Nude photos found on Commissioner’s laptop, Chairman overrules investigation

CHARLOTTE COUNTY, Fla. (WINK) - WINK Investigates has obtained records showing a Charlotte County commissioner was the subject of an independent investigation over nude images found on his government-issued laptop.

An outside law firm was hired by the county and returned the conclusion that Commissioner Christopher Constance violated workplace policy.

The chairman of the County Commissioners Joe Tiseo later rejected those findings, calling them “null and void.”

Now, WINK Investigates has learned there is a growing disconnect between what investigators uncovered and how county leadership responded.

What was found on the laptop

The investigation began in May after Charlotte County’s IT department reported finding nude images of women on Constance’s county-issued laptop.

The discovery was significant enough that the county hired DSK Law firm to conduct an independent investigation. WINK Investigates obtained a copy of that report, which was completed August 7.

According to the report, investigators used data recovery software and uncovered more than 14,000 files from the device, including explicit images — some involving full frontal nudity.

The firm noted Constance is believed to be a plastic surgeon and suggested some of the images could be related to patient consultations. However,

Constance did not answer repeated interview requests to confirm that, according to DSK.

Investigators also noted, "There are at least two photos of a blonde woman in a bathroom in her underwear. These photos appear to be personal in nature and not work related."

Investigation findings

The law firm concluded the images violated county policy 3.45, describing them as offensive material in the workplace.

Policy 3.45 governs discrimination, harassment, and offensive behavior in the workplace.

Investigators also found Constance failed to cooperate, accusing him of ignoring repeated requests for an interview.

The report raises additional concerns about privacy, stating that any patient images stored on a government-issued laptop could be subject to public records requests — potentially exposing previous and/or current clients.

WINK Investigates reached out to Constance multiple times by phone and email. He has not responded.

We also contacted the law firm for comment but have not heard back.

Chairman rejects findings

In a letter obtained by WINK Investigates, Charlotte County Commission Chairman Joseph Tiseo — who was tasked with determining whether the investigation had merit — disagreed with the law firm’s conclusions.

Tiseo on August 11 wrote that while the images may have been inappropriate, they did not meet the definition of “offensive behavior” under county policy 3.45.

Tiseo argued the policy applies specifically to conduct tied to protected classes — such as race, religion, or gender — and said the images in question did not fall under that definition. Due to that, he determined no policy violation occurred and declared the investigation’s findings “null and void.”

When WINK Investigates asked follow-up questions to Tiseo regarding his decision.

Tiseo referred us back to his letter saying, "My statement was detailed, thorough and represents all of the actions I was required to perform pursuant to our board rules. The statement literally walks you through my analysis."

Questions about transparency and board awareness

Despite the investigation’s findings, the county says the matter was resolved under Policy 3.45.

However, it has not clearly stated what consequences — if any — were issued.

WINK Investigates has asked several times but has not received a clear answer.

WINK Investigates has been pressing for answers for more than ten days.

Two commissioners told us they were not previously aware of the investigation and learned about it through WINK Investigates’ request for a comment.

Neither agreed to an on-camera interview or a comment.

It remains unclear whether the full board was informed during the process — or whether commissioners agree with the chairman’s decision to reject the findings.

The County Attorney, Thomas M. David, declined to provide any comments.

What happens next

The case raises broader questions about how county policy is interpreted — and whether independent investigations are being upheld.

At the center of it all is a key contradiction: An independent investigation found a violation and raised concerns about workplace conduct and privacy — while the county’s chairman determined no violation occurred.

WINK Investigates will continue pressing county leaders for answers and will update this story as we learn more.