Nude images found on Charlotte County Commissioner’s laptop raise privacy concerns for attorney, former patient

CHARLOTTE COUNTY, Fla. (WINK) - WINK Investigates is continuing to dig into a case involving Charlotte County Commissioner Christopher Constance — now hearing directly from a former patient and a legal expert raising new concerns about privacy, accountability, and potential HIPAA violations.

This comes after records revealed an independent investigation into nude images found on Constance’s government-issued laptop.

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.

An outside law firm hired by the county concluded Constance violated workplace policy 3.45 after nude and partially nude images were discovered on his county-issued device.

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

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

Tiseo said he reviewed the matter strictly based on the language of the policy, which defines offensive behavior as being related to race, national origin, sex, gender, age, marital status and other categories that he believes were not “offended” by the content on Constance’s laptop.

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.

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

Former patient speaks out

WINK Investigates spoke with Patricia Gower, a former patient of Constance, who says her experience with him as a surgeon at the Laser Plastic Surgery Center off of Harbor Blvd was positive.

"I found him to be very knowledgeable. I liked him. I liked him as a surgeon and the aftercare was very good,” Gower said.

Gower was happy with the outcome of her stomach procedure.

When she learned consultation photos — like the ones taken during her procedure — may have been stored on a government laptop, she says it gave her pause.

“It’s unfortunate that that happened," Gower said.

She says her level of concern depends on what exactly was included in the images. She believes her face was not in her consultation pictures.

"It would be a different story if my face was in the pictures, and then it's like public record. Now, you know, with a with a private part, you know, face and private would have been very Yeah, that would have been more concerning," Gower said.

Gower says her own photos did not include her face and were limited to a body area — which made her feel less worried.

“Nobody’s going to know it was me… it wasn’t a private part," she said.

Still, she says she feels for other patients who may not have that same level of anonymity.

Legal questions: Could this be a HIPAA violation?

The situation is now raising broader legal concerns — particularly around patient privacy and whether federal protections may have been violated.

WINK Investigates Reporter Olivia Jean asked attorney Lance Dunford, a partner with the Law Firm of Scott Moorey directly:

“Are there potential HIPAA violations?”

His response: “It would appear that there could be, yes," Dunford said. "Without knowing more, without the county commissioner actually speaking on this... It's tough to tell whether or not there had been permission or a waiver given."

Dunford says the concern centers on where sensitive medical information was stored — and what that means under Florida’s public records laws.

“This information is now subject to public searches and public records requests," Dunford said.

In other words, images that may have been part of private medical consultations could potentially be accessed by the public.

Dunford says one of the most important unanswered questions is whether any patients were told.

“Has the potential patient or patients been notified? Have protections already been put in place?”

Right now, that answer is unclear. WINK Investigates has asked the county whether any patients whose images may have been on the laptop were informed — but they have not answered. 

Dunford says notification is typically a key step if a privacy breach occurs.

Mixing roles raises concerns

Dunford also pointed to a broader issue — the risks of mixing professional or personal materials with government-issued devices.

“There needs to be a separation between your personal and your private… and those that you owe to the public," Dunford said.

He says failing to maintain that separation can lead to serious consequences.

“If you muddy those waters, then the public deserves to know everything," he said.

While Dunford says there may be reasonable explanations for how the images ended up on the laptop, he says the lack of clarity is a problem.

“There are some questions that are still unanswered… and the public deserves a little bit more clarity.”

On county policy, Dunford says he does not fully agree that Policy 3.45 (offensive behavior) applies in this case, since the images may have been related to medical work — not harassment or discrimination.

However, he points to a separate issue: Constance’s lack of cooperation with the investigation, which he says appears to be a clearer policy concern.

Commissioner Constance has not responded to multiple requests for comment from WINK Investigates.

It is also unclear whether any safeguards have been put in place — or whether patients have been formally notified.

WINK Investigates will continue pressing for answers and will update this story as more information becomes available.