David Sivik

Introduction

David Sivik was a sergeant with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office in Florida, assigned to the Department of Detention and Corrections, where he supervised subordinate personnel. On November 2, 2026, Sheriff Bob Gualtieri terminated him after the agency’s Administrative Review Board found he had repeatedly touched female agency members — including deputies under his supervision — in unwelcome physical contact with sexual overtones, misconduct that continued even after he was formally directed to stop. The termination memo, released through the agency’s professional standards process, noted it was the third time Sivik had faced agency action for his behavior toward female colleagues .

Background Information

Sivik carried badge number 57517 and served as a sergeant in the detention and corrections division, a position whose supervisory responsibilities — directing subordinates, monitoring their performance and conduct, and applying corrective action — made his behavior toward the members under him a direct abuse of that authority. His disciplinary file went back years: in July 2021 his supervisors addressed complaints about his personal interactions with a female deputy, and at a meeting with two lieutenants on July 29, 2021 he admitted messaging her on Facebook Messenger while on duty about personal matters and told her he “wished things could be different.” He received a “Requires Improvement” rating under the Loyalty and Character performance measure that August. Later that same year, a separate female agency member reported that he had hugged her and grabbed her around the waist at work .

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Fired for an administrative finding, not a criminal conviction. The termination rests on an internal administrative investigation and board finding, not on criminal charges; no criminal case against Sivik has been reported.

The case that ended his career, Administrative Investigation 26-022, covered conduct between January and August 2026. According to the agency’s findings, Sivik repeatedly touched a female deputy whom he periodically supervised — poking her arms and shoulders, grabbing and squeezing her hair while it was arranged in a bun, and touching her hair clip in a control room after she objected and directed him not to touch her hair. In another control-room incident he touched her back or shoulder and grabbed her hair again, prompting her to angrily direct him to stop. Another deputy independently observed him touching her shoulder or back. The female deputy described the contact as continuing despite her repeated objections; during her sworn interview she described him as “a little creepy” and said his behavior made her uncomfortable .

A civilian agency member reported similar conduct: Sivik touched her shoulders and covered her ears with his hands from behind, conduct unrelated to any operational purpose, and she too described his behavior in her sworn interview. A second deputy reported that he removed her flashlight from her duty belt and grasped and rotated her arm without permission, and that she had observed his misconduct toward the first deputy. At the Administrative Review Board hearing, Sivik acknowledged most of the contact — the hair clip, the civilian member’s shoulders, the ear-covering, the flashlight removal, the arm rotation — and admitted he might also have touched the first deputy’s wristwatch during a reported read-off interaction .

What made the case a termination rather than another warning was the pattern. Sivik had received supervisory counseling on August 6, 2026 over the conduct, and further corrective direction on August 24 after an August 20 incident with a female deputy — and continued anyway. The review board found he violated the sheriff’s office’s sexual harassment and discrimination rules and its civil-service provisions, noted that his misconduct was heightened by his supervisory authority over the affected members, and that he acknowledged his actions made female members uncomfortable and were inconsistent with his responsibilities as a supervisor. On November 2, 2026, at 9:35 a.m., Sheriff Gualtieri fired him .

Public Reaction and Consequences

The termination memo was released through the sheriff’s office’s professional-standards disclosure process, publishing both the finding and Sivik’s admissions to the review board. The case stands as the agency’s third personnel action against the same sergeant over conduct toward women — two prior interventions in 2021 that produced counseling and a performance downgrade, followed by a 2026 pattern that persisted after he was told to stop. The affected deputies’ objections, repeated over months, became the spine of the investigation that removed him .

No criminal charges against Sivik were announced, and no public statement from him or an attorney representing him was reported. His termination was final agency discipline, not a step in a court process.

Current Status

Sivik was terminated on November 2, 2026 following Administrative Investigation 26-022 and the Administrative Review Board’s finding against him. The agency’s memo distributes the finding across the sheriff’s command staff and notes the termination was ordered personally by Sheriff Gualtieri. No appeal outcome, criminal referral, or post-termination statement has been reported .

Impact on Their Career/Life

A nearly decade-long law-enforcement career ended at 9:35 on a Monday morning, and the document that ended it is unusual in its completeness: the agency published the sergeant’s own admissions alongside the deputies’ accounts, leaving no ambiguity about what the review board found. Sivik’s case illustrates the limits of progressive discipline in police agencies — counseling in 2021, a performance rating, another complaint the same year — and the point at which an agency decides that a supervisor who will not stop touching his colleagues, after being told twice, cannot be retained. The termination memo’s distribution list, running from the sheriff to payroll, is the last administrative trace of a career that two warnings could not save .

Sources

• “AI 26-022 Sheriff’s Finding” and “Charges Re: AI 26-022” — Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office professional standards memoranda, November 2, 2026 source