State Attorney drops charges against SFHS administrators, criticizes FDLE’s ‘novel legal theory’

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

ALACHUA, Fla. – All charges have been dropped against three Santa Fe High School Administrators who were accused of failing to report inappropriate interactions between baseball coach Travis Yeckring and multiple female students over a period of several years.

In July 2025, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) filed sworn complaints against Michele R. Faulk, a teacher who was the school’s athletic director during the incidents; David “Mac” McLean Rendek, an assistant principal; and Timothy E. Wright, the former principal of the school, charging each of them with child neglect and failure to report suspected child abuse, both felonies. Wright is now retired, and Faulk and Rendek were placed on administrative leave.

Read Alachua Chronicle’s original article about the case.

On January 7, 2026, State Attorney Brian Kramer closed the cases with all charges dismissed and placed a memorandum in the file, stating that because there was no “single, provable criminal act of child abuse” sufficient to trigger mandatory reporting requirements, the administrators had no duty to report the incidents described in the sworn complaint.

Allegations stem from the conduct of former baseball coach Travis Yeckring

At the time of the reported incidents, Travis Yeckring was a teacher and baseball coach at Santa Fe High School (SFHS), and the memorandum notes, “It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Yeckring’s conduct was inappropriate, reprehensible, and a likely violation of school policies.”

The memorandum states that FDLE consulted with the State Attorney’s office during the investigation, and “the agents explicitly stated that Mr. Yeckring had not committed any provable criminal act.” No criminal charges have been filed against Yeckring, and the agents “made it clear that no criminal case is forthcoming” against Yeckring “for any charge.”

According to the memorandum, an Assistant State Attorney told FDLE that it would be legally and practically impossible to charge any of the administrators with a criminal act unless there was sufficient evidence to show that they knew Yeckring had committed an act of child abuse and they failed to report it. However, FDLE asked for additional research “because Yeckring’s conduct was reprehensible and they felt that there should be a way to charge the individuals… for failing to report that behavior to the Department of Children and Families” (DCF).

Allegations against Yeckring

The sworn complaint alleges that Yeckring communicated with female students on social media, engaged in “awkward” conversations with female students, inappropriately stared at female students, spoke with female students about their romantic relationships, showed inappropriate photos to female students, stood too close to female students, sent “flirty” messages to a female student and a recent graduate, complimented a female student on her appearance, purchased food for female students, commented on a female student’s undergarments, invited female students to his apartment and to a coffee shop, loitered in the dean’s office to talk to female students, and unnecessarily and repeatedly accompanied a female student office aide around the school. One student reported that Yeckring was widely referred to as “Pedo Yeck.”

FDLE agents were concerned with the “cumulative nature” of Yeckring’s actions

The memorandum states that FDLE agents said their concern “was not tied to any single allegation but rather to the cumulative nature of all the incidents reported to the school administration… In their view, the accumulation of these incidents should have led the administration to suspect potential child abuse… FDLE acknowledged that none of the individual allegations, standing alone, would support a child abuse charge or trigger the reporting requirement.”

The memorandum continues, “Mr. Yeckring’s alleged conduct is clear and well known. His conduct with the students at issue in this matter was in all cases inappropriate, but, according to FDLE’s investigation, did not violate any Florida Statute… [T]here must be either ‘known’ or ‘suspected’ child abuse or neglect to trigger the reporting requirement.”

“Novel legal theory”

The State Attorney’s Office states that the FDLE moved forward on a “novel legal theory” that Yeckring’s pattern of conduct “should have caused the defendant(s) to suspect child abuse” and report it to DCF, but the State Attorney’s Office found “no legal support for this new and novel legal theory.”

“Consistent with… ‘grooming’ behavior”

The memorandum acknowledges that Yeckring’s behavior “appears to be consistent with what law enforcement would describe as ‘grooming’ behavior… Unfortunately, the Florida Legislature has been asked to address and criminalize grooming behavior and had thus far declined to do so.”

FDLE also failed to report the suspect child abuse

The memorandum notes that law enforcement officers also have a duty to report suspected child abuse, but “FDLE has never reported the ‘cumulative suspected child abuse’ to DCF, nor has any parent of any child at issue here, nor has the Office of the State Attorney made any such report. This confirms the consensus that Mr. Yeckring’s conduct, while inappropriate, reprehensible, and a violation of school policy, was not criminal.”

“This office will not be moving forward with the prosecution of the named defendants”

The memorandum concludes, “Given FDLE’s explicit acknowledgment that no probable cause exists to charge Mr. Yeckring with an underlying act of child abuse, the State Attorney’s office concludes that the essential element of ‘known or suspected child abuse’ necessary for the prosecution of the defendant(s) under FS 39.205 and FS 827.03(2)(d) is legally insufficient. Therefore, this office will not be moving forward with the prosecution of the named defendant(s) based on the current evidence and legal theory provided by FDLE, and the case will be closed.”

Update on January 16: As of January 15, Faulk and Rendek are still on administrative leave.