by Sam Rutherford

In a case containing factual allegations that seem like they were lifted from a movie or novel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded for trial a federal civil rights action in which the plaintiff alleged that local police altered police reports after he was the victim of a serious car accident caused by a drunk driver. And what was the cops’ motive? Well, they were mad at the plaintiff because he had previously exposed one of their own as a liar.

It all began in January 2020 when Norfolk, Virginia, police officer John D. McClanahan arrested Brandon Williams on a misdemeanor trespassing charge. Williams recorded his interactions with McClanahan that day. When the trespassing charge went to trial, McClanahan testified falsely, and Williams was convicted. Williams timely appealed and used his recording to show that McClanahan had lied under oath. The state appeals court reversed the conviction and dismissed the charges against Williams on September 15, 2020.

Fifteen days later, on September 30, Williams was seriously injured in a car accident when Rex Aman, who was drunk and driving over 75 miles per hour, swerved out of his lane, and smashed into Williams’ car. Multiple people witnessed the accident, which left a debris field scattered over the road.

Officers McClanahan and Rodney Van Faussien responded to the scene and immediately recognized Williams. They allegedly talked about and pointed at him. Van Faussien purportedly said, “[t]his is the guy that gave McClanahan a ration of shit.” Despite evidence clearly indicating that Aman was the at fault party, including a field sobriety test showing his blood alcohol level was .30 and eyewitnesses describing his erratic driving, the officers falsely wrote in their reports that Aman was sober, driving the speed limit, and his car suffered a steering malfunction.

The officers’ apparent motive for falsifying the reports—deprive Williams of his right to sue Aman in retaliation for Williams previously exposing McClanahan as a perjurer in the trespass case.

Williams sued the officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging retaliation for the exercise of his First and Sixth Amendment rights. He also asserted a conspiracy claim and two Virginia state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court threw out Williams’ lawsuit, reasoning that he had failed to plead a sufficient adverse action because falsifying a police report would not chill his future exercise of his right to a criminal trial or his right to record police in the future. It also dismissed without prejudice his state-law claims. Williams timely appealed.

The Court disagreed with the District Court. It held that the officers’ actions of falsifying the accident report to deprive Williams of his ability to sue Aman were clearly in retaliation for Williams previously recording McClanahan and then using that recording to prove that McClanahan testified falsely.

In order to recover for First and Sixth Amendment retaliation claims, the plaintiff must allege that “(1) he engaged in protected activity, (2) the defendant took some action that adversely affected his constitutional rights, and (3) there was a causal relationship between his protected activity and the defendant’s conduct.” Suarez Corp. Indus. v. McGraw, 202 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2000).

The Court began by addressing the first and third elements, which it stated Williams “straightforwardly satisfied.” Recording an interaction with the police is undoubtedly a protected First Amendment activity, so Williams satisfied the first element. Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep’t, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023). Similarly, his demand for a trial on the trespassing charged and challenging McClanahan’s testimony at trial was a clear exercise of his Sixth Amendment right, according to the Court.

As to the third element, in order to show a causal relationship, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant knew that the plaintiff was engaging in protect activity and “some degree of temporal proximity.” Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2005). The Court concluded that Williams satisfied this element by noting that Van Faussien pointed at Williams and stated that he’s the “guy that gave McClanahan a ration of shit.” This incident occurred only 15 days after the appeals court dismissed the charges against Williams.

 Turning to the second element, the Court stated that given the “significant power imbalance in Williams’ relationship with the police, as he is a Black man who had recently exposed an officer’s perjury” and “the extreme lengths these officers were willing to go to punish Williams for exercising his constitutional rights,” he had alleged facts sufficient to establish that a person of “ordinary firmness” would be deterred “from recording police activity, challenging an officer’s testimony, and vigorously defending oneself at trial in the future.” Thus, the Court ruled that Williams had “alleged a First and Sixth Amendment retaliation claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.”

Accordingly, the Court vacated the District Court’s opinion dismissing Williams’ civil rights suit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Because the District Court’s dismissal of Williams’ conspiracy and state law intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were dependent on its ruling on the retaliation claim, the Court also vacated the order dismissing those claims. See: Williams v. Mitchell, 122 F.4th 85 (4th Cir. 2024).  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal cases