We Are Improving!

We hope that you'll find our new look appealing and the site easier to navigate than before. Please pardon any 404's that you may see, we're trying to tidy those up!  Should you find yourself on a 404 page please use the search feature in the navigation bar.  

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 

Answers to a lawsuit filed by a Roanoke Rapids police officer against the city, the police department, its former chief and the current district attorney are due by November 25, according to federal court documents.

The four defendants all waived the service of summons in the case as a means to save the expense of having the summons and complaint served, a copy of one of the waivers says.

All the defendants in the lawsuit — the city, its police department, former Chief Chuck Chuck Hasty and District Attorney Valerie Asbell — sent the waivers on September 26 and they have since been returned as executed.

As of this report, no responses to the lawsuit filed by Daniel W. Jenkins, who is a lieutenant within the police department, have been filed earlier than the November 25 deadline.

The officer is asking for damages of $250,000 and any other relief the court deems proper either individually, jointly or in the alternative together with interest, cost of the lawsuit and reasonable attorney fees.

Jenkins claims the action is to recover damages against the defendants for civil conspiracy; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and the violation of the right of procedural due process of the United States Constitution.

The center of the lawsuit goes back to July 28 of 2018 when Jenkins was employed as a canine handler with the department and was called to the scene where a person was stopped for a tail light violation. The driver had a pistol which was within his immediate reach.

Jenkins was called to the scene when the driver asked for a supervisor and, according to the lawsuit, both he and the responding officer who made the traffic stop, after several times of demanding the person exit the vehicle, attempted to remove the individual. 

The lawsuit claims after several attempts by the officers a decision was made to deploy the dog, which bit the driver’s ear causing minor injury.

The lawsuit says the next day Hasty had an officer review the matter for excessive use of force. That officer’s opinion was that Jenkins’ actions showed no wrongdoing.

The lawsuit claims Hasty chose to ignore the finding and complete a second review.