Why This Site Exists

My name is Steve Rhodes. I’m a chiropractor in Jacksonville, Florida. For more than a decade I’ve lived with the consequences of a criminal case that, in my view, never should have been brought.

Two things eventually became clear to me: the charges were based on a misunderstanding of the law, and the investigation relied on claims that should never have been accepted without closer scrutiny.

Years after the case was over, I discovered something that stunned me: the law had changed in 2012 in a way that made most of the charges brought against me legally unsound. Yet no one involved in the case seemed to recognize it—not the detectives who investigated me, not the prosecutor who oversaw the case, and not even my own lawyers at the time.

To this day, I still find that hard to believe.

I also came to believe that the investigation itself ignored important facts, relied on claims that should have been recognized as demonstrably false, and moved quickly toward arrest before the evidence was carefully examined.

For years I tried to move on with my life. But there is another problem: if you search my name online, the first results you will likely see are stories about my arrest. What you will not easily find is what happened afterward: the case was resolved through Florida’s pretrial intervention program, and the charges were ultimately dismissed.

That imbalance is one reason this site exists.

Rather than argue about it, I decided to make the record available so people can review the information for themselves.

What you’ll find here

This site gathers the materials that explain what happened in the case, including:

A timeline of the investigation and prosecution
A detailed report describing the problems that later came to light
Key documents, including court filings, transcripts, depositions, and other materials from the case

My goal is simple: transparency. Anyone who wants to understand what happened can review the same materials I did and draw their own conclusions.

A request for independent review

I have also submitted a letter to the Governor of Florida requesting that the case receive an independent review by the Office of the Chief Inspector General.

The request does not ask that the case be relitigated. Instead, it asks whether two issues deserve examination: whether the charges were based on a misunderstanding of the law that had already been changed, and whether aspects of the investigation raise broader concerns about how similar cases are handled.

A copy of that letter, along with the report and supporting materials, is available on this site.

My hope is simple: that the record will receive a careful and independent review—because accuracy, fairness, and accountability still matter.