandler that Yeckring somehow contacted her or sent her a selfie of himself. In the selfie, he wasn’t wearing a shirt. Chandler didn’t remember how Yeckring sent Victim 1 the selfie or the details of the selfie because Victim 1 was so upset. Chandler told Victim 1, “That shouldn’t have happened,” and immediately wrote a pass for Victim 1 to go to the SFHS Front Office. She told Victim 1 that she needed to go “right now” and report Yeckring directly to Wright and Faulk because Yeckring was the baseball coach. Victim 1 took the pass and left her classroom. 

Chandler was never contacted by Wright or Faulk about this incident. 

Victim 1 did report it to administration and her recollection of the events is as follows: She went to the front office to speak with Rendek. She told Rendek about both incidents with Yeckring. Rendek replied that this wasn't the first time he’d “heard of this.” Victim 1 believed that Rendek meant Yeckring had done this to other girls. Rendek told Victim 1 that Yeckring would never speak to her again and that she would never see him again. Approximately a week later, Victim 1 attended her 6th period class. Yeckring was the substitute teacher for her class. Victim 1 felt as though Rendek didn’t take her complaints seriously since Yeckring was substituting in her class only a week later. 

Victim 1 then decided to meet with Wright since Rendek did not take what she believed was appropriate action. Victim 1 told Wright about the two incidents with Yeckring and that she had already reported the incidents to Rendek. Wright stated that this was the first time that he heard about her incidents with Yeckring but that he heard of other incidents involving Yeckring. At some point in this conversation, Faulk entered the room and Victim 1 reported to them the two incidents involving Yeckring. Victim 1 was then asked to complete a formal form about what happened. Wright and Faulk then apologized to Victim 1 and told her that it would not happen again, and they would take care of it. Victim 1 and her parents never heard from Wright, Faulk or Rendek. 

Victim 2 

In October 2022, Victim 2 started attending SFHS as a junior. She was given a tour of SFHS and during this tour she was introduced to Yeckring. He introduced himself as “Travis,” but Victim 2 chose to call him “Yeck.” After being introduced to Yeckring, he would engage with Victim 2 through conversation and offering to purchase her food. He bought her food twice. 

She overheard female students, mostly seniors, saying that Yeckring told them they looked pretty, made creepy comments, viewed their Tik Tok accounts or stalked their Instagram page.

Some of the female aides called Yeckring “Pedo-Yeck.” When Victim 2 asked why, she was told it was because he was trying to groom female students. Victim 2 began to refer to him as “Pedo-Yeck.” Many students told Faulk that he was creepy. Faulk would laugh it off. When Victim 2 called Yeckring “Pedo Yeck” in front of Faulk, she told her she couldn’t say that. Faulk did not ask why the students called him creepy or “Pedo-Yeck.”

In the beginning of her senior year, Victim 2 said the talk about Yeckring’s direct messages to Witness 2 was “big” at the school. There were “so many” females that were talking about it. It was a buzz. Victim 2 said it became a “Me Too thing.” Many female students said “I feel that way too,” or “this happened to me,” and “Hello? We’re telling y'all.”

Victim 2 spoke to Faulk about Yeckring DMing Witness 2. Faulk said to her, “Oh, if I hear anything about this, I could bench you.” Faulk told other female students who were outspoken, “This needs to be squashed. There will be consequences.” “You’re making assumptions about other people. You don't know if these texts were AI [artificial intelligence] created,” Faulk said. She did not ask any follow up questions or investigate the concerns that were brought up by the students about Yeckring. 

Victim 2 had several awkward encounters with Yeckring but it culminated in an interaction that occurred after a fight with her then boyfriend. Victim 2 was upset and crying. She was delivering a student pass and Yeckring walked with her from the Dean’s Office. While they were walking, Victim 2 told Yeckring what happened during the argument. Yeckring said, “...just so you know, whatever’s happening between you and him… it doesn’t have to be forever. This is just high school," said Yeckring. "There’s big men out there waiting for you…” She asked, “Big men?” Yeckring laughed and said, "No, you know what I meant, like, real men.” Victim 2 told him that she was only 17 and even though she was really upset, it wasn’t a big deal because the argument was over someone who paid for dinner. Yeckring kept saying things like, “No. Real men don’t do that…” 

After she delivered the student pass, Victim 2 went back outside. Yeckring was waiting for her at a location in the outer hallways where everyone knew that there was no video camera, a place Victim 2 said all the students went to make out or smoke weed. Yeckring held out both of his hands towards her, horizontally and with his palms facing up, as if he were asking for her hand in marriage, with Victim 2 calling it a “wedding stance.” Yeckring told her, “I’m always here when you need to talk.” Without her permission and against her will, Yeckring grabbed both of Victim 2’s hands. Yeckring’s hands were sweaty and gross. She quickly pulled her hands away from his grasp and said, “I’m OK. Really.” Yeckring repeated there were big men out there, and Victim 2 told him, “I’m OK. Really.” 

Yeckring instantly changed the subject and asked her about college. His tone was no longer compassionate like it was when he was concerned about her crying. Victim 2 said it was clear by her reaction and by the look on her face how she felt about him touching her. She said her reaction clearly communicated, “Dude. What are you doing?” This whole experience upset her even more and Victim 2 cried again. Yeckring said, “It’s going to be okay.” As he said this, Yeckring stepped in close, encircled his arms around, and tried to hug Victim 2. She blocked his unwanted touching by internally turning one of her shoulders into him as he moved to put her arms around her. Yeckring backed up and held both of his hands up, palms facing her, at face level, in what she said was a “I didn’t touch you” gesture. Yeckring said he had to go fix a computer and left. 

Victim 2 met with Wright and told him what happened. Wright took note, not on a yellow legal pad, but on a small notebook that would fit in a purse. He told her, “We’re going to get this fixed. I’ve already talked to your friend. I’ll have a conversation with him. This isn’t acceptable. I’m sorry you girls are feeling this way.” Wright accessed his computer and looked very intently at it, but she didn't see what, if anything, he wrote. Victim 2 described the meeting as weird because it was only her and Wright. She said that after weeks passed, “nothing came of it.” Victim 2 was not contacted again by Wright and he never contacted her parents. 

Victim 2 never told Faulk about Yeckring grabbing her hands and trying to hug her because of what she told her when she called him “Pedo-Yeck.” Based on Faulk’s previous statements regarding complaints against Yeckring, Victim 2 was afraid that Faulk may retaliate and bench her if she reported Yeckring grabbing her hands and hugging her. As a result of Faulk’s threats, Vic 2 experienced fear to the extent that she did not report what happened with Yeckring to Faulk.

Victim 3

Victim 3 was a student at SFHS for all four years of high school. She knew Yeckring as the baseball coach and the “tech guy.” His office was in the library. Victim 3 stated Yeckring spent quite a bit of time in the Dean’s lobby. This is where the Dean’s aides were located. At times he would spend the entire class period in the lobby trying to engage her and the other girls in conversations. If other people were in the lobby, he would not speak with them other than a cursory “Hi.” A couple of times in her junior year, Yeckring bought smoothies for her and Victim 4 which she found odd. Victim 3 didn’t believe Yeckring would actually purchase the smoothies because he wasn’t “her” teacher. 

Victim 3 relayed another incident that occurred in her junior year. Victim 3 entered the Dean’s lobby bathroom to change into her cheerleading uniform. When she exited the room wearing her cheering leading outfit, Yeckring was in the office. Victim 3 said, “... he looked me up and down and asked if we were sponsored by Victoria’s Secret.” Victim 3 didn’t understand what he meant until she realized she forgot to change out of her normal bra for her cheerleading bra. She described her cheerleading uniform’s tank top which had wide straps made of see-through mesh. The cheerleaders wore a sports bra the same color that blended in with the mesh. The bra she forgot to change was a Victoria’s Secret bra which was white. It displayed a black Victoria’s secret label vertically on front of one of the straps. Under the mesh top strap, the bra and its label would have been visible but she said one would have to “look hard” to see it. 

In an incident her senior year, during school hours, Yeckring invited Victim 3 to his apartment to see his black lab. He pulled up a single photo of his dog on his phone and showed her. The dog was the only subject in the photo. She remembered this clearly because her lab was purebred and Yeckring’s dog was not. Victim 3 thought to herself, “You’ve got to be joking?” and “What’s going on?” She remembered saying to him, “I'm not coming over to see your dog.” She was in shock because he was an adult male who worked at the school. She was uncomfortable and compared the situation to one her parents always warned her of as a child, like when a stranger might approach and talk to her. Victim 3 told Witness 4 (SFHS employee and coach, Kelly Hodson) and Witness 5 (SFHS employee and head cheer coach, Sydney Boukari), about Yeckring inviting her to his house. They both told her things like, “Don’t feed into him,” “be aware of your surroundings,” and “be smart.” They told her Yeckring was “harmless.” Victim 3 said Boukari and Hodson had “common knowledge” about Yeckring’s behavior from the complaints of multiple girls. Hodson and Boukari even called Yeckring “weird.” 

In another incident during Victim 3’s senior year, during school hours, Yeckring asked her to leave campus with him in his personal car to go to Elliano's coffee shop located across the street from SFHS. She immediately said no because it was against the school’s rules to leave campus. She explained how he knew this school rule as one of his assignments was a post at the school’s exit stop sign to catch students from leaving campus during lunch. Yeckring “begged” her to come in a “flirtatious manner.” She told Yeckring that it was against the rules and she could get in trouble. He continued “begging” her to go. Victim 3 mimicked Yeckring’s delivery in a child-like whine when he said, “Come oooon… Like, you’re gonna be fiiiine.” She told him “no” two, if not three times. Yeckring “pouted,” said “Awww…” like he didn’t “get his way,” and left the Dean’s Office. Victim 3 felt that Yeckring was asking her on a date. As Yeckring left the Dean’s Office, Rendek entered. 

Victim 3 immediately told Rendek, “Your employee just begged me to go across the street with him.” Victim 3 said it felt good to tell someone important within the school’s administration, someone “high up” who could actually do something. She said Rendek was someone she could trust and believe was a good person, but he did not respond as she expected. He said the same things that “everyone” else did, like, “Be careful,” “Don’t fall for his foolishness,” and “You’re smarter than that.”

Victim 3 expected Rendek to ask her more questions or call her back to the front office for more questioning, but he didn’t ask anything about what Yeckring did. He only asked her what she did. She said Rendek’s reaction caught her "completely off guard.” At first, she felt good about telling him and that she didn’t “keep it under the table.” She was proud she told an administrator seconds after it happened. Victim 3 said she never told Rendek anything that serious before, but after he left, nothing happened. No one from the school ever followed up with her nor her parents. No one asked about it again. 

FDLE SA Kays conducted an interview with Hodson on April 4, 2024. Hodson said Yeckring conducted no business with anyone in the office. He usually just came in to speak with people. She volunteered that Yeckring told her when his players had a game and would miss class or their assignments in her office. 

When asked if she heard any rumor about Yeckring, Hodson responded, “Not me personally, no.” She reiterated, “I’ve never had a kid say there was anything inappropriate.” 

When asked if she ever told Faulk, a dean, an assistant principal, a counselor, or anyone else at the school about any females complaining about Yeckring, Hodson finally said that she had. Hodson said, “It’s vague. I can’t remember what the content was, but I just said ‘Hey’ to, I said to Mr. Rendek, ‘Hey, the girls, you know, they need to share something with you.’” Hodson also said she “would” have told Faulk about this incident. Hodson could not remember the females’ complaint in this particular instance.

Hodson remembered a time Yeckring offered to bring back smoothies from Elliano's for two female aides (Victim 3 and Victim 4). She remembered that the females paid Yeckring for the smoothies. When asked if it was common for a teacher to bring back smoothies for students, she said that it wasn’t. Hodson could not remember who these females were, not even if they were her own cheerleaders. Hodson could not remember when this occurred, but she did know it was less than two years ago. 

Hodson then remembered that Victim 3 called Yeckring creepy when he brought them back smoothies. Hodson specifically remembered that Yeckring came into the Dean’s lobby and asked her and the two female aides who were sitting “right” there if all of them wanted coffee. Hodson said no and the female aides said “Yes.” 

Hodson also remembers Victim 4 complaining to her about Yeckring. Hodson asked Victim 4 if she wanted to speak to someone. Victim 4 said yes. Hodson physically walked to Rendek’s office and brought him back to the Dean’s Office to speak to Victim 4. Hodson knew that he had spoken to Victim 4. Rendek never asked Hodson about Victim 4’s complaint nor did he follow up with her. 

Hodson told FDLE SA Kays that she was only 90% sure she told Rendek and 50% sure she had told Faulk about the complaints. 

Victim 4 

Victim 4 was a SFHS student for all four years of high school. When Victim 4 first met Yeckring, she thought he was nice. She believed he genuinely wanted to know how she was. He’d ask her how her weekends were. He was more personable than “anybody.” But then she started hearing rumors about how he was “weird” and had inappropriate contact with older female SFHS students. 

Yeckring spent an excessive amount of time in the Dean’s Office lobby. He often stayed for the entire class period and frequently “pulled’ Victim 4 and Victim 5 outside of the Dean’s Office to ask them about their dating relationships. 

In Victim 4’s junior year, Yeckring used his cell phone and showed her two photos of his dog. In the same moment, Yeckring said Victim 4 should come and meet his dogs at his apartment. She didn’t remember Yeckring being in the photos. Victim 4 never had a teacher invite her to their house, especially a male teacher. She felt that it was weird. She did not accept his invitations. Victim 5, and Witness 6 (Male SFHS Student), and possibly Hodson were present when this conversation took place.

Yeckring would bring food and drink for Victim 4 and Victim 5 on average every other week. They would give him cash. 

Victim 4 said it was possible but could not remember if she complained to any administrators about Yeckring. 

Victim 5

Victim 5 was a SFHS student for all four years of high school. Victim 5 said Yeckring was “always in and out of the Dean’s Office.” She didn’t think about it at the time, but looking back, she said she had no idea why he so frequently came in. Yeckring was “flirtatious,” “overly friendly,” and always joking with the female students. He “... wanted to be a close friend. He wanted to be friends with us for sure. Maybe even more than friends…” Yeckring had “personal relationships” with her, Victim 3 and Victim 4. She said, “Victim 4 was close with him.” Yeckring frequently asked Victim 5 about her relationship with her boyfriend, a baseball player. 

Yeckring frequently complimented Victim 5 on her looks. “Oh you’re dressed up today,” he said. “Oh, you look good today.” “Where are you going like that,” Yeckring said, comparing Victim 5 to an actress who had the same hair color. 

Yeckring had a black labrador retriever and he talked about her “a lot.” Yeckring showed Victim 5 a selfie (photo) of Yeckring and his dog. She believed he wore a shirt in the selfie. 

Yeckring went off campus and purchased lunch and smoothies for Victim 3, Victim 5 and another female student whose name she couldn’t remember. At the time, she didn’t think it was inappropriate because Yeckring did this in front of adult SFHS Dean’s Office faculty members, the most visible being Hodson. 

Victim 5 frequently sat with Hodson. She spoke to Hodson about Yeckring, but since his behavior was a joke to Hodson, she said the conversations were never “serious.” Victim 5 also told Boukari, “...They knew that I thought he was a weirdo like 100% knew it.”

Victim 5 recalled the same conversations that Victim 4 shared where Yeckring invited them both to his home to see his dog. She thought it was weird. 

Witness 6 confirmed that Victim 4 and Victim 5 were asked by Yeckring to go to his home. In January or February 2022, Witness 6 was in the Dean’s Office lobby when Yeckring began complimenting her. Yeckring told the two female students about his dog which was a black labrador retriever. He invited both Victim 4 and Victim 5 to come to his house to meet her. Yeckring knew Witness 6 also owned a black lab, but did not invite him, his player, to come to his house to meet his dog. 

Victim 6

Victim 6 knew Yeckring as the head baseball coach and the “computer guy." She called him “Yeck.”

Yeckring visited the Dean’s Office lobby three, if not five times a week. Victim 6 said Yeckring conducted no school business there. If Victim 6 was busy running passes for the deans, Yeckring wouldn’t stay long. But if she wasn’t busy, he would stay the whole period. Yeckring would either ignore of have very limited conversations with her if any of his baseball players were in the lobby. 

During one visit in the Dean’s Office lobby, Yeckring unsolicited, verbalized that he was going to show photos of his dogs on his phone, but instead he showed Victim 6 selfies with two smaller dogs (brown and white; maybe French bulldogs) and a large dark colored dog. Only the dog’s heads were visible in the photos. Yeckring never said if the dogs were his or his parents. In one of the selfies, Yeckring was shirtless. His naked “breast” and one arm were exposed. He was on a couch or a chair. The large dark colored dog was on his chest. When Yeckring showed Victim 6 this photo, it “weirded” her “out.” She said Yeckring wasn’t even her teacher. 

Between her junior and senior year, Victim 6 estimated that while she was “running passes” as a Dean’s aide, that Yeckring intercepted her outside of the Dean’s Office and followed her to her destination approximately 70-75 times. She became uncomfortable with Yeckring following her. 

Even though running a pass was a one person task, Victim 6 asked her friend, Witness 7 (Male SFHS student), to come with her as a protective escort. She did this hoping that Yeckring wouldn’t talk to her because Witness 7 was a baseball player. Victim 6 was forced to employ a new strategy when she had no escort available. When she exited the Dean’s Office, she first conducted countersurveillance in an effort to see Yeckring before he saw her. Once she located him in the hallways, she’d intentionally take longer and obscure routes to avoid Yeckring finding and following her. 

During Victim 6’s senior year, Yeckring told Witness 8 (Female SFHS student) that he needed to visit Victim 6 and Witness 8’s new place once they graduated high school. It was well known that Victim 6 and Witness 8 were going to be roommates when they graduated high school. Neither knew how to respond to Yeckring’s statement. 

When Victim 6 was wearing her tennis uniform, Yeckring talked about playing tennis with her. Yeckring said that even though he didn’t play tennis he could still beat her. Yeckring told her he needed to coach her because he “could teach” her “new skills.” He talked about having the baseball players play tennis players in tennis. He talked about coming to watch her play tennis and said, “We need to go play.” She said the “coaching” part of his solicitation always coincided with her meeting him away from the school. She said he was "consistent” with comments When asked what she believed his intentions were, she said, “He wanted to be alone with me. I felt like he wanted to be around me not in a school setting.” When asked why she believed he wanted to be alone with her, Victim 6 said, “I believed he wanted to do sexual acts or at least be in a position where he could flirt with me… not be around other individuals. I never got the feeling that it was just a friendly thing.” She said, “... he had no experience in tennis to my knowledge.” Additionally, Yeckring made the comment that he couldn’t believe her tennis coach would let females on the team wear a skirt “that short.” This comment made Victim 6 “violently uncomfortable.” 

Yeckring always asked Victim 6 about her relationship status. 

Victim 6 said it reached a point where she never wanted to see Yeckring. As even more proof of how distressed she was in his presence, when Yeckring substituted for one of her classes, she intentionally walked out of his class twice. She said she “removed” herself from the “situation before it occurred.”

When asked if she ever told any SFHS employees about what Yeckring did, Victim 6 said Hodson knew that Yeckring “made all the girls uncomfortable.” She said, “I don’t remember if I ever told her exactly what he said but she knew that he made me uncomfortable.” 

Victim 6 said that when Yeckring was in the office, she felt Hodson intentionally picked her, even though there were other available aides, to run errands so she could leave the office.

Victim 6 did tell Witness 9 (SFHS teacher Kyra Simcic-Swanton) about Yeckring’s weird comments. Simcic-Swanton asked Victim 6, “He really said that to you?” Simcic-Swanton asked Victim 6 if she wanted to report it. Victim 6 declined and said that Yeckring didn't do anything serious enough for her to complain. Victim 6 felt that even though she reported it to her teacher, Simcic-Swanton put the responsibility back on her to report it again to the administration. At that point, Victim 6 just wanted the whole situation to go away. 

Simcic-Swanton knows Yeckring as a coworker. She believes he was close with Rendek but was friendly with a lot of people. She was not surprised when allegations came out because girls had come to her complaining about him being creepy, staring at them too long or requesting to friend them on social media. Simcic-Swanton does not know him personally. She had interacted with him briefly. 

Simcic-Swanton said three or four years ago a senior girl came to her after Yeckring had subbed for her class and the girl showed her a picture where Yeckring was staring at her. The girl told Simcic-Swanton how creepy it was and how Yeckring just stared and wouldn’t stop staring. Simcic-Swanton validated the disclosure by agreeing that it was creepy and that if the girl was uncomfortable, she should tell someone. Simcic-Swanton described the picture as Yeckring sitting at Simcic-Swanton’s desk staring at the girl. SA McKinzie confirmed that Simcic-Swanton provided guidance to the girl that if this bothered her that she could report it to someone. Victim 6 did report it to Simcic-Swanton who is an employee of SFHS. 

Simcic-Swanton remembers Victim 6. She doesn't remember her saying anything about Yeckring. Simcic-Swanton did teach cheerleaders over the years but did not remember any complaints about Yeckring. The complaints escalated once he was suspended.

Simcic-Swanton talked with two other teachers about Yeckring. When they talked, they just exchanged similar stories. These teachers’ female students shared similar concerns about Yeckring. 

Co-Defendant Wright 

[ Note: The word "['corroborate']" below is spelled "collaborate" in the police report, but context suggests corroborate may be what was meant].

Wright was interviewed and acknowledged that he received a complaint from Victim 1. During the interview about Victim 1’s complaint he said, “I have, I have received a complaint. Unfortunately, did I go to SRO [school resource officer]? No, I didn’t because I was trying to [‘corroborate’] if any of what she said to me was in fact true.” 

Wright was speaking about Witness 2 and not Victim 1. He acknowledged that he received information about Yeckring DMing Witness 2. He only looked up to see when Witness 2 graduated and not if she was underage at the time she received the communications. 

When asked if he ever heard about any student making complaints about Yeckring to anyone else, Wright didn’t directly answer the question. He said, “To the best of my knowledge… nothing that was ever reported to me.” 

When asked if he remembered a female student making a complaint about Yeckring to Rendek, Wright responded, "Off the top of my head, no nothing.” 

Wright explained that if a male teacher used “personal” language with a female student, it would be inappropriate. He said a teacher shouldn't speak to a student about anything occurring outside of the school. A teacher could compliment the student, but only in the form of their academic or athletic performance. They could not compliment them on their looks or their clothing. Wright said it would even be inappropriate if a male teacher told a female student, “You look nice today,” or “that’s a nice shirt.” If a teacher called a student “pretty,” that would be a “red flag.” 

When asked again if he ever heard about Yeckring saying anything inappropriate to, flirting with, or trying to engage in a romantic relationship with a female student, Wright said, “Never.”

Wright documented in writing Victim 1 reporting her interactions with Yeckring to include the shirtless photograph. When asked if he would remember Yeckring showing Victim 1 a shirtless photo of himself with his dog, Wright responded, “I think that’s something I would remember. Just because it's the shirt not being on. Concerns me, yes.” Wright also documented that Victim 1 told him that girls had complained to Faulk about Yeckring’s behavior and gave Wright a list of girl’s names. Wright said he asked Faulk if any girls had complained to her, and she told him no girls complained to her about Yeckring. Wright did not speak with any of the other girls whose names were provided by Victim 1. 

Wright stated he did not remember speaking with Yeckring about Victim 1.

Yeckring was interviewed and told FDLE SA Kays that Wright did speak with him about Victim 1. Yeckring said Wright told him that Victim 1 came to him with a concern that Yeckring was "flirting" with her. Wright told Yeckring to be careful and to be aware of everything that he did or said at the school.

Co-Defendant Faulk 

Faulk was interviewed and acknowledged that she was aware of complaints made by female SFHS students about Yeckring. 

When asked if Yeckring had a reputation for being too friendly with the female students, Faulk said, “I think with some of the females, he does.” 

Faulk did remember Victim 1 coming into the front office to complain about Yeckring. She said Victim 1 spoke to Wright and she wasn’t involved. After Wright met with Victim 1, he told Faulk the “gist” of Victim 1’s complaint was that Yeckring was “creepy.” 

When asked if Yeckring complimented Victim 1 in person, Faulk said, “Maybe, but I mean, I compliment kids, your hair looks nice today, you know, you look nice.” When asked again later about what she remembered Victim 1 saying about Yeckring, Faulk responded, “I know she did express that he kind of creeped her out because he mentioned, ‘You look nice today,’ I think was the comment… and she said, ‘That just creeped me out.’ And that’s really all that, you know, kind of what’s said.” 

When asked if Victim 1’s complaint about Yeckring’s compliment was something like being called “pretty” or “beautiful,” Faulk responded, “I think she did, cause I had seen her in the cafeteria, and she mentioned it to me on one of my posts, you know, where I’m supervising in the cafeteria. I do remember her coming up and just making a statement about him. You know, ‘He compliments too much.’”

Faulk said that after Wright met with Victim 1, he told her he called Yeckring in and had a conversation with him about Victim 1’s complaint.

After Victim 1’s complaint, Faulk also “talked” to Yeckring about “making sure that girls aren’t perceiving” him “as being creepy” She told Yeckring, “Don’t do things that will give them the feeling of, ‘Hey, that’s a little awkward.” 

Faulk confirmed she received a complaint from Findley that Yeckring had DMed Witness 2. Wright handled the complaint when Findley went to him, two days after Findley told Faulk about Witness 2. 

Faulk confirmed that she was also made aware by the girls’ softball coach approximately two years prior that some of his female players were complaining about Yeckring being creepy. Faulk claimed there was nothing concrete about these complaints although she did not ask additional questions, interview the players, appropriately report and/or document Yeckring’s behavior, nor complete investigations to determine the validity of the complaints. 

Co-Defendant Rendek

Rendek was interviewed and asked if he knew of any students who made a complaint about Yeckring. Rendek said “No.” 

Rendek said he only remembered hearing about a parent, Findley, meeting with both Faulk and Yeckring about his son being cut from the baseball team. Rendek heard Findley alleged Yeckring had been communicating with a female student over social media.

Rendek was informed that a female student told FDLE SA Kays that she reported Yeckring to him. Rendek responded, “Not that I’m aware of.” Rendek was provided with Victim 1’s name. He then remembered that she had complained about Yeckring but could not remember the context. He did remember that Wright met with Victim 1’s parents after Rendek relayed the complaints to Wright. 

No one with the school met with Victim 1 or Victim 1’s parents. 

When asked if he would have forgotten if Yeckring complimented Victim 1, Rendek did not answer. He asked his own question: “In what way?” When asked what he would consider to be an inappropriate compliment, Rendek responded, “Anything not school-related,” or “personal in nature” would “go” over the line. Rendek said it would even be inappropriate if a male teacher complimented a female’s shirt or said she looked nice. He didn’t recall anything like this. 

Rendek denied hearing anything about Yeckring talking to girls like he did to Victim 1 in the past but then confirmed that Yeckring has a reputation of being flirtatious. Rendek said he never had any firsthand knowledge of this behavior or of any complaints. 

Victim 1 reported the incidents involving Yeckring directly to Rendek. Victim 3 reported to Rendek when Yeckring tried to convince her to leave school and go to Elliano’s during school hours. 

Rendek did not ask additional questions, interview students, appropriately report and/or document Yeckring’s behavior, nor complete investigations to determine the validity of the complaints that were reported to him directly and/or rumors that he was aware of regarding Yeckring’s flirtatious behavior. 

Wright, Faulk and Rendek had knowledge, for at least two years, if not more, of multiple reports regarding Yeckring’s inappropriate and unlawful interactions with underage female SFHS students. His behavior was described by both school employees and students as inappropriate, concerning and flirtatious. Yeckring battered Victim 2 when he twice touched her without her consent. Additionally, Yeckring was not a teacher, coach or mentor of any of the victims, yet he solicited multiple victims to travel with him away from the school or to meet him outside of school for reasons unrelated to school. None of the co-defendants appropriately documented or investigated the complaints, notified parents, and/or guardians of the impacted students, offered services to students that came forward, notified SBAC, notified law enforcement, nor did they notify DCF, which based on Yeckring’s actions, were mandated to due so by Florida State Statute. Additionally, they fostered a school environment that minimized Yeckring’s behavior and encouraged both students and staff to remain silent and refrain from reporting Yeckring’s actions. Students that came forward and reported Yeckring either were ignored, dismissed, and/or threatened with retaliation.