Ten deputies and detectives and additional members of the SWAT team descended on the residence at 5000 Palm Avenue in Bunnell’s Mondex, or Daytona North, the morning of Jan. 17. They found methamphetamine, counterfeit currency of more than $1,000, innumerable live rounds of various calibers, shotgun slugs and other various types of ammunition, hand gun magazines containing .380-caliber rounds, firearm accessories, a rifle, and some 49 hydrocloride pills, a controlled substance, and pot, among other items.
Three people were arrested, all three with previous arrests and convictions: Gage Watts, 25, charged with three felonies and two misdemeanors–possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, meth possession and pot possession of over 20 grams, making it a felony, along with possession of drug paraphernalia; Tessa Lilly, 25, charged with possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, possession of counterfeit currency, and three drug charges, including meth possession; and Jessica McBryde, 30, charged with possession of drug paraphernalia. Additional charges are pending.
The raid was the result of a several undercover operations that, according to a sheriff’s office’s release, ” were able to confirm narcotics were being sold from the residence. Heavy traffic coming and going from the residence was apparent during all hours.”
Gage told deputies and detectives that “everything in the room,” meaning weaponry and drugs, belonged to him, according to his arrest report. He said he was under the impression that owning antique firearms was not a violation of law for a convicted felon.
The Flagler County Sheriff’s Office reports that the property on Palm Avenue had been the subject of 50 calls for service and complaints in the past year. One of those calls, for example, was the result of Gage himself calling 911 repeatedly and hanging up, then denying he’d hung up when confronted by deputies. Another individual, Hannah Albright, a felon on probation, was at the house, as observed by deputies earlier, though Gage claimed she was not. She was later arrested, as was Gage, for obstruction. He was found guilty. A month later he was found guilty of a felony and two misdemeanors, including two drug charges and served three months in jail. In 2017 he was sentenced to a year in state prison for selling drugs.
Lilly was charged on felony and misdemeanor drug counts in 2017 and was found guilty on lesser, misdemeanor charges, then two months ago was found guilty of felony possession of a controlled substance–after being found with it at the Flagler County courthouse: she had been going through the security checkpoint. The metal detector beeped. A deputy asked her to empty her pockets. At first she claimed she had nothing on her, but the deputy could see a small bulge in her pocket. She took it out and said it was a make-up container. In fact, it contained what turned out to be a rock weighing 1.44 grams of methamphetamine.
She was sentenced to three months in jail in a plea, and had been released just nine days before her most recent arrest in the Mondex, on Friday.
McBryde had been arrested in 2016 on two felony and other misdemeanor drug charges, including felony possession of meth and of a controlled substance. After violating her probation she was diverted to drug court, giving her a chance to clean her record if she made it through the demands of the diversionary program week after week. She did not. She failed out in late August, her drug-offender probation was revoked, and she was sentenced to jail for five months. She was released last Nov. 8.
This time, McBryde was booked on a misdemeanor and was released on $500 bond. Watts bonded out, too, posting bail on $8,500 bond. Lilly remains at the county jail on $12,500 bond.
Sheriff Rick Staly called two of the three “frequent fliers” at the county jail (actually, all three are). “Hopefully the courts will deal with them this time and they get the help they need or serious jail time, or else we’ll be keeping an eye on them when they’re back on the streets. Get your poison out of
Flagler County.”
FlaglerLive relies on a strong core of donors. But they’re just a fraction of the 25,000 readers who daily depend on FlaglerLive for reliable, fearless reporting and analysis you cannot get anywhere else. If you’re still on the sidelines, we need you to join the Friends of FlaglerLive today. Elections, storms, the latest catastrophe - when dependable and factual local reporting will be more essential than ever, take a stand for integrity and have a direct voice in fostering serious journalism in your community. As little as $10 makes a difference, or better still, become a monthly donor: Become a "Friend of" FlaglerLive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit news organization. Donations are tax deductible. Think of it as buying a "scoop", in every sense of the term!
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
mark101 says
The key words are ” all three convicted felons, were re-arrested ” enough said.
Inpatient says
The weapons described in the above article obviously do not fall under these catiguores,how ever florida supreme court ruling does allow convicted felons to own “antique firearms” as described below in Section 790.23 of the Florida Statutes prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms. However, the law also exempts any firearm manufactured before 1918, or replicas of pre-1918 firearms. Weeks v. State involved a case against a convicted felon who hunted with a .50 caliber muzzle-loaded rifle. Weeks’ rifle largely copied a pre-1918 firearm, but used a modern scope.
The gun in question was a gift from Weeks’ wife. She testified that she had researched the issue and determined that Weeks could use it without breaking the law. Weeks’ father, a retired law enforcement firearm instructor, also determined that Weeks could legally use the rifle. However, when Weeks took the rifle hunting with him, a Florida Fish and Wildlife officer arrested him.
The First District Court of Appeal found that the felon-in possession statute violated the constitution. It held that the definition of “replica” was unconstitutionally vague. In other words, it found that punishing Defendants for breaking the law was unfair, since the statute failed give a clear definition of “replica”.
Justice Pariente, writing on behalf of the Court, found the statute was not unconstitutionally vague. However, she still held the rifle was a replica antique. She found that the key to understanding the statute was a parenthetical list in the statute’s definition of antique firearm. The definition reads: “any firearm manufactured in or before 1918 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar early type of ignition system)”. Taking into account this list, the Court held that the defining feature of a replica firearm was its ignition system. Since the Defendant’s rifle used a percussion cap, the Court found it was a replica, notwithstanding the modern scope.
While Justice Pariente’s interpretation won the day, the Justices disagreed as to exactly how courts should construe the statute. Justice Canady came to the same conclusion, but argued that the firearm was a replica antique because “accessories” like scopes are not a part of the firearm. Justice Lewis came to a different conclusion, finding that the Black’s Law definition of a “replica” required the copy to be a “reasonably exact duplicate.” Therefore, according to Lewis, attaching a modern scope created a large enough difference to disqualify the firearm from the statutory exemption.
The Supreme Court’s decision last-week gives convicted felons some much-needed guidance as to what types of firearms they may possess. One aspect in the case that was never in dispute was that the firearm was far too cumbersome to be of any danger. The trial judge quipped “[Weeks] would be in a world of hurt if a bear was charging after him.” Given that the rifle generated three conflicting, well-reasoned legal opinions, one has to wonder why the State decided to prosecute Weeks. The evidence showed that he posed no threat to anyone and was merely trying to follow a very confusing law.
oldtimer says
Two out of three already bonded out, that makes me feel so much safer
D says
I doubt they give any shits about doing You harm… What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I guess the only ones that can kidnap and extort work for the state…
Dave says
Jail time?
For non violent offenders? Really?
These are low level drug addicts that will be in n out forever , no need to fill our jails with these low level criminals.
Doug says
Then let them live next to you Dave…
Trailer Bob says
Right. What do you expect society to do with people like this? And why do you feel they should not be in jail. I mean, if we could send them to another country that would be fine, but we cannot at this point. So what do you suggest Dave? send them to drug classes…lol
D says
I got a suggestion for what to do: how about we get rid of any laws that make crimes out of victim-less acts. If people wanna sit around and smoke ganja while polishing a musket, who are you to judge them? He’ll, if they wanna Judd gasoline or inject crack straight into their eyeballs, I dont give a shat, so long as they stay on their side Of the fence. But it’s about money for the state, and that’s how they generate revenue, by legislating morals and such.
JustMe says
So, why do frequent fliers keep getting released from jail? And why, do they get plea deals if they are frequent fliers? What lessons have they or will they learn?
Rosie O'Donnell says
How sad. We lock up petty criminals and in the process convert them into hardened criminals with few opportunities to gain meaningful employment due to their arrest records. I am not sure what the answer is, but as a society what we are doing is simply not working. This drug war has been going on for nearly 70 years and we are farther from a solution than when the program started. Should we consider legalizing all drugs? What is the worst that could happen? I am just asking and am not sure if that is actually a good solution, just throwing the idea out there.
really says
I don’t think these three are looking for or will ever seek gainful employment- hint the red hair is a dead giveaway. the worst that can happen – how about a drug induced gun fight with the weapons that they possessed? or how about selling drugs to your children? lock them up for a long time.
Rosie O'Donnell says
Really really? Red hair? So you have never seen anyone employed with red hair. If drugs were legal, they probably wouldn’t need the guns. If your children are drug addicts, perhaps it is your parenting. I expect that users would either OD or clean themselves up if these drugs were easier to obtain. The same old, same old is not working.
Dave says
Are you trying to say people with hair that is colored cant work a meaningful job? I feel sorry for closed minded people like you that just assume every young person with colored hair and a face tattoo doesnt belong in our society, you need to take a long look in the mirror my friend because as we as a society evolve it is the people like you ,that are full of hate, that will not belong.
Dick says
Until it’s your kid with the drug problem eh buddy?
Mary Fusco says
Rosie, sadly your petty criminals of today are hardened criminals of tomorrow in training. BTW, they will never have meaningful employment after being arrested. Life is made of choices. They make their own. The problem is not legalizing all drugs, but the crimes that stinking POS lowlives are committing to get the drugs. How many have you taken in? Sorry, no sympathy here.
Rosie O'Donnell says
They become hardened criminals in prison, so why should we arrest them? Sometimes kids make bad choices that creates addiction into adulthood. So no one deserves a second chance? If the drugs were legal, do you really think they would need to commit the crimes to get the money? How many have I taken in? How is that even relevant?
Bill says
Rosie says “So no one deserves a second chance?” BUT ALL of them have have a “second chance” or probably many more then that. “Three people were arrested, all three with previous arrests and convictions:(from the article)”
Trailer Bob says
Boy is that a naive statement Rosie. People like these three steal property from other constantly to buy their drugs. They do not work. They offer nothing of value to society. I know because I used to be an addict, of course that was when I was younger, like from 13 to 17. What blows my mind is just how old some of these dirtbags are. Back in my days you experimented and maybe became addicted, but by the time you were an “adult” you either straightened out or ended up in prison for a suitable length of time. Have you seen the short stays in jail nowadays for serious drug offenses? It is a joke in my opinion. You either want to have “free will” or you don’t. These lowlifes new what they were doing and knew there is help for them if they want to change. BTW, I live near that drug house full of trash all over the place and usually ten cars going in and out. Thank you law-enforcement.
John says
How many thousands of dollars were spend on this? This ain’t even gonna put a dent in the problem out here. Gotta think bigger.
Brian says
Whoopin’ it up in the beautiful Mondex!
really says
wash rinse repeat etc..
FlaglerBear says
This case is a sad illustration of what’s happening in communities all over this country. Law enforcement can only do so much. Social services can only do so much. We can only incarcerate people for so long initially. In reality, each and every person (unless they suffer from some mental deformity) is responsible for his or her own behavior; and it’s not the responsibility of society to make them better people, that has to come from within them. So…if these three characters are unwilling to comply with the rules of society, it’s incumbent upon someone to put them in a place and keep them there until they decide to comply. Until the system we pay taxes to steps up and
does their part for the good folks of society, “they” will walk among us, and we will never truly be safe.