UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Roanoke Division

CATHY REYNOLDS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) CIVIL ACTION NO. _ 7_:2_1_cv2_2_o_ _ __
SGT. JOEL CAMP, )
in his official and individual capacity, )
)
Serve: ) JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Roanoke City Police Department )
348 Campbell Ave. SW )
Roanoke, VA 24016 )
)
md )
)
DET. JOHN HALEY, )
in his official md individual capacity, )
)
Serve: )
Roanoke City Police Department )
348 Campbell Ave. SW )
Roanoke, VA 24016 )
)
~d )
)
OFFICER DOES 1-5 )
in their official and individual capacity, )
)
Serve: )
Roanoke City Police Department )
348 Campbell Ave. SW )
Roanoke, VA 24016 )
)
Defendants. )
)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Cathy Reynolds ("Ms. Reynolds," or "Plaintiff'), by counsel, and for her

Complaint against Sergeant Joel Camp ("Sgt. Camp"), Detective John Haley ("Det. Haley") and
 Officer Does 1-5 of the Roanoke City Police Department (collectively, "Defendants"), alleges as

follows:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I. Ms. Reynolds, a member in good standing of the Virginia State Bar, suffered

outrageous, unconstitutional abuse at the hands of the Roanoke City Police Department and,

specifically, those individuals identified in this Complaint in retaliation for her representation of

her stepson, Darreonta Lamar Reynolds ("D. Reynolds").

2. Ms. Reynolds is a respected attorney, practicing primarily criminal law, who

participated in the criminal defense of her stepson, D. Reynolds, when he was charged with

murder.

3. Ms. Reynolds was involved with D. Reynolds' case from the beginning, including

appearing with her stepson when he voluntarily appeared for questioning at the Roanoke City

Police Department only days after the alleged murder. She was known to the police as both D.

Reynolds' lawyer and his stepmother.

4. On September 26, 2019, D. Reynolds was acquitted of all charges, thanks to the

efforts of his defense team, including Ms. Reynolds.

5. D. Reynolds' acquittal sparked outrage in the Roanoke law enforcement

community.

6. Just three days after D. Reynolds' acquittal, Defendants targeted Ms. Reynolds for

retaliation. Defendants broke down the front door of Ms. Reynolds' home after she had offered

to let them in, "searched" Ms. Reynolds' home for an individual by destroying her personal

possessions, including those entirely irrelevant to a search for a person, and left Ms. Reynolds

2
r

traumatized, knowing that she could be targeted by police for engaging in constitutionally

protected activity.

7. Defendants did all of this, supposedly, to search for a person who was not, and

had never been, at Ms. Reynolds' home. Defendants secured the authority to enter Ms. Reynolds'

home based on false or fabricated information.

NATURE OF ACTION

8. This is an action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") stemming

from Defendants' retaliation against Ms. Reynolds for engaging in protected speech and for her

association with her stepson, an individual who had recently been acquitted for the charge of

murder, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

9. This Section 1983 action seeks additional damages for the unlawful search of Ms.

Reynolds' home by Defendants following Defendants' application for a search warrant absent

probable cause, arid for the unreasonable damage to her home that resulted from the execution of

the search warrant, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution.

I 0. In addition, Ms. Reynolds brings this action under Section 1983 against the

named Defendants for violation of her rights under the Equal Protection clause, as Defendants

targeted Ms. Reynolds based on her race, Black.

11. Plaintiff seeks reasonable attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ("Section

1988") and other applicable laws.

3
 PARTIES
12. Ms. Reyno lds is a residen t of the Comm onwea lth of Virgin ia who resides
in

Roano ke, Virginia.

13. Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Defend ants Office r Does 1-5 are, and at all times

relevant to this Compl aint, were, workin g for .the City of Roano ke as law enforc
ement officers.

14. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Office r
Does
1-5 were in uniform and displaying their badge of authority.

15. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley and Office r Does

1-5 were acting under color of state law.

16. Officer Does 1-5 are law enforcement officers employ ed by the City of Roano
ke
Police Depart ment who participated in the prosecution of D. Reynolds and, follow
ing D.
Reyno lds' acquittal, participated in the unreasonable search of Ms. Reyno lds'
home.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

complaint pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1331, because this action asserts a depriva

tion of one or more
federal constitutional rights under Section 1983.

18. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events

described in this action took place within this judicial district.

 FACTS

Trial & Acquittal of Darreonta Reynolds

19. In or around March 2019, officers from the City of Roanoke Police Department

arrived at Ms. Reynolds' home to ask that her stepson, D. Reynolds, voluntarily comply with

questioning at the police station.

20. Sgt. Camp was among the law enforcement officers who appeared at Ms.

Reynolds' home on this occasion.

21. Later, in March 2019, the City of Roanoke indicted D. Reynolds on criminal

charges arising from the shooting and death of another individual at a Triangle Mart in Roanoke,

Virginia.

22. Ms. Reynolds, an attorney, worked alongside two other attorneys to represent her

stepson in his defense against these criminal charges.

23. Ms. Reynolds is Black. The two other attorneys who defended Ms. Reynolds'

stepson are white.

24. Det. Haley served as a critical witness for the prosecution ofD. Reynolds.

25. Sgt. Camp and other law enforcement officers testified against D. Reynolds

during the trial.

26. On September 26, 2019, a jury acquitted D. Reynolds on all charges, having

found he acted in self-defense during the incident in question.

27. The City of Roanoke released D. Reynolds from custody on September 26, 2019.

Police Contact at Ms. Revno/ds' Home Following Her Stepson's Acquittal

5
 28. On September 29, 2019, three days after D. Reynolds' acquittal and release from

custody, Officers from the Roanoke City Police Department made contact with
Ms. Reynolds
and her family at her home in Roanoke, Virginia.

29. These officers included Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and a number of other officers
,
Officer Does 1-5, whom Ms. Reynolds recognized as having been involved in
the questioning
and prosecution of her stepson, but whose names she does not recall.

30. These officers informed Ms. Reynolds they believed Ozmeik Clements

("Clements"), an individual for whom an arrest warrant had been issued, to be

inside Ms.
Reynolds' home.

31 . Ms. Reynolds informed the officers she did not know Clements and he could not

be found inside of her home.

32. Officers from the Roanoke City Police Department informed Ms. Reynolds they

intended to return with a search warrant.

33. Several officers remained outside of Ms. Reynolds' home while other officers
left
to obtain a search warrant.

34. One officer noted that Ms. Reynolds had made progress on her home renovations

since that officer had last been at her home to question her stepson in March 2019.

35. Specifically, the officer noted that Ms. Reynolds had completed the installation
of
new roofing shingles on her home, a project which had been ongoing and only
partially
completed in March 2019. The officer stated to Ms. Reynolds, "I see you got your
house done."
36. Ms. Reynolds desired the interaction to end and granted the officers who

remained posted outside of her home consent to search her home for Clements.

6
 37. Ms. Reynolds specifically informed officers of the Roanoke City Police

Department that her front door was unlocked and would remain unlocked should
they desire to
enter her home to look for Clements.

38. Despite her consent, Defendants chose not to search Ms. Reynolds' home at that

time.

39. Defendants returned with a search warrant approximately two hours later.

40. Prior to their return, federal law enforcement agents from the Bureau of Alcoho
l,
Tobacco, and Firearms ("A TF") set up a staging area in the parking lot of a church
across the
street from Ms. Reynolds' home.

41. Ms. Reynolds observed Det. Haley speaking and coordinating with the ATF

agents present in this staging area.

42. Defendants closed the road on which Ms. Reynolds' home is located and

surrounded the perimeter of her home with yellow police caution tape.

43. By the time Defendants returned with a search warrant, approximately two-

hundred spectators and news vehicles had gathered in front of Ms. Reynolds'
home.

Defendants Obtained a Warrant to Search Ms. Reynolds' Home

44. Sgt. Camp obtained a search warrant for Ms. Reyno lds' home at 6:01pm on

September 29, 2019. The warrant and affidavit in support are attached hereto
as Exhibi t A.

45. The search warrant obtained by Sgt. Camp authorized the search of Ms.

Reyno lds' home for "the person of Ozmeik Rae Quan Clements." Ex. A.

46. The search warrant issued in relation to "a person to be arrested for whom a

warran t or proces s for arrest." Ex. A.

7
 47. The probable cause affidavit accompanying the warrant provides as follows:

On September 29, 2019, your affiant received a call from ATF

Special Agent Teehan. SA Teehan advised that around 1400 hours
on this date, he received a call from a reliable confidential informant
(Cl) who has provided reliable information to him on multiple
occasions recently. CI advised that they had observed Ozmeik
Clements on the front porch of [Ms. Reynold's home address] with
Aaron Reynolds and Darreonta Reynolds. CI advised that they have
observed Clements at that address on more than one occasion in the
past couple days and believe he is residing there. Roanoke Police
currently have a Detention Order for Clements for Murder. Officers
have had that address under surveillance since 1430 hours and
confirm that Aaron and Darreonta Reynolds are there. A search
warrant for [Ms. Reynold's home address] and the curtilage is
requested to apprehend Ozmeik Clements.

Ex.A.

48. Sgt. Camp indicated he had personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the

affidavit and/or that he was advised of the facts set forth in the affidavit, in whole or in part,
by
one or more other person(s). Ex. A.

49. Sgt. Camp swore to the credibility of the person(s) providing this information to

him and/or the reliability of the information provided. Ex. A.

50. Upon information and belief, the affidavit sworn to by Sgt. Camp contains false

information.

51. SA Teehan did not receive a tip from a confidential informant providing that

Clements had been observed at Ms. Reynolds' home.

52. Clements had not been present at Ms. Reynolds' home during the dates specified

in the probable cause affidavit.

53. Sgt. Camp knew that no tip had been received from a confidential informant, but

provided this information in his affidavit for the purpose of misleading the magistrate in order
to
secure a search warrant of Ms. Reynolds' home.

8
 54. Even if Sgt. Camp did receive such a tip from SA Teehan, Sgt. Camp knew
the
substance of the tip to be false.

55. Sgt. Camp knew that Clements had not been at or near Ms. Reynolds'
home on
the dates specified in the probable cause affidavit.

56. Sgt. Camp lacked information necessary to establish the credibility of

the
confidential informant, the veracity of the information provided by the
confidential informant,
and/or to support the conclusion provided in the affidavit that Clements
had been residing - and
therefore would be located - in or near Ms. Reynolds' home.

57. The probable cause affidavit sworn to by Sgt. Camp does not provide
any reason
to believe Clements would be found in or near Ms. Reynold's home on
the date for which the
search warrant issued, September 29, 2019. Ex. A.

58. The probable cause affidavit does not provide that Clements had been
seen in or
near Ms. Reynold's home on September 29, 2019. Ex. A.

59. To the contrary, the affidavit provides surveillance of Ms. Reyno ld's
home for
during the hours leading up to the issuance of the search warrant confir
med the presence of
Aaron and Darreonta Reynolds only. Ex. A.

60. Sgt. Camp purposefully omitted information regarding the credibility

of the
informant, material to a finding of probable cause, for the purpose of
mislea ding the magistrate
in order to secure a search warra nt of Ms. Reyno lds' home.

61. Sgt. Camp purposefully omitted information regard ing the date, time,
and numb er
of occasi ons on which Clements had been observ ed at Ms. Reyno lds'
home, mater ial to a finding

of proba ble cause, for the purpo se of misleading the magis trate in
or4er to secure a search

warra nt of Ms. Reyno lds' home.

9
 62. Sgt. Camp purposefully omitted information necessary to support the conclusion

that Clements had been residing at Ms. Reynolds' home, material to a finding of probable cause,

for the purpose of misleading the magistrate in order to secure a search warrant of Ms. Reynolds'

home.

63. The presence or absence of Clements in or near Ms. Reynolds' home is material

to a finding of probable cause, as the purpose of the search warrant is limited to the apprehension

of Clements.

Unnecessary and Excessively Destructive Search of Ms. Reynolds' Home

64. Officers from Roanoke City Police Department's Special Weapons and Tactics

("SWAT") team arrived in an armored vehicle and parked in Ms. Reynolds' driveway.

65. Despite both the screen and storm door at the front entrance of Ms. Reynolds'

home remaining unlocked, SWAT officers used an entry tool attached to the front of the armored

vehicle to puncture the screen door and rip it free from Ms. Reynolds' home in its entirety.

66. In so doing, SWAT officers damaged the screen door beyond repair, heavily

damaged the door frame surrounding the front entry, and tore vinyl siding from the exterior of

Ms. Reynolds' newly remodeled home.

67. SWAT officers then entered Ms. Reynolds' home by turning the doorknob of the

storm door which remained on Ms. Reynolds' home, still unlocked, and pushing the door open in

the manner a door is designed to operate.

68. SWAT officers entered Ms. Reynolds' home and proceeded to search it,

supposedly for the sole purpose of locating Clements, for approximately 2-3 hours.
 69. During their search of Ms. Reynolds' home, SWAT officers opened and searched

all of the drawers in Ms. Reynolds' kitchen and detached Ms. Reynolds' appliances from the

walls of her home.

70. SWAT officers flipped the mattresses off all of the beds in Ms. Reynolds' home

and tore all of the clothes from the closets in the bedrooms.

71. SWAT officers tore the cushions off Ms. Reynolds' furniture and emptied the

contents of open soda cans onto the floor.

72. The SWAT officers who conducted the search caused thousands of dollars of

damage to Ms. Reynolds' home.

73. The two white attorneys who represented Ms. Reynolds' stepson did not have

their homes searched.

74. Ms. Reynolds filed a complaint with the Roanoke City Police Department

regarding the damage caused to her home by the SWAT officers.

75. To date, Ms. Reynolds' complaint is still under investigation and she has not been

reimbursed for any of the damage caused to her home.

COUNTI
Civil Rights Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
Unreasonable Search and Unreasonably Destructive Search
Against All Defendants

76. The allegations in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated as if realleged

herein.

77. At alJ material times, Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Officer Does 1-5 were acting

under color of state or local law.

11
 78. By their actions, Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Officer Does 1-5 deprived Plaintiff

of the established right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, in violation of Plaintiffs

rights under Section 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

79. Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Officer Does 1-5 caused excessive and unnecessary

destruction of property in the course of their search of Ms. Reynolds' home and in violation of

her rights under Section 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

80. Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, arid Officer Does 1-5 lacked probable cause to believe

that Clements was present in Ms. Reynolds' home.

81. The probable cause affidavit sworn to by Sgt. Camp contained information Sgt.

Camp knew to be false.

82. Sgt. Camp knowingly provided false information in the affidavit for the purpose

of securing a search warrant without probable cause.

83. Sgt. Camp knowingly omitted material information from the affidavit for the

purpose of misleading the magistrate so as to secure a search warrant for Ms. Reynolds' home

without probable cause.

84. The search warrant obtained by Sgt. Camp was not supported by adequate

probable cause and should not have issued.

85. Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Officer Does 1-5 exceeded the scope of the search

warrant issued for Ms. Reynolds' home and caused excessive and unnecessary damage to her

home as a result.

12
 Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Officer Does 1-5 used excessive force in executing
86.

the search of Ms. Reynolds' home and caused extensive damage to her property.

87. T he force used by Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley' and Officer Does 1-5 was not necessary

to carry out the purpose of searching Ms. Reynolds' home for Clements.

88. The damage caused by Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Officer Does 1-5 was not

plausibly connected to the seizure of Clements.

89. Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory and monetary relief, including compensatory

damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

COUNT II
Civil Rights Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: First and Fourteenth Amendments
Interference with Free Speech & Association
Against All Defendants

90. The allegations in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated as if realleged

herein.

91. Ms. Reynolds engaged in protected speech when she advocated for the acquittal

of the criminal charges against her stepson, D. Reynolds, in Court.

92. Ms. Reynolds' continued association with her stepson is also protected under the

First Amendment.

93. Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Officer Does 1-5, acting under the color of state law,

retaliated against Ms. Reynold's for her engagement in protected speech and for her association

with her stepson when they targeted Ms. Reynold's family and home and subjected Ms.

Reynold's to a destructive search of her property absent probable cause.

13
 . der the color of state law,
94. Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Officer Does 1-5' actmg un
. h b performing a search
retaliated against Ms. Reynold's for her engagement m protected speec Y
· d · anner
of Ms. Reynold's home in an unnecessary and excessively estructive m ·

95. By their actions, Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Officer Does 1-5 deprived Plaiotiff
nd
of the established right to free speech, in violation of Plaintiffs rights under Section 1983 a

the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

96. The decision by Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Officer Does 1-5 to search Ms.

Reynolds ' home was motivated by a desire to retaliate against Ms. Reynolds for her engagement

in protected speech and her association with her stepson.

97. The decision by Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Officer Does 1-5 to complete the

search of Ms. Reynolds' home in an unnecessary and excessively destructive manner was

motivated by a desire to retaliate against Ms. Reynolds for her engagement in protected speech

and her association with her stepson.

98. The retaliatory actions of Sgt. Camp, Det. Haley, and Officer Does 1-5 bear an

adverse effect on protected speech.

99. Defendants' actions are likely to deter individuals from exercising their First

Amendment rights where doing so requires challenging criminal charges brought against

themselves or others by law enforcement.

100. Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory and monetary relief, including compensatory

damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

COUNTIII
Equal Protection Viola_tio~ o! 42 ~.S.C. § 1983: Fourteenth Amendment
D1scr1mmat10n Based on Race
Against All Defendants
 10 1. The allegations in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated as if realleged

herein.

102. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 protects against the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" by persons acting under the color of law.

103. All Defendants are "persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

104. Ms. Reynolds is Black and part of a protected class under the Equal Protection

Clause.

105. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, discrimination

based on race is presumptively unconstitutional and subject to heightened scrutiny.

106. Defendants' decision to conduct an unreasonable and excessively destructive

search of Ms. Reynolds' property was motivated by the fact that Ms. Reynolds is Black.

107. Defendants' actions were motivated by racial animus and constituted purposeful

discrimination.

108. The white attorneys, who also engaged in protected speech in their defense of Ms.

Reynold's stepson, were not subjected to unreasonable and excessively destructive searches of

their homes by Defendants.

109. Defendants targeted Ms. Reynolds based on her race, subjecting her to a

destructive search of her property to which the similarly-situated white attorneys with whom she

worked were not subjected.

110. Defendants' disparate treatment of Ms. Reynolds resulted in severe emotional

distress in addition to the damage Defendants' investigation caused to her property and sense of

security in her own home.

15
 111. Accordingly, Defendants have violated Ms. Reynold's right to equal protection

under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

PRAY ER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CATHY REYNOLDS requests that this Court enter judgme
nt in
her favor, and against Defendants SGT. JOEL CAMP, DET. JOHN HALEY and
OFFICER
DOES 1-5 on all Counts and further:

(a) Award compensatory damages to Plaintiff Cathy Reynolds, plus past and future

pecuniary damages on each of the above-stated Counts in an amount that can only
be
determined through discove'ry;

(b) Award Plainti ff Cathy Reynolds punitive damages as to each of her respect
ive Counts
in amounts to be determined at trial;

(c) · Award attorne y's fees, costs, and expenses incurred by Plaintiff Cathy Reynol
ds in
this action pursua nt to statute; and

(d) For any further relief this Court deems just and appropriate under the circum
stances .

JURY DEMAND

PLAIN TIFF CATH Y REYNOLDS DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY.

Dated: April 19, 2021 Respectfully,

Isl
Joshua Erlich, VA Bar No. 81298
Davia Craumer, VA Bar No. 87426
Katherine L. Herrmann, VA Bar No. 83203

16