Case 1:23-cv-00098 Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DAVID CRAFT,

Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00098

JOHN D. GILLS, individually,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

This complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fourth Amendment

to the United States Constitution, arises out of the defendant’s commission of federal

constitutional violations committed against the plaintiff from and in McDowell County, West

Virginia, beginning on or about February 8, 2021 and continuing through about July 28, 2022,

within the Bluefield Division of the Southern District of West Virginia.

INTRODUCTION

1. On February 8, 2021, the defendant natural resources police officers with the West

Virginia Department of Natural Resources, traveled to the Plaintiff’s home in North Carolina and

seized two sets of trophy-sized deer antlers from Plaintiff’s taxidermist, bringing them to West

Virginia, where they would be held by defendants until July 28, 2022.

2. Also on February 8, 2021, while standing in the driveway of Plaintiff’s home in

North Carolina, Defendant John D. Gills issued several handwritten citations to the Plaintiff,

1
 Case 1:23-cv-00098 Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 2

charging him with multiple criminal violations of West Virginia hunting laws pertaining to the

two trophy deer whose antlers they seized.

3. On February 26, 2021, Defendant Gills posed for a photograph, holding the two

sets of Plaintiff’s trophy deer antlers, for a media story in West Virginia Metro News, Outdoor

Section. The headline was, “North Carolina Man Faces Serious Poaching Charges in W. Va.”

4. The media report alleged that Defendant Gills and his colleagues were “able to

come up with photographs and other physical evidence . . . which proved both bucks were killed

in West Virginia,” as opposed to one of the bucks having been “actually checked in as being

killed in North Carolina.” Gills further was quoted in the report as stating, “Now, North Carolina

investigators are closely watching the West Virginia case and the individual will likely face

charges in his home state as well.

2
 Case 1:23-cv-00098 Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 3

5. In the media report, Defendant Gills noted that the two sets of deer antlers were of

“trophy status,” and that the West Virginia legislature had recently increased so-called

“replacement costs” for trophy bucks found to have been illegally killed. He stated that “since

these two are trophy status, the figures ramp way up” and that “the replacement cost for these

two deer, both of which are Pope and Young Record Book caliber, will be in the range of

$15,000.” Gill called the potential fines “a major weapon to deter poaching of big bucks in his

county,” implying that Plaintiff was poaching trophy deer in McDowell County, West Virginia.

6. After multiple hearings and requests for continuances from the State, on April 21,

2022, all the charges against Plaintiff were dismissed upon the motion of the prosecuting

attorney. The dismissal order noted that the motion was made at the request of Defendant Gills,

the investigating officer.

7. On July 28, 2022, the two sets of antlers were finally returned to the Plaintiff.

However, the “capes” attached to the antlers were ruined, affecting the ability of a taxidermist to

properly mount the trophy antlers.

JURISDICTION

8. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff David Craft is currently a resident of Mercer County, West Virginia.

During all relevant times hereto however, Plaintiff was a resident of the State of North Carolina.

10. Defendant Natural Resources Police Officer John D. Gills was at all times

relevant hereto a sworn police officer employed by the West Virginia Department of Natural

3
 Case 1:23-cv-00098 Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 4

Resources, and was at all times relevant hereto acting under color of law. He is named herein in

his individual capacity.

11. Defendant Natural Resources Police Officer Andy Damewood was at all times

relevant hereto a sworn police officer employed by the West Virginia Department of Natural

Resources, and was at all times relevant hereto acting under color of law. He is named herein in

his individual capacity.

FACTS

12. McDowell County, West Virginia is one of West Virginia’s only bowhunting only

counties, having a reputation for thereby growing deer with larger antlers, due to the lack of

hunter competition, as would naturally exist with a general gun hunting season in the county.

13. Defendant John D. Gills is a West Virginia Natural Resources Police Officer

tasked with enforcing state wildlife laws within McDowell County. Defendant Andy Damewood

is also a West Virginia Natural Resources Police Officer tasked with enforcing wildlife laws

within the vicinity of McDowell County.

14. In the Fall hunting season of 2020, Plaintiff killed two trophy deer - one in

McDowell County, West Virginia, as well as one in his home-state of North Carolina. Plaintiff

expended a large amount of effort, skill and experience in hunting and successfully taking the

two trophy-sized bucks. Both deer were lawfully taken, properly tagged and registered in each

respective state. Plaintiff killed the McDowell County deer on private property on which he had

permission to hunt at the time the deer was killed. Thereafter, Plaintiff transported both sets of

antlers to a North Carolina taxidermist for proper mounting.

4
 Case 1:23-cv-00098 Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5

15. Plaintiff is originally from McDowell County, West Virginia and has numerous

family members in the area. He moved to North Carolina for work. He has since relocated back

to West Virginia.

16. On or about late January, 2021, the defendant officers opened a criminal

investigation into the Plaintiff after after members of a McDowell County private hunting club

apparently saw photos of Plaintiff’s hunting success and speculated to the defendant officers that

Plaintiff’s deer may have been illegally killed on their land by an out-of-state hunter.

17. Upon information and belief, the defendant officers were more concerned with

protecting local hunters from out-of-state hunters, than with performing an unbiased

investigation into whether any crimes had been committed by the Plaintiff.

18. Moreover, upon information and belief, the defendant officers were additionally

concerned with seizing the Plaintiff’s trophy antlers themselves, so as to gain notoriety, enrich

their employer through increased fines, as well as the ability to display the antlers for the West

Virginia Department of Natural Resources, than they were with performing an unbiased

investigation into whether any crimes had been committed by the Plaintiff.

19. During their investigation, at no point did the officers obtain evidence that

Plaintiff had committed any crime. Nevertheless, they determined to seize the antlers and charge

the Plaintiff with numerous wildlife violations, in what amounted to a “charge first and gather

evidence later” prosecution strategy.

20. On February 8, 2021, defendants Gills and Damewood traveled to Plaintiff’s

home in North Carolina, where they met with some North Carolina wildlife officers. Prior to

traveling to North Carolina, the defendant officers did not obtain a warrant, or other court order,

5
 Case 1:23-cv-00098 Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 6

authorizing the seizure of Plaintiff’s antlers - either in West Virginia or North Carolina.

Moreover, neither did the officers seek or obtain an arrest warrant for the Plaintiff - either in

West Virginia or North Carolina.

21. Upon information and belief, neither did the North Carolina wildlife officers

obtain a warrant or other court order authorizing the seizure of Plaintiff’s deer antlers in North

Carolina courts. Nor did they ever seek or pursue any criminal charges against the Plaintiff.

22. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s two sets of antlers were seized on February 8, 2021,

without his consent, and in the absence of any lawful warrant, court order, or applicable

exception. The defendant officers acted maliciously and with knowledge that they were seizing

Plaintiff’s antlers illegally and without probable cause and a warrant.

23. On February 8, 2021, the defendant officers approached and questioned the

Plaintiff in the driveway of his North Carolina home. He answered all of their questions and

maintained that he lawfully killed both deer. However, after locating and seizing the antlers at

Plaintiff’s taxidermist, the defendants returned to Plaintiff’s home and issued him multiple

handwritten West Virginia citations, including two counts of hunting without permission, in

violation of WV Code 20-2-7, two violations of illegal possession of wildlife with enhanced

penalties, in violation of WV Code 20-2-4, two violations of hunting without a “class Y permit”

in violation of WV Code 20-2-42w, one count of hunting after the legal limit in violation of WV

Code 20-1-7(32), one count of “allowed 1 deer with bow” under WV Code 20-1-17(b)(7), and

hunting without an “s stamp” in violation of WV Code 20-2-42.

24. Plaintiff was forced to travel from North Carolina to Welch, West Virginia for

multiple court appearances for the charges. At the request of the State, the hearings were

6
 Case 1:23-cv-00098 Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 7

continued multiple times due to representations to the court and the parties that the defendant

officers were awaiting DNA testing results. However, no verification was ever provided to

Plaintiff, or his counsel, that DNA testing had ever been requested, nor occurred.

25. Upon information and belief, the defendant officers were conveying false

information to the Court, as well as the Plaintiff, in order to attempt to coerce him into waiving

his right to a jury trial, allowing them to keep the Plaintiff’s antlers. However, Plaintiff refused to

do so, and invoked his demand for a jury trial, which was set to occur in April of 2022.

26. As the trial date approached, the State moved to dismiss all charges so as to avoid

the obligation of presenting evidence to a jury. The motion to dismiss filed by the State indicated

that the request was done pursuant to the request of the defendant officers.

27. Upon information and belief, the defendant officers were aware that they lacked

evidence establishing even probable cause that Plaintiff had committed any wildlife violations, or

other crimes under West Virginia law.

28. Several months later, on or about July 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s trophy antlers were

finally returned to him. Unfortunately however, the “capes” attached to the antlers were ruined

while in the State’s possession, resulting in a loss of value and loss of the ability to have a

taxidermist properly mount the trophy antlers.

29. Despite the initial media story about Plaintiff being an out-of-state poacher who

was supposedly facing serious fines and criminal convictions in two different states, no

redaction, clarification, or other public statement was made by the defendant officers, or by the

West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Nor was any apology made to the Plaintiff.

7
 Case 1:23-cv-00098 Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 8

COUNT ONE - UNREASONABLE SEIZURE UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983

30. The previous paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully

restated herein.

31. In the recent Supreme Court opinion in Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S.

(2022), the Court clarified the application of malicious prosecution claims under Section 1983.

The Court held that a plaintiff in a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim is not required to

show that his criminal prosecution ended with an affirmative indication of his innocence. Rather,

a plaintiff only needs to show “that his prosecution ended without a conviction.” The charges

herein ended without a conviction.

32. Plaintiff was charged and prosecuted for multiple alleged wildlife-related crimes

in the Magistrate Court of McDowell County. The charges were filed and prosecuted maliciously

and for improper purposes.

33. Defendants knew, and were aware, that the prosecution of David Craft was

frivolous and malicious, as evidenced by the fact that they requested dismissal of the charges

prior to the jury trial commencing for no obvious reason, other than a lack of evidence. Despite

being aware from the very beginning that no probable cause existed to charge and prosecute the

Plaintiff, much less convict him, defendants chose to force Plaintiff to undergo over a year of

criminal prosecution, with multiple court hearings, before finally dropping the charges.

34. The charges were finally dropped because the defendants had no evidence to

present against the Plaintiff. Defendants knew that was the case from the very beginning. Instead,

defendants opted to force Mr. Craft to undergo the humiliating process of being prosecuted for

8
 Case 1:23-cv-00098 Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 9

over a year, multiple court hearings, as well as public humiliation in the news media with false

allegations and statements about the Plaintiff.

35. The defendant officers violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights to be free

from malicious prosecution. The defendants caused criminal proceedings to be instituted and

maintained against the Plaintiff; they did so with malice and without probable cause; the

proceeding terminated in Plaintiff’s favor and without conviction; Plaintiff was unlawfully seized

as a result of the criminal proceedings; defendants’ conduct caused Plaintiff’s injuries;

defendants acted under color of law.

36. Plaintiff suffered damages for which he is entitled to recover.

COUNT TWO - UNREASONABLE SEIZURE UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983

37. The previous paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully

restated herein.

38. Plaintiff’s two sets of trophy deer antlers were seized and held by the defendants,

beginning on February 8, 2021 and ending on July 28, 2022, when the property was finally

returned to the Plaintiff.

39. Plaintiff was at all times relevant hereto the owner of the deer antlers. Though he

placed them temporarily in the possession of a taxidermist for mounting, he never authorized or

consented to any transfer of possession, or seizure, to the defendant police officers.

40. Plaintiff’s deer antlers were seized in North Carolina by the two defendant police

officers on February 8, 2021, without a warrant or other court order, being issued from either

West Virginia or North Carolina. Accordingly, the initial seizure of Plaintiff’s deer antlers were

9
 Case 1:23-cv-00098 Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 10

performed in violation of the Fourth Amendment. No applicable exception to the warrant

requirement applies to justify the initial seizure of the antlers by defendants.

41. Even so, “[t]he Fourth Amendment doesn’t become irrelevant once an initial

seizure has run its course.” Jessop v. City of Fresno, 936 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2019); citing

Brewster v. Beck, 859 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 2017).

42. In Mom’s Inc. v. Willman, 109 F. App’x 629, 636-37 (4th Cir. 2004), federal

agents failed to return the plaintiff’s watch after the execution of a search warrant. Id. at 633.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), the

court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment “regulates all [] interference” with an individual’s

possessory interests in property, “not merely the initial acquisition of possession.” Mom’s, 109 F.

App’x at 637. Thus, because the agents’ theft of the watch interfered with the plaintiff’s interest

in it, “such theft violates the Fourth Amendment.” Id; see also Jessop v. City of Fresno, 936 F.3d

937 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that officers stealing $225,000 otherwise lawfully seized pursuant to

a valid search warrant violates the Fourth Amendment rights of the owner).

43. It was clearly established law on February 8, 2021 that police officers would be in

violation of the Fourth Amendment by seizing and holding Plaintiff’s personal property (deer

antlers) in the absence of a warrant, court order, and/or valid exception to the warrant

requirement. See, e.g., Mom’s Inc. v. Willman, 109 F. App’x 629, 636-37 (4th Cir. 2004).

44. The defendant officers violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights to be free

from unreasonable search and seizure. Defendants intentionally committed acts that violated

Plaintiff’s constitutional right not to have his property unreasonably seized; Defendants conduct

caused Plaintiff’s injuries; Defendants acted under color of law.

10
 Case 1:23-cv-00098 Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 11

45. Plaintiff suffered damages for which he is entitled to recover.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, based on the above stated facts, the plaintiffs respectfully requests that

this Honorable Court award:

1. Damages against the defendants in an amount to be determined at trial which will

fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiffs for all compensatory damages to be proven at

trial;

2. Punitive damages against the individual defendants in an amount to be determined

at trial; and

3. Reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY

DAVID CRAFT,
By Counsel

/s John H. Bryan
John H. Bryan (WV Bar No. 10259)
JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
411 Main Street
P.O. Box 366
Union, WV 24983
(304) 772-4999
Fax: (304) 772-4998
jhb@johnbryanlaw.com

11