Pictured above, Danville, Va Police Officer E.K Thompson. The Danville, Va Street Crimes Unit officer and supervisor is currently being sued in federal court for excessive force and refusal to provide medical treatment to man in his custody named Michael Elder. However, E.K Thompson has had a history of illegal searches and seizures and on Appeal in the Virginia Court of Appeals case TYRONE JUNIOR MCCAIN v. Record No. 071189 OPINION BY JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA April 18, 2008. Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn wrote, “A person’s Fourth Amendment rights are not lessened simply because he or she happens to live or travel in a ‘high crime’ area.” He noted that Supreme Court precedent requires specific suspicion of an individual before a search can be conducted. Also, this article will discuss the opinions in the Alvin Cooper vs Officer Worsham (E.K Thompson past partner) case decided in Danville, VA Federal Court. My article takes a look at three distinct cases and the justices opinion presiding over each case which has already been decided with the one currently pending in Danville, Va Federal Court. You will notice the similarities between the accusations and the officers that faced negative outcome for their part in an ongoing criminal investigation and disposed of litigation.
The case which is pending in Danville, Va Federal Court that was filed by plaintiff Michael Elder. The U.S Federal Judge Kiser states in the defendant’s summary judgment opinion response, that was grant in part and denied in part, “Second, Elder did not pose an “immediate threat to the safety of the officer [] or
others . . . .” Id. In fact, according to Elder, he was not resisting Thompson at all; rather, he was
pleading with him to look at the papers from the Martinsville court which, presumably, would
have showed that the “warrant” did not exist. (Elder Aff. pg. 2.) Moreover, even if I accept
Thompson’s version of the facts, Elder was only “passively resisting” by “stiffening up like a
board.” (Thompson Aff. pg. 3.) He was not forcibly resisting the arrest, thrashing about, or
doing anything that could have resulted in injury or danger to Thompson, let alone either of the
other two people present. At most, if Elder was “stiffening up like a board,” he was causing a
minor inconvenience to Thompson by “refusing to allow [Thompson] to move him.” (Thompson
Aff. pg. 3.)
Finally, Elder was not “actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”
Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. At the time Thompson slammed Elder into the cruiser door and
deployed pepper spray, knee-nerve strikes, and the blows to Elder’s head (see Elder Aff. pg.
2−3), Elder was in custody and standing passively by the police cruiser. Again, even accepting
Thompson’s version of the facts, Thompson does not contend that Elder was “actively resisting
arrest.” 10
10 Thompson states in several places that Elder was only passively resisting. (See, e.g., Thompson Aff.
pg. 3.) John Combs, however, makes the unsubstantiated assertion that Elder actively resisted arrest.
(See Def.’s Br. Ex. D. pg. 5 (“Even when Elder was subsequently handcuffed, he continued to actively
resist the officer’s efforts to control him and continued to pose a safety risk if he was able to escape the
officer’s control.”).) Because the decision of whether qualified immunity applies is a purely legal
question, see Willingham v. Crooke, 412 F.3d 553, 555 (4th Cir. 2005), Combs’s opinion is not relevant
at this stage and will not be considered.
See Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Given the “totality of the circumstances,” Garner, 471
U.S. at 8−9, it is difficult to conclude that, based on Elder’s version of the events, Thompson was
acting within the bounds of a reasonable officer under the circumstances
In regards to Michael Elder’s excessive force claim. U.S Federal Judge Kiser stated in his opinion, ” Finally, Thompson incorrectly claims that Elder has not presented any evidence of his
injury, nor has he shown any proximate cause connecting his injuries to Thompson’s use of
force. To the contrary, in his Amended Complaint, Elder presented discharge papers from a
physician diagnosing him with “bilateral pepper spray irritative conjunctivitis,”
“contusions/abrasions,” and “HTN-exacerbation.” (Am. Compl. Ex. C.) Additionally, Elder was
referred to Dr. Robert Goodnight for a follow-up, and to Dr. Terry Odom to “recheck on pepper
spray injury to eye.” (Id.) Clearly there is evidence in the Record to establish that Elder suffered
an injury, and that a physician concluded that the injury was caused by exposure to pepper
spray. The fact that the diagnosis came only hours after Thompson deployed pepper spray in
Elder’s face is clear evidence of proximate causation. Therefore, Thompson is not entitled to
summary judgment on this claim
Michael Elder vs. E.K Thompson of the Danville, Va Police Department is scheduled for trial on May 22, 2014. Michael Elder filed a police complaint tow days after this incident. Video should have been present in regards to this complaint. However, the City of Danville, Va claims no video exists from E.K Thompson. The City of Danville has admitted that officer Thompson was working on the Street Crimes Unit the night of this event unfolding. Chief Broadfoot of the Danville, Va Police Department claims in the Danville, Va Register and Bee newspaper that, When we do a consensual encounter of someone we see at a known drug house, we record that so if there is a question about whether the interaction is improper we’ll be able to know that and take action,” Broadfoot said, “If someone makes a complaint about the officer’s behavior and questions the interaction, we can pull the video and look at it and find out why.”
Broadfoot said while he has received very few complaints, he has received complaints that what an officer did was contrary to what the law allows. Upon investigating those claims, he said what normally happens is what the complainant believes the law allows — and what is actually allowed — are completely different.
The recorded interactions are beneficial in situations like that because video is available which allows him to see exactly what happened. Broadfoot said he has not been able to sustain any of those complaints because there is video to show the officer acted appropriately.
However, no video exists of this incident with Michael Elder and Officer Thompson and under their old policy the video should have existed for at least 30 days after the incident before it could be destroyed. So how did Chief Broadfoot miss this incident, unless it was intentionally done based off the reason Michael Elder cites in his complaint.
Merle T. Rutledge Jr will be blogging about any and all updates in regards to this trial as it happens.
2) The second case decided by the Virginia Court of Appeals. In the early morning hours of August 9, 2005, Officer
R.V. Worsham (“Worsham”), of the City of Danville Police
Department, observed a vehicle (“the vehicle”) parked in front
of a house on Sublett’s Alley in the City of Danville. The
two occupants of the vehicle walked up to the house in front
of which the vehicle was parked and, in less than a minute,
returned to the vehicle. Worsham was familiar with the house
because he was involved in a transaction “months” earlier in
which an informant made a controlled purchase of cocaine
there.
Worsham obtained Hartman’s
information and went back to his car to check her driver’s
license and to call for “back-up” assistance. When the vehicle left, Worsham followed in his police
vehicle. Worsham observed that the vehicle’s rear license
plate had a plastic border that covered the expiration date of
the license plate. He intended to stop the vehicle for that
reason, but “before [he] could get to it to stop it for that,
it was [improperly] backing out into North Main Street.”
Worsham initiated a traffic stop. Worsham stopped the vehicle
within sight of the house where Worsham had first seen the
vehicle.
When Officer E.K. Thompson (“Thompson”), which is the same officer being sued by Michael Elder in Danville, Va Federal Court, arrived on the scene, Worsham explained to him
what had occurred and asked Thompson to watch the passenger
side of the vehicle while Worsham got the driver out. Thompson went to the passenger side of the car and asked McCain to exit the car. Thompson asked McCain if he could
perform a “frisk” or “pat-down” search on McCain. Up to that
point, McCain had complied with every request made by the
officers. McCain declined to give Thompson permission for the
search. However, Thompson ordered McCain to place his hands
on the vehicle and performed a pat-down search on him.
The appeals majority opinion states, “Although he
may have appeared to be nervous, McCain identified himself
when requested, did not make any furtive movements, and
cooperated with the police officers until Thompson asked
permission to do a pat-down search.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Terry does not permit a
generalized policy that authorizes a police officer to frisk
all persons. The totality of the circumstances, namely, the
time of day, the location in a “high crime” area, and the factthat Worsham had months earlier conducted a controlled cocaine
purchase from the house McCain visited on Sublett’s Alley, did
not create reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify
detaining and frisking McCain. No additional circumstances
developed during the course of the traffic stop that would
support a reasonable suspicion that McCain was involved in
criminal activity or was armed and dangerous. Therefore, we
hold that McCain was seized and frisked in violation of his
rights under the Fourth Amendment, and his motion to suppress
should have been granted.
Because the evidence seized from McCain should have been
suppressed, there would be insufficient evidence to sustain
convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to
distribute and the related firearms and weapons offenses.
Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the Court of
Appeals, vacate McCain’s convictions, and dismiss the
indictments against him.
However, it appears that Danville, Va Police Officers are ordering people to get out their car for very minor traffic infractions and also turning off the video camera in order to conceal actual evidence of what occurs during an arrest.
3. We go to case held IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA DANVILLE DIVISION ALVIN COOPER, Plaintiff, v. R.V. WORSHAM, et al., Defendants. In this case Alvin Cooper was pulled over for having a air freshener hanging from his window. What happen after this fact is disputed. U.S Federal Judge Kiser states, “In this light, Cooper did not give consent to be searched, but was ordered out of the vehicle and searched despite his original protest. The video is ambiguous as to this fact. Though it could support Defendants’ interpretation of the facts, it could just as easily support Cooper’s. This is a question of credibility which is tailor-made for a jury. As I discussed in my prior Memorandum Opinion, liability may be found for this non-consensual
search, and recovery is not barred by qualified immunity. Defendants have supplied a video recording of the traffic stop taken by the camera on the police cruiser’s dashboard. This camera records when the cruiser’s flashing lights are turned on. Unfortunately, the video does not have any sound. It cuts off before Cooper’s actual handcuffing.
Lastly, based off these three cases a possible pattern of illegal search and seizures, video evidence being tampered with and destroyed, and excessive force has been a rampant issue with Danville, Va Police Department officers and begs the question of why are these officers still on the job unless Chief Broadfoot is accepting of not having a fair and impartial investigation to explain its condonation.
merletrutledge 