Lawsuit Filed Against Ashe Co Sheriff's Office

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:18-cv-136
CASE NO. __________
MICHELLE SANCHEZ, CASEY CAUDILL, )

KATIE RICHARDS, and SAVANNAH )
RICHARDS, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
TERRY BUCHANAN, individually and in his )
official capacity as Sheriff for Ashe County; )
JAMES HARTLEY, in his official capacity as )
Sheriff for Ashe County; RICHARD )
CLAYTON, individually and in his official ) COMPLAINT
capacity as chief deputy of the Ashe County )
Sheriff’s Department; MICHAEL BOYLES, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
individually and in his official capacity as )
deputy of the Ashe County Sheriff’s )
Department; DENNIS ANDERS, individually )
and in his official capacity as deputy of the )
Ashe County Sheriff’s Department; MARC )
)
KITTS, individually and in his official capacity
)
as deputy of the Ashe County Sheriff’s )
Department; and EMPLOYERS MUTUAL )
CASUALTY COMPANY, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
This case involves the flagrant and unlawful abuse of power by the Sheriff’s Department
of Ashe County against three of its own employees.
In January 2017, the Ashe County Board of Commissioners, in a highly controversial 3-2
vote, appointed Terry Buchanan to succeed the retiring James Williams as sheriff. The
Case 5:18-cv-00136-RJC-DSC Document 1 Filed 08/22/18 Page 1 of 60

circumstances of the appointment were suspicious, and there were serious questions about
Buchanan’s competence.
Buchanan, unphased, declared that “God put him” in charge of the Sheriff’s Department.
Less than a year later, Buchanan left office in disgrace. An investigation by the State Bureau of
Investigation (“SBI”) resulted in his indictment on three felony counts of obstruction of justice
and three misdemeanor counts of willfully failing to discharge duties.
For his year in power, Buchanan adopted a scorched Earth strategy that obliterated the
lives of anyone who dared to question his authority or the lawfulness of his Sheriff’s
Department. Buchanan was willing to do anything necessary to dispense with those who
questioned his authority or told the truth.
The Ashe County Detention Center under his “leadership” was a complete mess—it was
riddled with corruption, dangerous contraband, and the unlawful comingling of the sexes. In the
first six month alone, more than 20 trained and experienced employees left the Sheriff’s
Department. Most were forced out for what the local newspaper called “questionable reasons.”
The Plaintiffs in this case dared to speak truth to power, and they faced unlawful
consequences in the form of retaliatory firings, malicious prosecution, and a defamatory public
relations smear campaign. The Sheriff’s Department and the lives of the Plaintiffs were both left
in shambles in Buchanan’s wake. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to be made whole for
their harms and losses and to hold Defendants accountable for their actions.

II. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND IMMUNITY
1. The federal claims in this suit are authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (allowing suit to
correct constitutional violations); 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (providing for attorney fee and litigation
expense awards); and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This Court has
jurisdiction, including under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2. Plaintiffs bring this action and seek compensatory and punitive damages and other
relief arising under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and other statutory and common law for the negligent, grossly negligent, reckless,
corrupt, malicious, unconstitutional, willful and wanton conduct, as alleged herein.
3. The events giving rise to this Complaint took place in Ashe County, North Carolina.
4. Plaintiffs worked for the Sheriff of Ashe County (hereinafter, the “Sheriff’s
Department”) at the Ashe County Detention Center located at 140 Government Cir., in Jefferson,
North Carolina (hereinafter, the “Detention Center”).
5. Plaintiff Michelle Sanchez (“Michelle”) is a resident of Ashe County, North
Carolina.
6. Michelle began working for the Ashe County Sheriff’s Department as a part-time
jailer in or around May 2012. She was promoted to a full-time position as an administrative
assistant in May 2015, and then promoted again to lieutenant under Sheriff Buchanan in early
2017. Prior to her termination, Michelle had never received any formal or informal discipline
during her tenure with the Sheriff’s Department. In fact, she was a terrific employee. She worked
late hours and did a lot of the office paperwork. Michelle consistently picked up the slack when
others dropped the ball and kept the critical operations of the Detention Center functioning.

7. Without any explanation, the County placed Michelle on “administrative leave” on
May 31, 2017. She was formally terminated on September 22, 2017.
8. Plaintiff Katie Richards (“Katie”) and her four-year old daughter, Savannah
Richards (“Savannah”), are residents of Pamlico County, North Carolina.
9. Katie’s work history includes eight years as a full-time emergency medical
technician (EMT) for Duplin County and Wayne County. Starting in 2016, Katie started working
part-time as an EMT for Watauga Medics, while also working as a supervisor of the first aid
department at Tweetsie Railroad, a local amusement park. On or around April 19, 2017, Katie
started her employment as a part-time jailer at the Detention Center, and she was promoted to a
full-time position by around May 1, 2017. As a single mother, Katie worked three jobs to support
Savannah.
10. Katie was promoted to a full-time jailer position after Beverly “Kim” Miller was
fired on May 1, 2017 for supposed “insubordination,” after she had raised concerns about the
safety of the Detention Center. Katie never received any training in law enforcement or jail
administration—the Sheriff’s Department essentially threw her to the wolves. Michelle, as
lieutenant, took Katie under her wing in the Detention Center.
11. When Katie reported to work on June 1, 2017, the Sheriff’s Department
simultaneously fired her and arrested her on 12 felony counts. More than eight months later, her
life ruined, the district attorney admitted there was never probable cause of a crime committed
by Katie and dismissed all pending charges.
12. Plaintiff Casey Caudill (“Casey”) is a current resident of Pamlico County, North
Carolina.

13. On or around April 21, 2017, Casey started part-time work at the Detention Center.
His first day of full-time work was May 23, 2017. Casey and Katie started dating when they
worked together at the Detention Center, and they are now engaged to be married.
14. Prior to working for the County, Casey worked at the Virginia State Department of
Corrections for around two years. Casey is an Iraq War veteran, serving on two tours in Iraq
(2008 and 2010). Casey has experience in transports, cell entry teams, strike force, and other
areas related to jail operations.
15. In early July 2017, Casey initiated a complaint with the State Bureau of
Investigation (“SBI”) against the Sheriff’s Department, related to the dangerous environment at
the Detention Center. Casey was subjected to a hostile work environment, and he was
constructively discharged on July 21, 2017.
16. Defendant Terry Buchanan (“Buchanan”) is a resident of Ashe County, North
Carolina. Buchanan was appointed Sheriff of Ashe County in January 2017, a position he held
until he resigned under a plea deal on February 5, 2018. Buchanan is sued in both his individual
capacity and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Ashe County.
17. Defendant James Hartley (“Hartley”) is a resident of Ashe County, North
Carolina. Hartley was sworn in as Sheriff of Ashe County on February 5, 2018, and he currently
serves as Sheriff of Ashe County. Hartley is sued in his official capacity as Sheriff of Ashe
County. All claims herein against Sheriff Hartley, in his official capacity, are to be construed as
claims against the office of the Sheriff of Ashe County, and not as allegations of any specific
wrongdoing by Sheriff Hartley in his individual capacity.
18. Defendant Richard Clayton (“Clayton”), upon information and belief, is a current
resident of Durham County, North Carolina. At all relevant times, Clayton was the chief deputy

of the Ashe County Sheriff’s Department and was employed by the Sheriff of Ashe County as a
certified law enforcement officer. All actions complained of herein were taken under color of
state law. Clayton is sued in his individual capacity for violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the
U.S. Constitution; his official capacity for violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the N.C.
Constitution; and in both his individual and official capacity as a deputy with the Sheriff’s
Department under the common law and statutory causes of action.
19. Defendant Dennis Anders (“Anders”), upon information and belief, is a current
resident of Grayson County, Virginia. At all relevant times herein, he was a detective (deputy) of
the Ashe County Sheriff’s Department and was employed by the Sheriff of Ashe County as a
certified law enforcement officer. All actions complained of herein were taken under color of
state law. Anders is sued in his individual capacity for violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the
U.S. Constitution; his official capacity for violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the N.C.
Constitution; and in both his individual and official capacity as a deputy with the Sheriff’s
Department under the common law and statutory causes of action.
20. Defendant Michael (“Mickey”) Boyles (“Boyles”) is a current resident of Yadkin
County, North Carolina. At all relevant times herein, he was a detective (deputy) of the Ashe
County Sheriff’s Department and was employed by the Sheriff of Ashe County as a certified law
enforcement officer with the Sheriff’s Department. All actions complained of herein were taken
under color of state law. Boyles is sued in his individual capacity for violations of Plaintiffs’
rights under the U.S. Constitution; his official capacity for violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under
the N.C. Constitution; and in both his individual and official capacity as a deputy with the
Sheriff’s Department under the common law and statutory causes of action.

21. Defendant Marc Kitts (“Kitts”), upon information and belief, is a current resident
of Forsyth County, North Carolina. At all relevant times herein, he was a detective (deputy) of
the Ashe County Sheriff’s Department and was employed by the Sheriff of Ashe County as a
certified law enforcement officer with the Sheriff’s Department. All actions complained of herein
were taken under color of state law. Kitts is sued in his individual capacity for violations of
Plaintiffs’ rights under the U.S. Constitution; his official capacity for violations of Plaintiffs’
rights under the N.C. Constitution; and in both his individual and official capacity as a deputy
with the Sheriff’s Department under the common law and statutory causes of action.
22. As the Sheriff’s deputies, Anders, Boyles, Clayton, and Kitts acted at all relevant
times as the alter ego of the Sheriff of Ashe County.
23. Buchanan, Anders, Boyles, Clayton, and Kitts will be referred to throughout this
Complaint as the “Individual Defendants.” At all relevant times, the Individual Defendants were
acting in the course and scope of their employment and under the color of law. The Individual
Defendants: (i) wantonly did that which a man of reasonable intelligence would know to be
contrary to his duty and which they intended to be prejudicial or injurious to Plaintiffs; (ii) acted
with wicked and/or corrupt purpose; (iii) acted needlessly, manifesting a reckless indifference to
the rights of Plaintiffs; (iv) otherwise acted with bad faith; and/or (v) acted with gross negligence.
24. Defendants Buchanan and Hartley, in their official capacities, are responsible for
the tortious acts of his/their agents, Anders, Boyles, Clayton, Kitts, and other employees of the
Sheriff’s Department, as alleged herein, because, upon information and belief, either: (i) their
actions were expressly authorized by Buchanan, including pursuant to an official policy; (ii) their
actions were committed within the scope of their employment and in furtherance of Buchanan
and/or County’s business given that, among other things, many of them occurred on work

premises, during work time, and/or during the course of official business; and/or (iii) their actions
were ratified by Buchanan to the extent he either knew or should have known of their actions and
failed to take appropriate and effective measures against the other Individual Defendants.
25. Defendant Employers Mutual Casualty Company (“Surety”) is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Iowa, registered with the North Carolina
Secretary of State with NAIC Number 21415, with a principal office located in Des Moines,
Iowa, and with a registered agent of Commissioner of Insurance, North Carolina Department of
Insurance, Dobbs Building, 430 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC 27603-5926. Surety furnished the
Sheriff of Ashe County with a bond or bonds pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-8, and Surety is
a named defendant to this action, as provided for by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-76-1, et seq.
WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
26. Plaintiffs allege the following paragraphs 27 through 33 upon information and
belief.
27. To the extent that any and/or all of the defendants in this action claim they are a
government owned, operated, and/or funded entity, or an employee and/or agent of any such
entity, subject to sovereign immunity, all such defendants waived governmental immunity and/or
sovereign immunity for any of the acts or omissions described herein. Defendants may not legally
assert immunity to Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for violations of the U.S. Constitution or
their N.C. constitutional claims.
28. In the alternative, defendants have waived any sovereign or governmental
immunity that could have been raised to Plaintiffs’ Complaint by virtue of Surety’s bonds and
liability insurance policies to the extent of such bonds and policies.

29. At all relevant times herein, Surety provided an Official Bond for the Sheriff of
Ashe County as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-8 and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-76-1, et seq.
Plaintiffs seek to recover, inter alia, against Bond Number S247713 issued by Surety in favor of
the Sheriff of Ashe County, in the penal amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00),
for the Term of Office from January 17, 2017 to January 17, 2019.
30. Furthermore, at all relevant times, the Ashe County Sheriff’s Department had in
effect insurance policies with Surety, which provide one million dollars ($1,000,000) in law
enforcement liability coverage and three million dollars ($3,000,000) in excess liability coverage,
over and above the coverage provided by the preceding policy, to Defendants Hartley and
Buchanan, as sheriffs of Ashe County, and any and all agents, employees, officers, and/or
deputies of the Sheriff’s Department, including but not limited to Defendants Anders, Boyles,
Clayton, and Kitts.
31. At all relevant times, the Ashe County Sheriff’s Department entered into additional
bond(s) or plans of liability insurance pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-485 and/or N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 153A-435 and/or participated in a local government risk pool pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 58-23, to cover acts, omissions, negligence, and/or misconduct such as those alleged herein.
32. In the alternative, Plaintiffs are also informed and believe and, therefore, alleges
that the Sheriff’s Department has either waived its sovereign and/or governmental immunity in
the past or has failed to assert governmental immunity as a complete defense and bar to recovery
in prior common law tort cases, such that any assertion of sovereign or governmental immunity
to Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the equal protection and due process guarantees of both the
U.S. and N.C. Constitutions. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that they are similarly situated
to selected individuals who were compensated for tort damages incurred due to the Sheriff’s

Department performance of a governmental function, which selected individuals were
compensated either by waiver of governmental immunity or without even the assertion of
governmental immunity as a bar to recovery.
33. In the alternative, the actions of the Individual Defendants were outside the scope
of their agency, malicious and/or corrupt, and/or not in keeping with the policy and custom of the
Sheriff’s Department, such that the Individual Defendants are personally liable for the violation
of Plaintiffs’ rights.
III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
BUCHANAN APPOINTED SHERIFF UNDER DUBIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
34. James Williams, the long-time sheriff of Ashe County, retired effective December
31, 2016. The Ashe County Board of Commissioners was responsible for naming a replacement
to serve the remainder of his term, and the appointment of a new sheriff quickly became a political
controversy. Williams lobbied for his veteran deputy, Major Bucky Abscher, to be appointed his
successor. Others wanted a change in the direction of the Sheriff’s Department.
35. In January 2017, the Board of Commissioners, by a split 3-2 vote, appointed
Defendant Terry Buchanan as Sheriff. Everything soon fell apart.
36. Buchanan was unprepared to serve as Sheriff. His most recent prior experience
included working as a security guard at the county courthouse. Upon information and belief,
Williams did not allow Buchanan to carry a gun while he worked as a security guard. This and
other slights made Buchanan feel emasculated and created animosity in Buchanan towards the
prior sheriff and his supporters.
10

37. Immediately upon taking office, Buchanan took revenge and purged the sheriff’s
department of members of the prior administration, replacing them with loyalists—most of whom
were wholly unqualified for their jobs.
38. For example, when Buchanan was sworn in as Sheriff, his archenemy from the
prior administration, Kelly Stevens, was set to retire as a lieutenant. Buchanan got his revenge by
demoting Stevens to school resource officer of the local elementary school, where he retired with
reduced benefits.
39. The offices of Buchanan and his deputies in the Sheriff Department are located on
the second floor in the same building as the Detention Center, which is located on the first floor.
40. While Chief Deputy Clayton was the highest-ranking officer in the Sheriff’s Office
upstairs, Jail Captain Jason Emmanuel was the highest-ranking officer downstairs in the
Detention Center. Both Clayton and Emmanuel reported directly to Sheriff Buchanan.
41. Emmanuel’s credentials for running a county jail were dubious, as he had never
before worked in a jail, before Buchanan appointed him to run the Detention Center. Upon
information and belief, the only reason Buchanan hired Emmanuel was because he graduated
from the Citadel, from which Buchanan’s son also graduated.
WBTV INVESTIGATES BUCHANAN’S APPOINTMENT
42. Buchanan was particularly resistant to charges that he was unqualified to be
Sheriff, or that his appointment was illegitimate.
43. On April 6, 2017, Nick Ochsner, an investigative reporter with Charlotte’s CBS-
affiliate WBTV, submitted a public records request to the County. Ochsner was interested in
investigating the peculiar circumstances of Buchanan’s appointment, and he requested—under
11

the North Carolina Public Records Act—all written communication, including text messages and
emails, sent and received by Buchanan and the county commissioners.
44. Buchanan and others, including County Manager Sam Yearick, did not comply
with the requests, but instead hid, concealed, and/or destroyed evidence, including text messages.
45. On April 17, 2017, at the county commissioners’ meeting, Buchanan went on “a
nearly ten-minute rant” against WBTV’s public records request (as reported by one news outlet).
The County’s district attorney later categorized Buchanan’s speech as a “diatribe.”
46. In the remarks, Buchanan repeatedly questioned why a reporter from a Charlotte
TV station would send a request for records to Ashe County. Buchanan said, “I just want the
citizens to know that these types of things should not be allowed, they should not interfere with
county business, and I think it’s a shame that we’re allowing these sorts of things and having
outside reporters to come in here to do something that’s unprecedented and has not happened in
the past.”
BUCHANAN ON EDGE ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF JAIL MISMANAGEMENT
47. Buchanan was particularly intolerant to charges that the Detention Center was in
disarray under his administration. These critiques implicated his own competence and promoted
the idea that his predecessor was superior as sheriff. Buchanan lashed out in unlawful ways at
anyone who questioned the safety and operations of the Detention Center under his regime.
48. Buchanan and Clayton were absent for long periods from the Detention Center. In
fact, they were not present at the Detention Center unless something went catastrophically wrong.
This was different than what occurred under the prior administration.
12

49. In the absence of leadership, trustees roamed freely outside of the locked Detention
Center “pods” and were rarely supervised. (“Trustees” were inmates of the Detention Center who
received special privileges and status.)
50. One trustee in particular, Juan Rivera, wielded inordinate amounts of power and
influence over not just the other inmates, but also Emmanuel and Detention Center staff. Rivera
essentially “ran the place” and was the instigator of mischief. Rivera had enough sway with
Emmanuel to influence who else became a trustee among the inmates.
51. Rivera and fellow trustees Cody Wagoner and Tyler Blackburn often went behind
the booking desk without supervision and against policy. Still-images from surveillance footage
show Rivera bending over next to the drawer holding keys that open every cell in the Detention
Center. Another photograph shows Rivera manipulating a panel with the fire alarm system for
the Detention Center. With no guard present, as was often the case, this situation had the potential
to be incredibly dangerous.
52. Inmates at the Detention Center cut hair unsupervised with an electric hair clipper,
often with more than 25 inmates present.
53. On May 12, 2017, Kim Miller, who had been fired for “insubordination,” vocalized
safety concerns about the Detention Center, which were published in a lengthy article in the
Jefferson Post captioned, “Sheriff: There is no jail controversy – Buchanan responds to claims
by former jailer.”
54. Miller reported that the number of trustees had “swelled” to 11: “We had more
trustees running around than people working there,” she said. Miller described how groups of
trustees roamed freely outside as late as 2 a.m. to smoke cigarettes with jailers. This occurred
13

despite a strict anti-tobacco policy from the county and state laws prohibiting the same in
detention facilities.
55. According to Miller, trustees roamed the Detention Center for “hours at a time”:
“When you go up in the evening there are at least four in the booking area. You don’t have any
room for when a prisoner comes in. Trustees can watch movies; they can even be on a computer
in the breathalyzer room. It’s pure chaos. It’s not safe for a jailer to be in there.”
56. Buchanan issued a lengthy and defiant response to the newspaper article, denying
Miller’s allegations as based on nothing more than “personal animosity from the termination of
her employment.” Buchanan specifically denied that trustees were allowed work release “other
than work inside the detention center” and that trustees were allowed to smoke, touting that his
administration had discontinued the sale of e-cigarettes from the Detention Center canteen.
57. Buchanan took a swipe at the former administration by noting they had no written
policies in various areas, while promoting the work he purportedly was doing to establish best
practices for the Detention Center through a policy manual. Buchanan claimed the best practices
would include compliance with state law, the North Carolina Administrative Code, the federal
Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), and to establish a “level of professionalism” in the
Detention Center. Buchanan took the opportunity to highlight specific “new policies” he had
implemented in the Detention Center, including his claim that policies had changed “to insure all
inmates are guarded at all times.”
58. Buchanan boasted of his purported work to bring order and safety to the Detention
Center, including by prohibiting contact between male and female inmates. He said, “North
Carolina law also requires that male and female inmates be separated from each other while in
custody. One of the first changes I made in the detention center was to prohibit inmates of the
14

opposite sex from co-habitating with each other or working together as trustees. . . . I have
established policies to maintain both ‘sight and sound’ separation of male and female inmates, in
accordance with State law.”
59. Buchanan reassured the public that “the safety of [his] staff and the inmates in
[their] custody is of paramount concern.”
60. In fact, the Ashe County Detention Center under Buchanan had become more
dangerous than ever before.
61. On May 15, 2017, Miller expressed her safety concerns to the Ashe County Board
of Commissioners. Other contemporaneous reports in the local press included scathing criticisms
of Buchanan and his lack of leadership.
MICHELLE UNEARTHS UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY
62. By late May 2017, Michelle was fed up with working under Emmanuel in the
Detention Center’s toxic and unsafe environment.
63. Emmanuel spent lengthy periods of time in his office not working, often just
hanging out with a booking officer, Curtis Elliot. Emmanuel repeatedly spoke in an aggressive
manner to Michelle, and it was common for him to put his finger in her face while doing so. He
“talked to her like a dog.” The (literal) finger pointing was so extreme that Michelle warned
Emmanuel that she would bite off his finger if he did it again, and she reported these incidents
directly to Buchanan.
64. On the morning on Friday, May 26, Michelle met with Clayton and offered her
resignation, citing a host of unresolved problems with the Detention Center and Emmanuel,
specifically.
15

65. Earlier in May 2017, Michelle had complained to Clayton and others, on multiple
occasions, about problems in the Detention Center, including daily violations of laws requiring
male and female inmates to remain without sight and sound of inmates of the opposite sex.
Michelle characterized these events as “PREA” violations, that is violations of the federal Prison
Rape Elimination Act, and North Carolina law.
66. Michelle also complained that Katie was not provided the necessary training to
supervise inmates and that her safety was at risk.
67. Michelle further complained that the Detention Center failed to meet minimum
requirements under state law for the supervision of female inmates, including during times when
the Detention Center operated with no female jailers on duty. For example, on one occasion,
Clayton called Katie to his office upstairs and did not let her leave for a two-hour period. During
this time, Clayton knowingly allowed for no female jailers on duty in the Detention Center, which
resulted in four (4) missed supervision checks for the female inmates.
68. When Michelle complained again on May 26, to her surprise, Clayton told her “off-
the-record” that he instead had accepted Emmanuel’s resignation. Clayton persuaded Michelle to
not resign by showing her a purported resignation letter from Emmanuel. However, Emmanuel
did not actually resign at that time.
69. Emboldened by Clayton’s perceived show of support, Michelle sent a text message
later that day to Clayton, expressing her intent to return to do a “surprise shake down” in the “C
Pod.” Clayton responded, “Ok get some rest” and “OK maybe wait til another day for the
shakedown.” Michelle replied, “hahahaha it’s okay I don’t mind.” Clayton reassured Michelle
that he was not upset with her at that time.
16

70. Michelle returned later on that same day with Katie and several male officers, —
Casey, Mike Spencer, and Daniel Cox—to perform the shakedown of the C Pod.
SHAKEDOWN REVEALS “ALL KINDS OF CONTRABAND”
71. The search of the inmates turned up “all kinds of contraband”; “I’m talking a lot,”
says Casey. The seized contraband including, for example, an iPad, electronic cigarettes, and
Sudafed. Michelle and Katie searched the library and found an iPod and multiple letters sent
between inmates of the opposite sex.
72. Katie learned after she started work as a jailer that she had walked into an
environment where the inmates—specifically the trustees—were running the asylum. One of the
trustees, Coty Wagoner, assaulted Katie by kissing her against her will. Katie reported the
incident when it occurred to her direct supervisors, Michelle (a lieutenant) and Sergeant Mike
Spencer. On May 28, 2017, Michelle secured a signed written statement from an inmate, Joshua
Rockwell, who admitted a scheme among disgruntled inmates to try to “set up” Katie by kissing
her against her will, in retaliation for discipline issued by her.
73. Michelle reported the result of the shakedown to Clayton on the same day. She
informed Clayton that Emmanuel had let the inmates use electronic devices to access the Internet
and make calls to outsiders through FaceTime and Skype—a “big no-no,” in her words. The iPads
and other devices found by Plaintiffs in the Detention Center were “wireless communication
devices,” including as that term is used in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-258.1.
74. Michelle also reported to Clayton that Emmanuel was profiting from a contraband
scheme. Emmanuel allowed bone-in chicken wings and pizza—from an outside pizzeria owned
by the wife of one of the trustees, Michael Reed—to be brought into the Detention Center, without
17

being searched, and sold to the inmates. Upon information and belief, Emmanuel received a
kickback from the sale of the chicken wings and pizza.
75. As the most favored trustee, Rivera had secured approval for the pizza-and-wings
arrangement with Emmanuel. Rivera’s reward was $1 from Reed for every pizza sold.
76. Michelle complained and otherwise objected to Clayton about the risks of
Emmanuel’s contraband scheme. Specifically, she complained that bones from the chicken wings
could be fashioned into a dangerous shiv or weapon. The next day (Saturday, May 27) around
noon, Clayton sent a text message to Michelle: “Because of the illegal activity and contraband
you found wouldn’t it make sense to discontinue ice cream pizza and wings for three or four
weeks.”
77. The pizza operation continued, however, at the direction of Emmanuel. On
Sunday, May 28, Emmanuel sent Katie a Facebook message asking how the pizza distribution
went the night before: “Pizzas go out okay?”
78. Katie’s response included a stirring rebuke to her supervisor, the captain of the
Detention Center: “No they did not go ok. The pizza crap is absolutely stupid. . . . it’s just a dumb
dumb dumb idea. Give an inmate chicken bones? Really? What if one of them decided to stab
one of us with it? Do you know how quickly you can bleed out if stabbed in the vein in your
neck?” Katie told Emmanuel she did not feel safe working in the Detention Center. Nobody in
Buchanan’s regime cared.
79. Bone-in chicken wings are (a) an instrument that would aid inmates in an assault
or insurrection, (b) a weapon capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death, or which can be
fabricated into the same, and/or (c) articles forbidden by prison rules for the Detention Center.
18

80. Plaintiffs complained, protested, and objected both that Emmanuel sold the chicken
wings to inmates and that the inmates possessed the chicken wings.
SURVEILLANCE VIDEO OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY
81. On Memorial Day (Monday, May 29), Michelle, Katie, Casey, and Mike Spencer
returned to the Detention Center, to document further illegal acts. The group went to a camera
room where surveillance video was stored. Michelle needed help accessing the video room
because other Detention Center employees (whom she outranked as lieutenant) prevented her
from doing so. These employees included Matt Hartsog and Darren Davis, who were loyal to
Emmanuel and the Buchanan regime.
82. Plaintiffs created a CD filled with surveillance footage of unlawful activities
occurring in the Detention Center—and gave the CD to Clayton, who, having been tipped off to
the group, had arrived on scene. Hartsog had called Emmanuel to inform him that Michelle and
the group was accessing the video surveillance, and Emmanuel in turn called Clayton.
83. The contents produced on the CD included still images and video footage of the
following unlawful activities (paragraphs 84 to 88), which Plaintiffs complained of to Clayton
and then Buchanan.
84. Jailer Lynn Carpenter accompanied Josh Rockwell, a trustee, while he held hands
and then kissed his fiancée walking down a hallway in the Detention Center.
85. Emmanuel left male and female inmates together unsupervised and alone in a break
room where, upon information and belief, the male inmate digitally penetrated the female inmate.
86. Trustees were allowed to cut other inmates’ hair in the hallway of the Detention
Center, without any supervision whatsoever.
19

87. Inmates were forced to sleep on bedding on the floor in cells of the Detention
Center.
88. Emmanuel and Buchanan personally escorted five inmates—including
“Mondragon,” an undocumented immigrant who was a pretrial inmate from Surry County—
outside of the Detention Center grounds for work release and cleaning up Camp New Hope. One
of the other five inmates, Wagoner, was in jail for a DUI conviction, but Emnanuel and Buchanan
allowed Wagoner to operate an ATV while on work release at Camp New Hope.
89. Additionally, on around May 29, 2017, Plaintiffs produced evidence and otherwise
complained that Sharon Price, the former captain of the Detention Center, forced inmates to paint
chairs for her personal benefit, i.e., to use in a family member’s wedding, on around January 17,
2017.
MEETING WITH BUCHANAN (TUESDAY, MAY 30)
90. On Tuesday, May 30, Michelle met with Clayton to deliver a report on her findings
from the wider search for evidence of wrongdoing and illegal behavior. This time Buchanan was
present.
91. Michelle, in her words, “raised a stink” about how Emmanuel was selling inmates
pizza and chicken wings. She expressed concern that bones from the chicken wings could be
fashioned into a shiv. She showed Clayton and Buchanan the Facebook messages from Katie,
which established Emmanuel was behind the contraband chicken-wing operation.
92. Michelle also reported to Clayton and Buchanan that Emmanuel had left male and
female inmates alone together in the same room in the booking area where—upon information
and belief, and with the door closed—sexual activity between the inmates was allowed to occur.
20

93. Michelle’s reporting largely corroborated claims made by Kim Miller in the
newspaper and contradicted Buchanan’s narrative that his Detention Center was better than under
his predecessor.
94. Buchanan had been reporting to the county commissioners and the public that
things were going “great,” but in truth, the Detention Center’s operations were riddled with
corrupt, unsafe, and unlawful practices.
95. Buchanan was furious with Michelle—“steaming hot,” says Michelle. He was
visibly angry at what Michelle reported in their meeting. Buchanan admonished Michelle for
“going over Emmanuel’s head” with her complaint and the results of her searches.
96. Buchanan was so angry that he walked out of the meeting. Michelle interpreted
Buchanan’s position to be, “Your job as a woman is to be quiet and follow instructions.”
97. Under Buchanan’s regime, the Sheriff’s Department had a policy and practice of
intentionally disregarding the rights of its female employees and treating them as second-class
citizens.
98. While Michelle was working at the jail, Anders repeatedly subjected her to
unwelcome sexual advances and sexual harassment. For example, Anders once grabbed
Michelle’s breast while reaching over her to give her a hug. He also once asked Michelle to send
him nude photographs of herself.
99. Michelle regularly complained about Anders’ sexually biased and inappropriate
behavior to her direct supervisor, Captain Jason Emmanuel. But Emmanuel was less than helpful.
In fact, he would, at times, laugh at Michelle’s complaints.
21

100. Michelle complained about Anders and Emmanuel’s sexist behavior to Chief
Deputy Rick Clayton. Upon information and belief, Clayton did nothing in response to the
complaints.
101. But this wasn’t all that showed gender bias at the workplace. Clayton often made
fun of Michelle’s appearance and told her that she should wear makeup.
102. Richards also experienced sexually discriminatory behavior after she reported that
an inmate had forcibly kissed her against her will in May 2017. As detailed further below, the
Sheriff’s Department flipped her complaint of a workplace assault on its head, which was wildly
inappropriate and reveals further sex bias.
SHOCKINGLY, THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT RETALIATES BY FIRING MICHELLE

AND THROWING KATIE IN JAIL
103. At 2:15 p.m. the next day (Wednesday, May 31), Clayton sent Michelle this text
message: “At this time, do not contact any detention staff and do not report to the jail at all. You
are placed on administrative leave until further notice. Do not attempt to contact anyone on the
jail staff until you receive notice from me personally.”
104. The administrative leave was unpaid. The Sheriff’s Department, without notice to
Michelle, then demoted her and drained all of her accumulated vacation time while on leave,
without any opportunity for an appeal. Michelle was never provided any explanation of her
discipline, nor informed of her right to appeal, as mandated by the Ashe County employee
handbook and due process.
105. Upon information and belief, Buchanan and the Sheriff’s Department opened a
criminal investigation into Michelle on May 30 or May 31, 2017, in direct retaliation for her
involvement in reporting unlawful activity in the Detention Center.
22

106. While the County suspended Michelle without pay, Buchanan did not discipline
other male employees who knowingly allowed and/or engaged in the unlawful behavior,
including Emmanuel.
107. At around 3:00 pm the same day (May 31), deputies Michael (“Mickey”) Boyles
and Dennis Anders went to Katie’s house to interrogate her. The deputies told Katie that the
reason for the meeting was to question her about allegations that Michelle was smuggling drugs
into the Detention Center. They remained there for over an hour, playing “good-cop bad-cop.”
One yelled while the other was nice to Katie. At the time, Katie did not know Michelle had been
suspended.
108. Boyles and Anders asked Katie to see her Samsung cell phone. Katie allowed them
to view her phone for the sole express purpose of viewing a photo she had taken of the written
statement she had taken from inmate Joshua Rockwell, dated May 28, 2017, in which Rockwell
described unlawful acts occurring in the Detention Centers and efforts by inmates to “set up”
Katie by making unwelcomed “moves” on her.
109. Anders instead looked through and searched the contents Katie’s phone while
sitting on her couch. Later, Anders stood on the porch of Katie’s house, and while speaking with
Katie’s mother, accused Katie of “covering” for Michelle.
110. Before leaving, Boyles and Anders instructed Katie to come to the Sheriff’s
Department at 4:30 p.m. the next day (Thursday, June 1) to write a statement in which she swore
to personal knowledge that Michelle had committed a felony, i.e., smuggling drugs into the
Detention Center. The deputies specifically instructed Katie to write a false statement.
111. Upon information and belief, Buchanan directed the deputies to secure the false
statement from Katie and intended to use the same for several unlawful purposes: (a) to fabricate
23

an ex-post facto justification for terminating Michelle’s employment; (b) to create a false and
fraudulent state-required document, i.e., “Report of Separation” (Form F-5), as to be filed with
the N.C. Sheriff’s Standards Division; and/or (c) to initiate criminal charges against Michelle, in
the absence of probable cause of any crime.
112. Immediately after leaving Katie’s home, Boyles and Anders sought and found
Casey on the bank of Peak Creek, where he was fishing. The deputies located Casey by calling
his mother, that is, his emergency contact at the Sheriff’s Department. Boyles and Anders treated
Casey as a hostile party. They took his firearm and questioned him for more than 30 minutes.
The questions focused on Michelle.
113. Katie was scheduled to work the following day at 6:00 p.m. When Katie did not
appear at 4:30 p.m. to write the statement against Michelle, Anders twice called Katie to pressure
her into complying with the demand. Katie refused the deputies’ repeated efforts because she had
no knowledge that Michelle had any involvement with the smuggling of drugs in the Detention
Center.
114. Katie arrived at the Detention Center shortly before 6:00 p.m. with Casey, for her
regularly scheduled shift.
115. Katie was met outside the Detention Center by Clayton, with four deputies by his
side. The four deputies included Will Hicks, Andy Toliver, Brian Lyalls, and a fourth deputy.
Clayton fired Katie in the parking lot. Katie removed her badge. Clayton then said, “Let’s go to
booking.”
116. Katie did not know that she was then under arrest. Things started to sink in, but
Katie was understandably confused. She became incredulous, saying, “Am I under arrest? For
24

what?” Clayton responded, “You’ll see.” Katie asked, “Is this a joke?” Boyles replied, “If you
had just come in and wrote that statement [against Michelle], none of this would be happening.”
117. Katie would soon learn that the County was charging her with 12 felony counts of
having sex with an inmate, Coty Wagoner.
118. When Casey witnessed Clayton and the others placing Katie under arrest, he sent a
text message to Katie’s mother, Pat Byrd (“Pat”), who quickly arrived on the scene with Katie’s
four-year old daughter, Savannah, who was in Pat’s care. Pat immediately began scrambling for
information on Katie’s arrest.
119. Savannah was so visibly upset by witnessing her mother’s arrest that Toliver used
Katie’s phone to call a friend to come get Savannah from the Detention Center. While Savannah
was leaving the jail, she looked through the window of the booking area back towards her mother.
Clayton and approximately ten (10) uniformed deputies were in the booking area with Katie.
Clayton walked over and closed the blinds in Savannah’s face.
120. Back in the booking area, Boyles took Katie’s phone with a quip: “I’ll take this.”
Under coercion, Katie gave Boyles the passcode to access her phone out of concern that he may
break or lock her out of the phone without the passcode. The next day, the detectives retroactively
secured a search warrant for the phone. No one ever read Katie her Miranda rights.
121. At least one of the deputies, Hicks, seemed concerned with how they were treating
Katie. Hicks refused to handcuff Katie or to place her in a holding cell, as he would have done
with any other inmate. He left Katie standing, without handcuffs, in the booking area. Hicks said
that he did not understand why Katie was being arrested, and he referred to the situation as
“bullshit.” Hicks allowed Katie to meet her mother in a private room. He told Pat to take Katie’s
25

car keys because he was afraid the other officers would wrongfully search Katie’s car without a
warrant.
122. Astonishingly, Katie took her own fingerprints and booked herself into the
Detention Center.
123. While Katie was booked, Clayton and other deputies forced Casey into the control
tower of the Detention Center. At this point, the deputies were aware that Casey and Katie were
dating. They forced Casey to remain in the control tower for hours. They even threatened Casey
that if he came out of the tower, he would join Katie, i.e., they would arrest him, too.
124. Days later, detectives, including Pamela James, questioned Casey about drugs in
the Detention Center and, for the first time, Wagoner’s alleged connection to Katie. At one point,
James began reading Casey his rights during the questioning, which prompted Casey to ask
whether he was under arrest. James reversed course and told Casey that he was not.
125. A male deputy transported Katie to neighboring Yadkin County, where she spent
the night in jail. She was not handcuffed or restrained in any way for the transport.
126. The next day, June 2, Boyles transported Katie back to the Ashe County courthouse.
Boyles remarked to Katie on the way back to Ashe County: “Sometimes bad things just happen
to good people.”
127. When they arrived at the Ashe County courthouse, Boyles brought Katie, still
wearing her jailer uniform from the previous day, through the front door of the courthouse. She
was handcuffed and shackled. Hicks met the transport at the courthouse. When he saw Boyles
marshalling Katie into the front of the courthouse, Hicks said, “This ain’t right; we don’t go to
the front of the courthouse.” Inmates are always brought to court through a private rear entrance.
26

128. Katie spent the day in a holding cell, where male inmates—whom Katie herself
had supervised days earlier in the Detention Center—said the “most vile and nasty things” to her.
The officers “supervising” the inmates in the holding cell heard the harassment and abuse directed
towards Katie, but declined to intervene.
129. Buchanan publicized what Ashe County had done wrongfully to Katie. He
personally released a press statement on June 2, 2017, announcing that Katie had been arrested
on 12 counts of felony “sexual activity by a custodian” with an inmate, Coty Wagoner. Buchanan
knew that Katie’s arrest and the felony counts were in retaliation for her resistance to providing
a false statement against Michelle. In other words, he knew that she had committed no crime but
still told the world that she was a criminal.
130. No arrest warrant was ever issued for Katie’s arrest, and no magistrate or neutral
third party ever found probable cause to warrant her arrest. The County had a complete and utter
lack of probable cause to charge Katie with 12 felonies, including but not limited to as
demonstrated by the facts as alleged in the following paragraphs, numbered 131 to 142.
131. It was practically impossible for the charges to be true. The number of felony counts
matched exactly the total number of days (12) that Katie had worked at the Detention Center as
a full-time jailer: that is, May 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, and 27. In other words,
Katie was charged with having felonious sexual relations with Wagoner once on every shift.
However, Wagoner was a trustee (with the freedom to roam the Detention Center) for only four
of these 12 days, and he was otherwise locked down in the “D pod”—alongside 25 to 30 other
men—for the other eight alleged sexual encounters. The Sheriff’s Department cannot explain
where sexual relations possibly could have occurred, without creating dozens of witnesses, for
two-thirds of the felony charges.
27

132. Katie’s bail was grossly excessive. The Sheriff’s Department held Katie on a
whopping $250,000 bond. This amount cannot be explained by reference to any lawful
consideration, given Katie’s lack of any prior criminal record, the relative severity of the charges,
and her low flight risk (including as reflected by the fact she is a single mother with strong familial
ties to Ashe County). The County’s absurd bail was based on ulterior motives; murder suspects
in Ashe County have been held on lower amounts. One day the County trusted Katie to oversee
inmates; later that same day, they did not trust her to appear in court for less than a quarter-million
in bail.
133. The Sheriff’s Department sought even higher bail. Prior to deciding bail, Magistrate
Judge Danny Dillard met privately with Clayton and the detectives in an office in the Detention
Center. Dillard emerged and, while announcing bail was to be $250,000, told Katie, “I did you a
favor.” In other words, Clayton had sought an even higher amount. Prior to his appointment as
magistrate in early 2017, Dillard had worked most recently as a deputy in the Sheriff’s
Department, i.e., alongside Boyles and Anders. His objectivity and impartiality in this matter is
dubious.
134. The Sheriff’s Department was unprofessional and exhibited a retaliatory intent
against Katie. Boyles broke with common protocol to parade Katie through the front door of the
courthouse for her first appearance, in an effort to embarrass and publicly shame her.
135. The affidavit in “support” of the search warrant includes demonstrably false
statements. Marc Kitts—who, upon information and belief, otherwise had no participation in the
“investigation” in Katie—swore to a June 2 affidavit in support of a search warrant of Katie’s
phone. This search warrant was executed ex poste facto, that is after the search already had been
performed. Moreover, Kitts’ sworn affidavit purports to base “probable cause” on his sworn
28

statement, which includes the following: “Some of the sex acts were recorded on Katie’s personal
cellular phone by either photographs or video.” This assertion is demonstrably false: there were
never photos or video of a sexual nature on Katie’s phone. Plaintiffs in this action will prove the
same through forensic evidence.
136. Buchanan and Clayton personally intervened in the “investigation.” Boyles,
Anders, Clayton, and Buchanan, directly participated in fabricating evidence and otherwise
bringing charges against Katie without probable cause. Upon information and belief, in a highly
unusual move, Buchanan personally accompanied Boyles to meet with inmates, including Rivera.
Buchanan summoned inmates to the second floor (the sheriff’s floor) to meet with him to discuss
the “investigations” into Michelle and/or Katie. Buchanan also personally released the press
release trumpeting Katie’s arrest to the general public. Upon information and belief, Clayton
tipped off the press pre-emptively of the charges to be brought against Katie, that is before her
arrest.
137. The timing of the arrest was highly suspicious. The entire focus of the
“investigation,” prior to Katie’s arrest, was on Michelle—and “allegations” of drug smuggling.
The Sheriff Department arrested Katie approximately one hour after she refused to sign a false
statement against Michelle.
138. The County did not interview any potential witnesses to the alleged felonies. As a
new and untrained jailer, Katie was “always” accompanied by another jailer, usually Spencer,
but also Michelle, Casey, and Cox. As her supervising sergeant, Spencer followed Katie
everywhere: when Katie went to the bathroom, Spencer waited outside. Yet, the County never
questioned any of these witnesses prior to Katie’s arrest. The one potential witness the Sheriff’s
Department did question, Casey, was asked, at most, one or two questions about Katie by Anders
29

and Boyles, the day before her arrest while he was fishing at Peak Creek. Those questions,
however, related to drugs and the “allegations” against Michelle. Boyles and Anders did not ask
Casey any questions about Katie and alleged sexual activity with inmates.
139. The Sheriff’s Department file on the charges against Katie never included any
evidence. Brandon York, Katie’s criminal defense attorney, has enjoyed a longstanding “open
book” policy at the district attorney’s office in Ashe County. He is able to go to the DA’s office
and review their files on all criminal prosecutions for which he serves as defense counsel. Katie’s
file was always empty, without a single officer’s report or a shred of evidence. There was no cell
phone photos/video or surveillance footage showing sexual acts. Katie’s attorney asked for
evidence and sent two subpoenas (twice) to Boyles and Anders. They failed to respond to either
sets of subpoenas.
140. The County repeatedly stalled while it tried to fabricate probable cause. Katie’s
initial appearance, without counsel, was on June 2, 2017. The County then appeared in court—
and required Katie and/or her private defense counsel to do the same—for continuances that it
sought and received on July 6, 2017; September 28, 2017; and November 16, 2017. On January
9, 2018, more than seven (7) months after the arrest, Boyles sent a letter to the district attorney,
claiming that he and James were still working on gathering evidence against Katie. Boyles
blamed “wrist surgery” on the utter lack of any evidence in Katie’s file. Boyles promised he
would produce some evidence by January 12. In fact, neither Boyles nor anyone else in the
Sheriff’s Department produced any evidence in advance of the next hearing on January 18, when
the court granted yet another continuance to the DA. The charges were dismissed in a court
proceeding on February 8, 2018.
30

141. Both of the charging officers, Boyles and Anders, have a history of misconduct.
Upon information and belief, both Boyles and Anders were forced out of their jobs as a result of
a subsequent SBI investigation into the department.
142. Upon information and belief, the only “evidence” ever gathered against either
Michelle and/or Katie were statements—coerced by Buchanan and/or his “investigators” and
never corroborated—made by one or more of the same inmates who had been subject to
disciplinary action issued by Michelle and/or Katie. Before Katie’s arrest, and based on her
reports, Michelle had revoked the trustee status of both Rivera (for trading letters with female
inmates and offering them Subutex) and Wagoner (for taking cigarettes from a property room in
the Detention Center). Following the action taken by Katie and Michelle, both Rivera and
Wagoner were returned to lockdown and put in the general population.
143. Upon information and belief, Emmanuel’s ally, trustee Rivera, accused Michelle
of smuggling drugs in the Detention Center, and Wagoner accused Katie of engaging in felonious
sexual intercourse. These inmates clearly had perverse incentives to fabricate allegations against
their jailers and were not credible witnesses. Their wholly unsubstantiated allegations do not
constitute probable cause.
144. Upon information and belief, Clayton moved to set Katie’s bond at more than
$250,000 as further retaliation in its gambit against Michelle. The County sought to exert
unyielding pressure on Katie—through indefinite detention—such that she would “flip” and sign
a false statement against Michelle.
145. The Sheriff’s Department thought that Katie, a single mother living on
approximately $34,000 per year, could never come up with the money to make bail in that
amount. However, unbeknownst to the Sheriff’s Department, Pat owned the family house free
31

and clear—and loaned Katie money by putting up the house to make bail, freeing Katie from the
holding cell at the courthouse.
DRUGS FOUND IN DETENTION CENTER AFTER MICHELLE WAS GONE
146. Following Katie’s arrest, the Sheriff’s Department assigned Casey to supervise the
pod that included Wagoner, i.e., the inmate with whom his girlfriend was accused of having a
felonious sexual relation. Upon information and belief, this assignment was meant to inflame
Casey’s emotions and force him to quit.
147. On or around June 18, 2017, Casey was working in the isolation unit. During this
shift, he found at least 10 white pills on an inmate. Neither Michelle nor Katie could have been
involved, since neither woman had been at the Detention Center for weeks. Casey told both
Captain Shelly Presnell—who had recently taken over for Emmanuel—and Boyles that he found
the pills. Casey brought the pills to the tower and left them with a note for Presnell and Boyles.
148. The pills came in an envelope, which can be interpreted to mean that they had to
have come from an officer—i.e., they had to have come from a “pill book” or the medical
department of the Detention Center. Casey said it was clear the inmates had “cheeked” the pills.
Yet, upon information and belief, neither Presnell nor Boyles created an incident report, and no
charges relating to the pills were ever brought against anyone. When Casey later asked about the
drugs, he was denied a straight answer, and the whole thing was swept under the rug.
BUCHANAN CONTINUES TO PERSECUTE INNOCENT COUNTY EMPLOYEES
149. Michelle and Katie were not the only County employees wrongfully accused,
investigated, and/or arrested for criminal activity by the Sheriff’s Department. By no later than
May 2017 and continuing through at least the end of Buchanan’s regime, the Sheriff’s
32

Department had adopted a full-scale policy and practice of unlawful investigation and
prosecutions at the whim of Buchanan.
150. During the relevant period, Buchanan was the decision maker who possessed final
authority to establish the policy of the Sheriff’s Department. Buchanan was responsible for the
choice and implementation of the Sheriff’s Department policies, practices, and procedures, and
his acts and omissions therefore reflect the policy of the Sheriff’s Department.
151. Upon information and belief, Buchanan made a deliberate choice to adopt on behalf
of the Sheriff Department a official policy statement, ordinance, regulation, and/or decision
(hereinafter, “Official Policy”). Under this Official Policy, Buchanan instructed, directed, and
ordered his deputies to deprive Plaintiffs and others of their constitutional rights, using all of the
powers at the disposal of the Sheriff’s Department, in retaliation for any action that tended to
reflect poorly on the public’s image of Buchanan. This widespread Official Policy extended to
lawful activity taken by Plaintiffs and others, including complying with public records’ requests
and reporting contraband and corruption in the Detention Center. Under the Official Policy, the
Sheriff’s Department deliberately deprived Plaintiffs and others of their constitutional rights for
no other reason than to conceal the truth from the citizens of Ashe County and to promote his
own unbridled power.
152. On June 19, 2017, WBTV broke the story that the Sheriff’s Department had
launched a criminal investigation against three county employees, in retaliation for their
compliance with the public records request sent to Buchanan in April 2017. In other words, at
the same time the County was attempting to frame Katie and Michelle for crimes they did not
commit, Buchanan and his regime were framing other County employees for properly and
lawfully completing their job duties.
33

153. Ann Clark, clerk to the Ashe County Board of Commissioners, revealed in an email
to WBTV, “I, along with two employees in our IT Department, are currently under criminal or
administrative investigation by the Sheriff regarding work to obtain his text messages in response
to the public records request by Nick Ochsner, therefore I do not believe that I am at liberty to
answer this question.” As reported by WBTV, “Clark was responding to a question from an
attorney representing WBTV in its ongoing public records request about why the county
produced text messages from county commissioners, but did not produce any text messages from
Buchanan.”
154. The two county IT employees were called to the Ashe County Sheriff’s
Department. Boyles and, upon information and belief, Anders—the same deputies involved in
the matters involving Michelle and Katie—interrogated the IT employees. As publicly reported,
the first employee thought he was being summoned to assist with an IT issue but, instead, walked
into a conference room for a criminal interrogation.
155. WBTV reported, “Ashe County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Rick Clayton
confirmed to WBTV on June 19 that the office was involved in what he characterized as an
administrative investigation into Clark. Clayton just laughed when a WBTV reporter asked him
for a comment regarding the sheriff’s decision to have his detectives investigate a county
employee for attempting to fulfill a public records request.”
156. Buchanan later claimed that Sam Yearick and other county commissioners had
initiated the criminal investigation into the three county employees. A text message exchange
between Buchanan and Yearick on June 16, 2017 includes a message from Buchanan: “If nothing
happens to [Clark] from the county charges will be forthcoming.”
34

157. Under North Carolina law, Yearick was required to have produced this and other
text messages. Yearick and, upon information and belief, Buchanan and others in the Sheriff’s
Department, failed to follow the law and did not produce all responsive messages. Yearick also
unlawfully redacted his own text messages. By no later than May 2017, the County and the
Sheriff’s Department had adopted a policy and practice of destroying and withholding evidence
responsive to lawful requests as part of law enforcement investigations and other litigation
matters.
158. Buchanan’s frivolous and malicious investigation of the three county employees
prompted the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (“SBI”) to open a criminal
investigation into Buchanan and the Sheriff’s Department in around June 2017. Plaintiffs
cooperated with and contributed to the investigation, the full contents and results of which have
not been released publicly.
CASEY FACES A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND CONSTRUCTIVE

DISCHARGE
162. In early July 2017, Casey initiated a separate complaint with the SBI. He discussed
several issues with the SBI: Katie’s arrest, the co-mingling of sexes, the contraband ring
involving chicken wings, the disappearance of the drugs he reported to Boyles and Presnell, the
incompetence of Buchanan, and other safety concerns.
163. Casey learned, upon information and belief, that the materials that Michelle turned
over to Clayton and Buchanan (on around May 31, 2017) were later found in a Detention Center
dumpster by the SBI. These materials included statements from various inmates, which generally
exonerated Katie and/or Michelle of wrongdoing.
164. The SBI told Casey to “watch his back” and that it “probably wasn’t safe” for him
to work at the Detention Center.
35

165. In light of the Sheriff Department’s belligerent crusade against Michelle, malicious
prosecution of his girlfriend, false imprisonment and threatened arrest of him, and the destruction
of evidence, Casey reasonably and legitimately feared that his next day at work would be either
his last day of work or his last day of freedom—i.e., Casey feared that he would be the next
person to be set up for a crime he did not commit.
166. Casey also reasonably and legitimately feared for his physical safety in a Detention
Center riddled with dangerous contraband and unsupervised inmates. Spencer, for instance, was
injured in the aforementioned shakedown of the C pod and has been out of work with a back
injury since.
167. One night shortly before the end of his employment, Casey observed fellow jailer,
Daniel Cox, field a suspicious call from Presnell. That call combined with unusual behavior from
the inmates further contributed to Casey’s concern that he was next to be framed.
168. Casey’s work conditions had become so intolerable that he was forced to resign.
On July 21, 2017, Casey was constructively discharged as a result of the hostile work
environment.
MICHELLE IS FORMALLY TERMINATED
169. In mid-August 2017 (and again on October 13, 2017), Michelle participated in
interviews with the SBI. Michelle discussed the circumstances surrounding Buchanan’s
appointment as sheriff, the contraband sold to prisoners (including the chicken wings), her
termination, and Katie’s arrest. Michelle told the SBI investigator that she was afraid of
retaliation from the Sheriff’s Department. The SBI investigator recommend that Michelle consult
an attorney.
36

170. On or around August 31, 2017, Clayton called Michelle in for a meeting. Upon
information and belief, Clayton and others called the meeting with Michelle for the purpose of
attempting to fabricate evidence and solicit her false statement against Katie. Michelle felt
intimidated and she was, appropriately, concerned about her due process rights, aggression by
the Sheriff leadership, and false accusations. She refused to testify falsely against Katie. Michelle
had consulted with an attorney, and she declined to attend the meeting without a lawyer present.
171. On or around September 22, 2017, Clayton signed a termination letter, notifying
Michelle that her employment was terminated due to “insubordination” for not attending the
August 31 meeting. Months later, on January 5, 2018, Clayton filed a late “Report of Separation”
with the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Standards Division. The report claims that separation occurred
as a result of a criminal investigation and/or violation of Commission rules by Michelle.
172. The County filed an identical report against Miller, who also was a whistleblower
on unlawful conduct in the Detention Center.
BUCHANAN CHARGED WITH THREE FELONIES AND RESIGNS IN DISGRACE
173. On October 23, 2017, following his response to WBTV’s public records request,
Buchanan was indicted for three felony counts of obstruction of justice and three misdemeanor
counts of willful failure to discharge duties. The charges related both to Buchanan’s refusal to
comply with the lawful public records request and the malicious prosecution of the three county
employees. The district attorney moved the same day to remove Buchanan as sheriff.
174. Buchanan’s bail set was set at $25,000, that is one-tenth the amount set for Katie.
175. The indictment against Buchanan reads, in part, “The jurors for the State upon their
oath present that in the month of June of 2017, in Ashe County, North Carolina, the defendant
named above unlawfully, willfully and feloniously did, with deceit and intent to defraud, obstruct
37

justice while serving in the defendant’s public office of Sheriff of Ashe County, North Carolina,
by allowing an unlawful investigation to be conducted by the Defendant’s deputies of the Ashe
County, North Carolina Sheriff’s Office.”
176. Criminal prosecutions for failure to comply with the NC Public Records Act are
exceedingly rare; one expert reportedly said that, prior to Buchanan, he had “never seen (a
violation) actually charged.”
177. Buchanan resigned on February 5, 2018, as part of a plea agreement reached with
District Attorney Tom Horner. Clayton also was removed from office. Amazingly, even after
Buchanan had been indicted for felony charges related to his job performance—leaving a wake
of wreckage and ruined lives at the Sheriff’s Department—the County paid him a $71,000
severance package. The felony charges against him were dismissed as part of the plea bargain.
178. Two days later, on February 7, 2018, district attorney Matthew Leach admitted
there was insufficient evidence to warrant Katie’s arrest and prosecution: “After consulting with
the only remaining detective in this case, The State has determined that, while the defendant’s
conduct was inappropriate for a jailer, the conduct did not involve vaginal intercourse or sexual
activity as defined by the statute and case law. The evidence did not show any vaginal intercourse,
cunnilingus, fellatio, analingus, or any type of sexual penetration.”
179. This belated admission that there was never probable cause to arrest, charge, and/or
prosecute Katie came only after the Sheriff Department relentlessly pursued her prosecution over
the course of more than eight (8) months, asking for multiple continuances to “gather evidence”
that never existed.
180. Upon information and belief, and in response to the SBI investigation, the Sheriff’s
Department cleaned house. Four deputies resigned based on credible allegations of misconduct,
38

including each of the detectives involved into the “investigations” into Michelle and Katie:
Boyles, Anders, and Kitts.
181. Plaintiffs have been devastated by the unlawful actions, as detailed herein.
182. Upon her arrest, Katie was fired not only from the Sheriff’s Department, but also
from her two other jobs. She was even kicked off a volunteer rescue squad. Katie has lost her
CPR certification and has fallen behind on continuing education for her EMT-Basic license, as a
result of her firing. The process for re-certification for CPR and EMT-B is onerous. Katie is on
anti-depressant/anti-anxiety medication. Katie has been unable to find work since her arrest
because her criminal record shows 12 felony charges. A Google search for her name returns news
articles from Buchanan’s announcement of her arrest as the top search results.
183. Katie’s daughter, Savannah, is in therapy due to the trauma of watching her
mother’s arrest. Savannah has trouble with the idea that there can be not only “good cops” but
also “bad cops,” and she has fiercely resisted going to daycare out of fear the “bad cops” would
arrest her mother again and put her in jail. Savannah has had trouble sleeping at night.
184. Michelle took a landscaping job. She reports that the anxiety from her termination
was so bad that her blood pressure measured over 200 (systolic pressure).
185. Plaintiffs are but a small handful of the more than 20 trained and experienced
employees who left the Sheriff’s Department in Buchanan’s first six months, most of whom “have
been forced to quit or been terminated for questionable reasons,” according to a June 21 op-ed in
the Jefferson Post.
39

COUNT I
Plaintiffs Richards, Sanchez, and Caudill against Buchanan/Hartley, in their official
capacity as Sheriff for Ashe County
WRONGFUL DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

186. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by
reference herein.
187. Plaintiffs at all relevant times were at-will employees of the Sheriff of Ashe County.
188. North Carolina’s public policy is clearly and distinctly set forth in the state
constitution, statutes, and regulations, including but not limited to as detailed herein.
189. Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution expresses the public policy
of North Carolina with respect to due process and equal protection of the laws: “No person shall
be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled,
or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land. No person
shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to
discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
of North Carolina “that employees of local government be encouraged to object to and to report
dishonest, unscrupulous, illegal, improper and unethical acts by public officials; to request an
independent investigation of potentially unlawful and improper acts by public officials; and that
they be protected from retaliation for reporting and objecting to said acts, and for exercising rights
to free speech.”
of North Carolina against cruel or unusual punishment, in line with the Eighth Amendment to the
40

U.S. Constitution. Forcing inmates to sleep on the floor is against the public policy of North
Carolina.
192. The counties of North Carolina, including the County of Ashe, have the authority
to establish and operate “local confinement facilities,” including the Detention Center, only
according to the power vested in the same by the state of North Carolina, including but not limited
to as provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-218 and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-56.
193. The public policy of North Carolina, as reflected in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-216(1),
is that “[l]ocal confinement facilities should provide secure custody of persons confined therein
in order to protect the community and should be operated so as to protect the health and welfare
of prisoners and provide for their humane treatment.”
194. The public policy of North Carolina makes it a felony for any inmate or person in
the custody of a “local confinement facility” to possess any of (a) “a mobile telephone or other
wireless communication device or a component of one of those devices,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-
258.1, or (b) “without permission or authorization[,] a weapon capable of inflicting serious bodily
injuries or death, or who shall fabricate or create such a weapon from any source . . . .,” N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 14-258.2.
195. The public policy of North Carolina makes it a misdemeanor for any inmate or
person in the custody of a “local confinement facility” to possess “any tobacco product . . . other
than for authorized religious purposes,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-258.1(e).
196. The public policy of North Carolina makes it a felony for any person to do any of
the following:
a) “sell” to “any convict or person imprisoned” “any article forbidden him by
prison rules,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-258;
41

b) “give[ ] or sell[ ] a mobile telephone or other wireless communications
device, or a component of one of those devices, to an inmate in the custody . . . of a
local confinement facility,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-258.1(d)
c) “convey” to “any convict or person imprisoned” “any weapon or instrument
by which to effect an escape, or that will aid him in an assault or insurrection,” N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 14-258;
d) “give or sell” “any deadly weapon” or “any controlled substances” to an
inmate of a local confinement facility, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-258.1(a); or
e) “combine, confederate, conspire, aid, abet, solicit, urge, investigate,
counsel, advise, encourage, attempt to procure, or procure another or others to give or
sell to any inmate of any . . . local confinement facility, any deadly weapon . . . or any
controlled substances,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-258.1(a); or
f) intimidate or interfere with a witness, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-226.
197. The public policy of North Carolina makes it a misdemeanor for any person:
a) “who knowingly gives or sells any tobacco products . . . to an inmate in the
custody of a local confinement facility . . . other than for authorized religious
purposes.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-258.1(d); or
b) to violate any provision of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-224, which requires that
“[n]o person may be confined in a local confinement facility unless custodial
personnel are present and available to provide continuous supervision in order that
custody will be secure and that, in the event of emergency such as fire, illness,
assault by other prisoners, or otherwise, the prisoners can be protected. These
personnel shall supervise prisoners closely enough to maintain safe custody and
42

control and to be at all times informed of the prisoners’ general health and
emergency medical needs.”
198. It is further the public policy of the state of North Carolina that all “local
confinement facilities,” including the Detention Center and other “county confinement facilities,”
id. § 153-218, meet certain “minimum statewide standards” with respect to the “planning,
constructing, and maintaining [of the] confinement facilities” and the “develop[ment of]
programs that provide for humane treatment of prisoners and contribute to the rehabilitation of
offenders.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-216(2). These minimum standards require “secure and safe
physical facilities; . . . adequacy of space per prisoner; . . . supervision of prisoners; . . . personal
hygiene and comfort of prisoners; . . . [and] any other provisions that may be necessary for the
safekeeping, privacy, care, protection, and welfare of prisoners.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-221.
199. The public policy of North Carolina provides for the safe custody, safety, health,
and welfare of inmates confined in local confinement facilities. Specifically, “[m]ale and female
prisoners shall be confined in separate facilities or in separate quarters in local confinement
facilities,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-228. “Male and female inmates shall not be placed in the same
confinement unit, dayroom or other living area and, in addition, female inmates shall be housed
out of sight of male inmates.” 10A NCAC 14J.0302.
200. It is the public policy of North Carolina that at least one female officer must be on
duty, and not “assigned other duties that would interfere with the continuous supervision of
inmates,” at all times to supervise female inmates: “Female officers shall be on duty when female
inmates are confined.” 10A NCAC 14J .0601.
43

201. To effectuate these and other policies, the N.C. Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services is required to inspect local confinement facilities at least twice per
year to ensure, inter alia, that certain minimum standards are met. 10A NCAC 14J .1302.
202. According to the public policy of North Carolina, any noncompliance and/or
violation of the requirement that male and female inmates be separated at all times shall result in
a finding by the State of North Carolina, through the N.C. Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services, that the noncompliance and/or violation “jeopardizes the safe custody,
safety, health or welfare of inmates confined in the jail.” 10 NCAC 14J .1303(c). The State of
North Carolina, accordingly, “shall order corrective action, order the jail closed, or enter into an
agreement of correction with local officials.” 10A NCAC 14J .1303(d).
203. It is further the public policy of North Carolina that certain “security requirements”
be met at local confinement facilities, including those that “provide for the secure confinement
of inmates from the time of their passage through the security perimeter until release,” “prevent
the passage of contraband,” and “prevent unauthorized contact between inmates and persons from
outside the jail.” 10A NCAC 14J.0501.
204. It is the public policy of North Carolina that only inmates who are in the final stages
of imprisonment, and otherwise meet the statutory criteria, may participate in work release
programs. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 148-26 et seq. and accompany regulations. It is further the public
policy of North Carolina that only “persons convicted of misdemeanors or felonies and
imprisoned in the local confinement facilities,” and not pre-trial detainees and/or inmates held
temporarily from another county, may be eligible to work for the county government in which
they are held, pursuant to duly enacted resolutions by the board of commissioners for the
respective county. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-58.
44

205. It is further the public policy of the state of North Carolina that “[a]dequate
qualifications and training of the personnel of local confinement facilities are essential to
improving the quality of these facilities” and, accordingly, that all “local confinement facilities”
meet or exceed state-issued “employment standards for jailers and supervisory and administrative
personnel,” including training, as a condition of employment in the same. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-
216(4).
206. The public policy of North Carolina does not allow for public officials to personally
benefit from the labor of prisoners. North Carolina public policy provides that any work
assignments provided to inmates “shall be for the public benefit to reduce the cost of maintaining
the inmate population.” N.C. Gen. Stat. 148-26. No other purpose is authorized by North Carolina
law.
207. The public policy of North Carolina further provides that the following additional
activities are legally protected:
a) Refusing to perjure oneself or sign a false statement against another employee of a
government institution entrusted to protect the public, see Sides v. Duke Univ. 328 S.E.2d
818 (1985);
b) Reporting corruption of public officials and government employees, see, e.g.,
Hunter v. Town of Mocksville, No. 1:12-cv-333, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150765 (M.D.N.C.
Oct. 21, 2013);
c) Complaining of the unlawful operation of vehicles, including all terrain vehicles
(ATV), see Bigelow v. Town of Chapel Hill, 756 S.E.2d 878 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013);
d) Documenting, complaining of, and/or objecting to unsafe working conditions, see
id.; and
45

e) Cooperating in a criminal investigation, including by the state bureau of
investigation, see Lightner v. City of Wilmington, 545 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2008); Blakely v.
Town of Taylortown, 756 S.E.2d 878 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014); Caudill v. Dellinger, 501
S.E.2d 99 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).
208. The public policy of North Carolina as set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.1
(North Carolina’s Equal Employment Practices Act) makes it a violation of public policy for
employers to terminate employees because of their sex.
209. Prior to the termination of their employment, Plaintiffs reported to their supervisors
and otherwise complained that the Detention Center under Buchanan’s regime unlawfully (a)
sold and otherwise provided inmates with bone-in chicken wings, a potentially deadly weapon;
(b) allowed male and female inmates within sight, sound, and touch of each other, including to
engage in sexual activity, and otherwise allowed to be present in the same confinement units,
dayrooms, and/or other living areas; (c) failed to meet the minimum required standards for
supervising inmates, including but not limited to by allowing unsupervised inmates to use sharp
objects and roam free in the Detention Center, including in areas where jailers’ keys were stored;
(d) allowed inmates who were ineligible for work release to leave the Detention Center; (e)
assisted an inmate, who was imprisoned for a DUI, in operating a motor vehicle; (f) forced
inmates to sleep on the floor, in violation of Article I, Section 27 of the N.C. Constitution and
North Carolina statutory law; and (g) exploited inmate’ labor, not for the public benefit, but for
the personal gain of a government employee.
210. Prior to the termination of their employment, Plaintiffs reported to their supervisors
and otherwise complained of corruption of public officials and government employees. Casey
and Michelle cooperated in the SBI’s criminal investigation into Buchanan and the Detention
46

Center. Katie refused to perjure herself to sign a false statement against another employee of a
government institution entrusted to protect the public.
211. Prior to the termination of their employment, Plaintiffs documented, objected to,
and complained of unsafe working conditions and that the policies and practices of the Detention
Center under Buchanan jeopardized the safety, health, and welfare of the jailers and employees
of the Detention Center.
212. Prior to the termination of their employment, Plaintiffs documented, objected to,
and complained that the policies and practices of the Detention Center, under Buchanan,
jeopardized the safe custody of inmates in the Detention Center, failed to provide for the secure
confinement of inmates, and failed to prevent the passage of contraband.
213. Plaintiffs engaged in legally protected activity, and opposed activity contrary to law
as committed by the agents, employees, officers, and deputies of the Sheriff’s Department,
including but not limited to the Individual Defendants.
214. Plaintiffs were discharged from their employment with the Sheriff’s Department
because of (a) their engagement in the protected activity and/or (b) their opposition to engage in
unlawful conduct at the request of the Sheriff’s Department.
215. The Sheriff’s Department violated these public policies by terminating Plaintiffs
after Plaintiffs (a) exercised their rights and (b) opposed what they viewed in good faith as
injurious conduct, as set forth in the paragraphs above. Such conduct by employers tends to be
injurious to the public policy of North Carolina.
216. As an actual, proximate, and foreseeable result of the actions of the Sheriff’s
Department, Plaintiffs have suffered lost back and front pay, lost benefits, severe emotional
47

distress, severe physical distress, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, humiliation, physical pain
and suffering, and their peace of mind has been disturbed.
217. Defendants’ actions were done maliciously, willfully, wantonly, and in a manner
that demonstrates a reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights. Defendant’s officers, directors, and
managers participated in and condoned this malicious, willful, wanton, and reckless conduct
alleged above. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive
damages.
COUNT II
Plaintiffs Richards and Caudill against All Defendants
VIOLATIONS OF U.S. CONSTITUTION (42 U.S.C. 1983)
218. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference
herein.
219. Plaintiffs Katie Richards and Caudill (referred to as “Plaintiffs” in this cause of
action) bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of rights protected by the
Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which applies to
actions of local governments pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.
220. Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs, individually and in their
official capacities as officers of the Ashe County Sheriff’s Department.
221. The actions complained of in this Complaint were taken by the Defendants pursuant
to the Official Policy, which was calculated to and did deprive Plaintiffs of rights and privileges
protected by state and federal law, including pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.
222. Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ federal Constitutional right, including but not
limited to their right to life, liberty, property, equal protection, protection from unreasonable
search and seizure, and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
48

223. Defendants acted with the intent to deprive Plaintiffs of due process and equal
protection of the laws guaranteed to Plaintiffs under the Constitution of the United States of
America, including when they (1) searched Plaintiff Richards’ phone without legal cause, (2)
arrested Plaintiff Richards without legal cause, (3) falsely imprisoned Plaintiff Caudill without
cause, and (4) initiated and continued prosecution against Plaintiff Richards without legal cause.
224. Defendants violated the aforementioned constitutional protections by (among other
things set forth in this complaint): (a) making false statements, including under oath, that they
knew were false or that they made or omitted with reckless disregard to their truth in a proceeding
to determine probable cause, and those statements and/or omissions were material to the
purported finding of probable cause in falsely arresting and/or imprisoning Plaintiffs; (b) with
reckless disregard for their truth, making or submitting false statements and/or omissions that
created a falsehood in judicial proceedings to determine reasonable suspicion and/or lawful
probable cause and to determine guilt or innocence, and said statements and/or omissions were
material or necessary to any finding of probable cause; and (c) actually participating in and
causing the false arrest and/or imprisonment of Plaintiffs.
225. The arbitrary intrusion by Defendants into the liberty of Plaintiffs was in violation
of their Constitutional Rights and not authorized by law. Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights in
that the seizures of Plaintiffs, and subsequently placing them in physical custody, detaining them,
and otherwise restraining their movement, were without any legal cause. These acts were in
violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendment rights.
226. The arbitrary intrusion by Defendants into Plaintiff Richards’s security and privacy
was in violation of her Constitutional Rights and not authorized by law. Defendants violated
Plaintiff Richard’s rights, including but not limited to in the following manner: (a) searching the
49

Plaintiff’s person; (b) patting down Plaintiff; (c) using a false affidavit to search Plaintiff’s phone;
and (d) conducting these actions without legal or probable cause. These acts were in violation of
Plaintiff’s Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendment rights.
227. Furthermore, after Plaintiff Richards was seized and placed in custody, Defendants
failed to take any steps to cause Plaintiff Richards to be released from police custody and/or to
terminate criminal proceedings against her. Defendants knew Plaintiff Richards was being held
in police custody despite the fact that there was no probable cause to arrest her, or to continue
detaining her in police custody and/or prosecuting her. Defendants had the ability and duty to
cause Plaintiff Richards to be released from police custody and/or terminate proceedings due to
the lack of probable cause. Defendants’ arbitrary and baseless detention of Plaintiff Richards was
in violation of Plaintiff Richard’s Constitutional Rights and not authorized by law.
228. The foregoing was unnecessary, unreasonable, and excessive, and was therefore in
violation of Plaintiffs’ rights.
229. As a proximate and foreseeable result of Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights, Plaintiffs have suffered severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish
and anxiety, depression, embarrassment, humiliation, expenses, and other damages, including but
not limited to bond fees, attorney’s fees, and lost wages.
230. Defendants’ actions were done maliciously, willfully or wantonly or in a manner
that demonstrates a reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights. As a result of Defendants’ conduct,
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages.
50

COUNT III
Plaintiffs Richards and Caudill against Buchanan/Hartley, in their official capacities
NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM
herein.
232. To the extent sovereign immunity or another form of immunity operates to
effectively bar the availability of a full and adequate remedy with respect to any common law
claims Plaintiffs may have against Defendants in their official or individual capacities, Plaintiffs
assert a cause of action directly under the North Carolina Constitution against Buchanan and/or
Hartley, in their official capacities.
233. The actions of Defendants as set forth herein violated the rights guaranteed to
Plaintiffs under the N.C. Constitution as follows:
a) Article 1, Section 19, the right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty,
property, or privilege; and equal protection under the law.
b) Article 1, Section 20, the right to be free from unreasonable search and
seizure.
c) Article 1, Section 21, the right to be free from unlawful restraints upon
personal property.
d) Article 1, Sections 35 and 36, the retention of rights necessary to guarantee
and preserve the blessings of liberty.
234. As a proximate and foreseeable result of Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights, Plaintiffs have suffered severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish
and anxiety, depression, embarrassment, humiliation, expenses, and other damages.
51

COUNT IV
Plaintiff Richards against All Defendants for
FALSE ARREST / IMPRISONMENT
herein.
236. Defendants falsely arrested and imprisoned Plaintiff Richards. Defendants arrested
Plaintiff Richards without legal authority, that is without probable cause.
237. As a proximate and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conduct, Richards has
suffered severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish and anxiety, depression,
embarrassment, humiliation, and her peace of mind has been disturbed such that she is entitled to
recover compensatory damages. Richards has suffered other damages, including but not limited
to bond fees, attorney’s fees, and lost wages.
COUNT V
Plaintiff Caudill against Defendants Clayton, Buchanan/Hartley for
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
herein.
240. Defendants confined and imprisoned Plaintiff Caudill in the control tower during
Katie’s arrest. Defendants illegally restrained Plaintiffs by force or implied threat of force, against
his will.
52

241. Defendants fraudulently led Plaintiff Caudill to believe that it was mandatory that
he stay in the tower. Plaintiff Caudill reasonably believed that he could not leave without being
fired and arrested.
242. Defendants held Plaintiff Caudill without privilege or justification.
243. As a proximate and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish and anxiety, depression, embarrassment,
humiliation, and his peace of mind has been disturbed such that he is entitled to recover
compensatory damages.
COUNT VI
Plaintiff Richards Against Defendants Buchanan/Clayton for
DEFAMATION
herein.
246. Defendants made false statements regarding Plaintiff, including but not limited to
in and related to Buchanan’s June 2, 2017, press release and associated comments made by
Clayton.
247. Defendants made these statements with the intent, knowledge, and hope that the
press would publish these statements and otherwise repeat their comments to the public.
248. Defendants published/made defamatory and false statements of fact, with the
required degree of fault, injuring Plaintiff’s reputation within her trade and otherwise.
53

249. Defendants’ statements and assertions are slanderous as a matter of law in that the
statements and assertions were intended to and did (a) cause injury to Plaintiff’s reputation, (b)
exposed her to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame, or disgrace, and/or (c) affected her
adversely in her trade or business.
250. Defendants made these statements with malice and in retaliation for Plaintiff’s
refusal to write a false statement against Sanchez. Defendants knew when using these words that
they were false and extrinsic evidence of their personal hostility and/or ill feeling toward Plaintiff
proves their malice. The words of their libel themselves also show malice. Defendants had
knowledge of the falsity of their statements.
251. These statements were made of and concerning Plaintiff. Members of the
community are readily able to determine that these statements were made about Plaintiff because
of her history at the Sheriff’s Department and the public display that Defendants made by taking
the added, unusual, and unnecessary step of parading her through the courthouse’s front entrance.
252. Defendants’ actions actually and proximately caused Plaintiff damages. While
damages are presumed, Plaintiff suffered special damages, including the loss of her three jobs.
253. Defendants’ actions were done maliciously, willfully, wantonly, and in a manner
that demonstrates a reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.
254. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for the damages that she has sustained as a result
of their defamatory statements about her.
COUNT VII
Plaintiff Richards against Defendants Clayton/Buchanan for
DEFAMATION (LIBEL PER SE)
herein.
54

256. Defendants made false statements regarding Plaintiff Richards in and related to
their June 2, 2017, press release.
257. Defendants made these statements with the intent, knowledge, and hope that the
press would publish these statements and otherwise repeat his comments to the public.
258. When considered alone without innuendo, these statements charged Plaintiff with
an infamous crime and otherwise tended to subject her to ridicule, contempt, or disgrace. To that
end, Defendants’ statements succeeded in so subjecting Plaintiff to ridicule, contempt, and
disgrace.
259. While innuendo, colloquium, and explanatory circumstances are unnecessary for
the public to conclude that these statements were defamatory, such innuendo, colloquium, and
explanatory circumstances further compounded the harm to Plaintiff. Members of the community
are readily able to determine that these statements were made about Plaintiff because of her
history at the County and the public display that Defendants made by taking the added, unusual,
and unnecessary step of parading her through the courthouse’s front entrance.
260. Defendants’ statements were of and concerning Plaintiff.
261. Defendant’ statements were deliberately published to third parties.
262. The false statements published by Defendants at and through the press defamed and
libeled Plaintiff.
263. Defendants’ false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff were made in the
absence of a privilege or justification.
264. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for the damages that she has sustained as a result
of their defamatory statements about her.
55

COUNT VIII
Plaintiff Richards Against All Defendants for
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
herein.
266. Defendants (a) initiated and/or participated in the proceeding of 12 felony charges
brought against Plaintiff Richards, (b) did so maliciously, and (c) without probable cause.
267. The chief aim of the prosecution against Plaintiff Richards was to accomplish some
collateral and corrupt purpose, i.e., to coerce her into delivering false testimony against Plaintiff
Sanchez.
268. Defendants’ wrongful act of instituting the prosecution was done from actual
malice and in a manner that showed the reckless and wanton disregard of Plaintiff Richard’s
rights. In the alternative, malice can be inferred from the lack of any probable cause.
269. The criminal proceeding ended in favor of Plaintiff Richards, as all 12 felony
charges were ultimately dismissed.
270. As a proximate and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish and anxiety, depression, embarrassment,
humiliation, and her peace of mind has been disturbed such that she is entitled to recover
compensatory damages. Plaintiff also has suffered other damages, including but not limited to
bond fees, attorney’s fees, and lost wages.
56

COUNT IX
All Plaintiffs, including minor child Savannah Richards, against All Defendants for
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
herein.
273. The Individual Defendants used their authority as agents of the Sheriff’s
Department to abuse, harass, falsely imprison, falsely arrest, discriminate against, and otherwise
torment Plaintiffs.
274. The Individual Defendants’ behavior and conduct, acting as agents of the Sheriff’s
Department, exceeds all bounds usually tolerated by a decent society, and was done willfully,
maliciously, and deliberately with the intent to cause Plaintiffs severe mental pain and emotional
distress, or with reckless indifference to the likelihood that such behavior would cause severe
emotional distress and with utter disregard for the consequences of such actions.
275. As a proximate and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs, including
minor child, Savannah Richards, have suffered severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish
and anxiety, depression, embarrassment, humiliation, and their peace of mind has been disturbed
such that they are entitled to recover compensatory damages.
that demonstrates a reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights. As a result of Defendants’ conduct,
57

COUNT X
All Plaintiffs, including minor child Savannah Richards, against All Defendants
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (pled in the alternative to
IIED)
herein.
278. As the sheriff and deputies of the Ashe County Sheriff’s Department, the Individual
Defendants were entrusted with positions that required them to exercise a duty of care toward
Plaintiffs. The Individual Defendants used that authority to abuse, harass, falsely imprison,
falsely arrest, discriminate against, and otherwise torment Plaintiffs.
279. Even assuming Defendants’ conduct did not give rise to an intentional infliction of
emotional distress claim, they otherwise acted negligently in engaging in conduct that was
reasonably foreseeable to cause Plaintiffs severe emotional distress.
280. As a proximate and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs, including
minor child Savannah Richards, have suffered severe emotional distress, severe mental anguish
and anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, expenses, his peace of mind has been disturbed, and
other damages such that they are entitled to recover compensatory damages.
COUNT XI
(Action on the bond claim against Surety and Sheriffs)
herein.
282. As alleged herein, Sheriff of Ashe County, such office formerly occupied by
Buchanan and now occupied by Sheriff Hartley, neglected the duties of the office, and committed
misconduct and/or misbehavior both in official capacity as Sheriff of Ashe County and by and
58

through those under the Sheriff’s command, including but not limited to Defendants Clayton,
Kitts, Anders, and Boyles.
283. The conduct alleged in this Complaint violated the U.S. Constitution, N.C.
Constitution, and/or North Carolina statutory and common law, such that the Surety bond should
be paid to Plaintiffs in its maximum amount.
284. Sheriffs Buchanan and/or Hartley are liable to Plaintiffs for all acts done by virtue
or under color of the Office of Sheriff of Ashe County.
285. Plaintiffs were harmed as a proximate result of such neglect, misconduct, and/or
misbehavior of the office of Sheriff of Ashe County. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to
recover damages from Surety.
59

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray the Court to:
1. Enter a judgment against Defendants and order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs
compensatory damages;
2. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-15, 42 U.S.C. §
1983, and where otherwise available;
3. Award Plaintiffs all reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection
with this action;
4. Award Plaintiffs such other and further equitable relief as the Court deems
appropriate under the circumstances; and
5. Grant Plaintiffs a trial of this matter by a jury.
This the 22nd day of August, 2018.

/s/ Eric Spengler
Eric Spengler (NC Bar No. 47165)
eric@spengleraganslaw.com
SPENGLER & AGANS, PLLC
1713 East Blvd., Ste. B
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Phone: (704)910-5469
Fax: (704) 730-7861
/s/ Sean F. Herrmann

Sean F. Herrmann (NC Bar No. 44453)
sean@vankampenlaw.com
VAN KAMPEN LAW, PC
315 East Worthington Avenue
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Phone: (704) 247-3245
Fax: (704) 749-2638
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
60

Lawsuit Filed Against Ashe Co Sheriff's Office

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawsuit Filed Against Ashe Co Sheriff's Office

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Read this document in other languages

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawsuit Filed Against Ashe Co Sheriff's Office

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

MICHELLE SANCHEZ, CASEY CAUDILL, )

of Ashe County against three of its own employees.

Case 5:18-cv-00136-RJC-DSC Document 1 Filed 08/22/18 Page 1 of 60

and three misdemeanor counts of willfully failing to discharge duties.

questioned his authority or told the truth.

Case 5:18-cv-00136-RJC-DSC Document 1 Filed 08/22/18 Page 2 of 60

jurisdiction, including under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

corrupt, malicious, unconstitutional, willful and wanton conduct, as alleged herein.

North Carolina (hereinafter, the “Detention Center”).

5. Plaintiff Michelle Sanchez (“Michelle”) is a resident of Ashe County, North

Case 5:18-cv-00136-RJC-DSC Document 1 Filed 08/22/18 Page 3 of 60

Richards (“Savannah”), are residents of Pamlico County, North Carolina.

9. Katie’s work history includes eight years as a full-time emergency medical

administration—the Sheriff’s Department essentially threw her to the wolves. Michelle, as

lieutenant, took Katie under her wing in the Detention Center.

by Katie and dismissed all pending charges.

Case 5:18-cv-00136-RJC-DSC Document 1 Filed 08/22/18 Page 4 of 60

areas related to jail operations.

constructively discharged on July 21, 2017.

16. Defendant Terry Buchanan (“Buchanan”) is a resident of Ashe County, North

capacity and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Ashe County.

17. Defendant James Hartley (“Hartley”) is a resident of Ashe County, North

wrongdoing by Sheriff Hartley in his individual capacity.

Case 5:18-cv-00136-RJC-DSC Document 1 Filed 08/22/18 Page 5 of 60

Department under the common law and statutory causes of action.

Department under the common law and statutory causes of action.

20. Defendant Michael (“Mickey”) Boyles (“Boyles”) is a current resident of Yadkin

Case 5:18-cv-00136-RJC-DSC Document 1 Filed 08/22/18 Page 6 of 60

times as the alter ego of the Sheriff of Ashe County.

Case 5:18-cv-00136-RJC-DSC Document 1 Filed 08/22/18 Page 7 of 60

25. Defendant Employers Mutual Casualty Company (“Surety”) is a corporation

their N.C. constitutional claims.

28. In the alternative, defendants have waived any sovereign or governmental

liability insurance policies to the extent of such bonds and policies.

Case 5:18-cv-00136-RJC-DSC Document 1 Filed 08/22/18 Page 8 of 60

Clayton, and Kitts.

Case 5:18-cv-00136-RJC-DSC Document 1 Filed 08/22/18 Page 9 of 60

compensated either by waiver of governmental immunity or without even the assertion of

governmental immunity as a bar to recovery.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

BUCHANAN APPOINTED SHERIFF UNDER DUBIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES

successor. Others wanted a change in the direction of the Sheriff’s Department.

Defendant Terry Buchanan as Sheriff. Everything soon fell apart.

prior sheriff and his supporters.

Case 5:18-cv-00136-RJC-DSC Document 1 Filed 08/22/18 Page 10 of 60

were wholly unqualified for their jobs.

from the Citadel, from which Buchanan’s son also graduated.

WBTV INVESTIGATES BUCHANAN’S APPOINTMENT

42. Buchanan was particularly resistant to charges that he was unqualified to be

Sheriff, or that his appointment was illegitimate.

investigating the peculiar circumstances of Buchanan’s appointment, and he requested—under

Case 5:18-cv-00136-RJC-DSC Document 1 Filed 08/22/18 Page 11 of 60

emails, sent and received by Buchanan and the county commissioners.

The County’s district attorney later categorized Buchanan’s speech as a “diatribe.”

BUCHANAN ON EDGE ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF JAIL MISMANAGEMENT

Case 5:18-cv-00136-RJC-DSC Document 1 Filed 08/22/18 Page 12 of 60

received special privileges and status.)