Serving Barnwell County and it's neighbors since 1852
The Barnwell Police Department is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by a Barnwell man.
A lawsuit has been filed against the Barnwell Police Department (BPD) claiming officers violated a local man’s constitutional rights. The lawsuit alleges illegal search and seizure, unreasonable invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, gross negligence, and malicious prosecution.
“As a direct and proximate result of [BPD’s] officers conduct, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the South Carolina Constitution,” states the lawsuit.
Around 3:30 a.m. on November 25, 2022, 26-year-old Robert Allen Davis was arrested and subsequently charged with discharging a firearm within the city limits and public disorderly conduct.
These charges were later dismissed at the magistrate level with prejudice nearly four months after the initial arrest on March 23, 2023. When a case is dismissed with prejudice, it means the case has been permanently dismissed and cannot be retried.
On the date of arrest, Davis was approached at his home by two on-duty BPD patrolmen. According to the incident report, off-duty Lieutenant Shawn Howze contacted the responding officer regarding an allegation of shots being fired near his home adjacent to Rose Street.
Howze has since begun working for the Town of Allendale Police Department and is no longer with BPD, unrelated to this incident.
According to the lawsuit, the lieutenant called Chief Lamaz Robinson who directed Howze to have the patrolmen initiate Davis’ arrest for “Municipal Ordinance Violation Sec. 20-131 ‘Discharging a Firearm within the City Limits.’”
Chief Robinson has since resigned from BPD and is set to accept a job as the administrator of the Town of Allendale, unrelated to this incident.
The People-Sentinel reached out to Chief Robinson with questions regarding this incident, to which he explained BPD does not comment on litigation. However, he did say he was aware of the lawsuit being filed.
The officers “then returned to Plaintiff’s home, entered Plaintiff's home without an arrest warrant or a search warrant, and initiated a custodial arrest of Plaintiff for an alleged violation,” states the lawsuit.
Entering a residence and making an arrest without a warrant violates the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the S.C. constitution, and is an unreasonable invasion of privacy: “The laws of search and seizure are aimed at protecting a basic American right: the right to be left alone,” states the judge’s bench book provided by the S.C. Judicial Department available on the S.C. Courts website.
“On November 25, 2022, Defendant's officer searched Plaintiff’s home, seized, and arrested Plaintiff in an unreasonable manner and without legal justification,” states the lawsuit.
Law enforcement officers must have a warrant, probable cause, or other legal justification in order to search and/or arrest a private citizen. The lawsuit claims BPD officers had none of this prior to entering Davis’ home and arresting him.
“No reasonable law enforcement officer could have believed that the unreasonable seizure and arrest of Plaintiff comported with South Carolina Constitution article 1-10, in light of the clearly established rules for such arrests,” states the lawsuit.
According to the incident report, the responding officer observed three shotgun shells on Davis’ front porch.
The motion for dismissal continues to explain “law enforcement has failed to provide the names of any individuals officers spoke with on the night in question,” and there were no witness statements provided.
According to the incident report, the responding officer attempted to speak to witnesses who “did not want to get any further involved.”
Davis was then transported to the Barnwell County Detention Center (BCDC) for booking.
The lawsuit claims BPD “unlawfully caused Plaintiff to be restrained and detained in plain view of other individuals in Plaintiff’s hometown,” creating unnecessary embarrassment and humiliation.
Seven hours later while still in custody, Davis was served by an officer at BCDC with a ticket for public disorderly conduct. The time of offense on this ticket was listed as the same time as the firearm charge.
“At no point was Plaintiff ever told he was being arrested for violation of S.C. Code 16-17-530 Public Disorderly Conduct,” states the lawsuit.
The public disorderly conduct ticket was written by the BCDC officer who was not present during the investigation of the alleged incident, but had one of the initial patrolman’s signatures.
“Upon information and belief, [the BCDC officer] signed [the patrolman’s] name as the arresting officer,” on the ticket, states the lawsuit.
According to the incident report, this ticket was issued likely because of Davis fighting apprehension and kicking the inside of the patrol unit.
The lawsuit alleges BPD breached its duty to adequately hire, train and supervise arresting officers to comply with state law in six areas:
BPD “engaged in the above-described actions without reasonable and probable grounds for believing that Plaintiff committed any crime,” states the lawsuit.
It was found in 1980 S.C. Supreme Court Case State v. Martin, generally an officer cannot make an arrest without a warrant, but can arrest for a misdemeanor when the officer observes facts and circumstances that allow for probable cause. The lawsuit argues the arresting officer did not have facts nor circumstances to arrest Davis.
“Every individual, regardless of circumstance, deserves the full protection of their constitutional rights. It’s our firm's policy not to comment on the specifics of a pending lawsuit. We are dedicated to ensuring justice prevails,” said Davis’ attorneys, Carson Alexander and Wil Alexander, Alexander & Alexander Attorneys at Law.
As a result of this incident, Davis was subject to “false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, severe emotional distress, lost time, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and suffering, pain and suffering, inconvenience, and was forced to incur unnecessary costs and expenses in defending himself against these criminal charges,” states the lawsuit.
