DeLand, Florida — A DeLand Police Department captain used his official city email account to send critics a sweeping cease-and-desist letter demanding that they remove coverage, issue a public retraction and stop publishing future content about him.
The message was sent by Captain Prurince Dice on December 10, 2025. It did not merely request the removal of a specific image involving his child. The attached letter demanded that recipients “permanently cease posting any future content about me” and asserted, “Your conduct is no longer protected speech.”
That demand is an alarming attempt by a police supervisor to intimidate critics and place himself beyond public scrutiny. Public officials do not get to decide that reporting about their conduct is no longer protected simply because the coverage is embarrassing, confrontational or unwelcome.
What the letter demanded
The three-page letter accused the recipients of copyright infringement, invasion of privacy, harassment, cyberstalking, defamation and interference with Dice’s employment. It demanded removal of the challenged material within 48 hours and a public retraction within five days.
Dice also demanded that the recipients stop using his name, likeness, image and material taken from his public social-media accounts. No court order accompanied the letter, and JM Audits has identified no court ruling finding that the challenged reporting constituted defamation, harassment, cyberstalking or copyright infringement.
Concerns involving a child deserve care. JM Audits does not endorse threats, harassment or unwanted contact with Dice or his family. But a narrowly framed request concerning a child is very different from demanding that journalists and critics stop all future reporting or commentary about an adult police captain.
The conduct under public scrutiny
The coverage concerned publicly available video that, according to JM Audits’ complaint, showed Dice in his DeLand Police uniform soliciting funds through Cash App. JM Audits also reported that the video appeared to have been recorded while a city-owned vehicle was moving, with a police radio active, and raised questions about seat-belt use.
JM Audits asked the city to investigate whether the solicitation complied with Florida law and supplied officials with a Florida Attorney General opinion addressing charitable solicitations by law-enforcement officers. Those were requests for official review—not judicial findings that Dice committed a crime.
Complaint filed; no documented action followed
On December 11, JM Audits sent a written complaint to DeLand’s police chief and multiple city officials. The email requested an investigation and asked how to make the complaint formal. City correspondence shows that the message was forwarded internally.
The city’s response did not identify an investigation, case number, finding, disciplinary review or corrective action. A city official first said the city did not possess a copy of the letter beyond the attachment JM Audits supplied. In a later response, the city characterized the cease-and-desist as Dice’s “personal letter” and declined to certify it as a city-produced document.
That explanation does not erase the central problem. Dice sent the demand from his official @deland.org email address, used the police department’s address, identified himself as a captain and copied command personnel. When a police supervisor wraps a personal threat in the visible authority of his public office, the public is entitled to ask whether that authority is being used to frighten critics into silence.
The complaint placed city leadership on notice. Based on the correspondence reviewed by JM Audits, no documented investigation, finding, discipline or corrective action followed.
Why this raises serious First Amendment concerns
The First Amendment protects sharp criticism of government officials and discussion of governmental affairs. In Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional importance of free discussion about government and rejected suppression based merely on injury to official reputation.
The Supreme Court has also made clear that a government official may not use official power to coerce others into suppressing disfavored speech. In National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the Court reaffirmed that principle.
Whether Dice’s conduct legally qualifies as government action would depend on the complete facts and ultimately could be decided only through a proper legal process. The city’s claim that the letter was personal is relevant—but so are the official account, police title, department address and involvement of command personnel.
No court has ruled on this dispute. Still, the behavior deserves blunt condemnation: a police captain should answer public criticism with facts, records and accountability—not a demand that critics erase their work and promise never to speak about him again.
JM Audits’ position
JM Audits will not treat a public official’s legal threats as proof that reporting is unlawful. Corrections should be made when facts are wrong. Legitimate privacy concerns should be handled responsibly. But demands designed to eliminate scrutiny of a government official must be examined, documented and reported.
Police officers—and especially supervisors—exercise extraordinary public power. Their actions in uniform, their use of government resources and their responses to criticism are matters of public concern. A badge cannot become a shield against accountability.
This article reports on correspondence reviewed by JM Audits and offers editorial analysis of the public-record and First Amendment issues it raises. Allegations described in the cease-and-desist letter remain allegations unless established by a court. JM Audits will update this report if Captain Dice or the City of DeLand provides a substantive response or documentation of official action.
Official contact
The City of DeLand lists Dice as a police captain. His official work email is dicep@deland.org. This address is provided for legitimate public business and requests for comment—not harassment, threats or personal contact.
Sources and further reading: