Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
) SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF LANCASTER. )
) CASE NO: 2023-CP-29-
)
)
QUINTERIUS LAMONT CLINTON, )
)
)
PLAINTIFF, )
VS. ) SUMMONS
)
)
THE CITY OF LANCASTER, SOUTH )
CAROLINA, SEAN DONALD TAYLOR )
(IN BOTH HIS INDIVIDUAL AND )
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY), & )
PHILLIP HALL (IN BOTH HIS )
INDIVIDUAL AND PROFESSIONAL )
AND PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY) )
)
)
DEFENDANTS. )
______________________________ )
TO: THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the complaint herein, a copy
of which is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to this complaint upon
the subscriber, at the address shown below, within thirty (30) days after service hereof, exclusive
of the day of such service, and it you fail to answer the complaint, judgment by default will be
rendered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
September 24, 2023
_________________________________
M. Ryan Payne, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
The Law Office of M. Ryan Payne, LLC
PO BOX 575
Heath Springs, SC 29058
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
) SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF LANCASTER )
) CASE NO: 2023-CP-29-
)
)
QUINTERIUS LAMONT CLINTON, )
)
)
PLAINTIFF, )
VS. ) COMPLAINT
)
)
THE CITY OF LANCASTER, SOUTH )
CAROLINA, SEAN DONALD TAYLOR )
(IN BOTH HIS INDIVIDUAL AND )
OFFICIAL CAPACITY), )
PHILLIP HALL (IN BOTH HIS )
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL )
CAPACITY) )
)
)
DEFENDANTS. )
______________________________ )
The Plaintiff named herein, complaining of the Defendants, would respectfully show unto
this Honorable Court and allege as follows:
PREFACE
This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Plaintiff’s
constitutional right be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, excessive force, false
imprisonment, and excessive bail under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution. Plaintiff alleges law enforcement officers Sean Donald Taylor
and Phillip Hall, who at the time of this incident were employed by the City of Lancaster Police
Department, as part of a plan, scheme, and practice, harassed citizens by fabricating fraudulent
grounds and using false warrants signed by officers with no first-hand knowledge of the facts of
2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
cases to arrest innocent citizens who are without substantial financial means to assert their legal
and constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges Sean Taylor and Phillip Hall, with the City of
Lancaster Police Department, without provocation, assaulted and attempted to physically abuse
Plaintiff by firing three shots at his vehicle during a traffic stop for speeding and reckless
driving. Sean Taylor and Phillip Hall, along with the City of Lancaster Police Department, then
created false charges and arrested Plaintiff. Phillip Hall, the acting chief of police at the time of
this incident, had knowledge of prior incidents of Sean Taylor’s history of policy violations,
knew or should have known that Sean Taylor was a threat to the community, yet acted in
disregard of this knowledge and without slight care of the same. Sean Taylor and Phillip Hall
are being sued in their individual capacity.
Plaintiff brings state law claims for negligence/gross negligence, false imprisonment,
negligent hiring, negligent training, negligent supervision, negligent retention, negligence
(general), gross negligence, abuse of process and assault against Sean Taylor, Phillip Hall and
the City of Lancaster who violated Plaintiff’s civil rights.
PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff, Quinterius Lamont Clinton, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a citizen and resident
of Lancaster County, South Carolina.
2. Defendant The City of Lancaster, South Carolina (hereinafter “City”) is a political
subdivision of the State of South Carolina as defined by S.C. Code 15-78-30(h) and is
being sued pursuant to the South Carolina State Tort Claims Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
At all times hereinafter mentioned in this lawsuit, the City acted and carried on its
business by and through its agents, servants, and/or employees. Additionally, these
3
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
agents, servants, and/or employees were operating within the scope of their officially
assigned and/or compensated duties.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sean Donald Taylor (hereinafter “Taylor”) is a
citizen and resident of Spartanburg County, South Carolina. At all times alleged in the
Complaint Taylor was a Lieutenant employed by the City of Lancaster Police Department
and at all relevant times was acting in the course and scope of his official duties and
under color of State law. Taylor is being sued in his individual capacity for compensatory
and punitive damages under Federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state
tort claims.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Phillip Hall (hereinafter “Hall”) is a citizen and
resident of Lancaster County, South Carolina. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Hall
was employed by the City of Lancaster Police Department and serving as the acting Chief
of Police, and at all relevant times was acting in the course and scope of his official duties
and under color of State law. Hall is being sued in his individual capacity for
compensatory and punitive damages under Federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
various state tort claims.
5. This suit is brought in Lancaster County, South Carolina where Plaintiff resides and
where the tortuous acts committed by Defendants occurred. Additionally, upon
information and belief, a majority of the parties to this action and witnesses are residents
of Lancaster County, South Carolina.
6. The allegations included herein are under the jurisdiction of this Court.
4
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
7. Venue is proper as Defendant is a municipality operating within the boundaries of
Lancaster County and the acts and/or omissions giving rise to these causes of action
substantially occurred in Lancaster County, South Carolina.
FACTS
8. On September 6, 2021, Defendant Taylor was monitoring traffic on the Highway 9
Bypass within the city limits of Lancaster.
9. Despite having a strong possibility of interaction with the public, Taylor did not have a
body camera on his person as required by S.C. Code 23-1-240.
10. Around 9:35 A.M. Taylor allegedly clocked Plaintiff traveling 70 MPH in a 45 MPH
zone within the city limits of Lancaster.
11. Taylor followed Plaintiff outside the city limits of Lancaster and activated the blue lights
in his department issued Dodge Charger.
12. Taylor would later state that he activated his blue lights within the city limits of Lancaster
so that he would be protected under the color of the law should anything happen during
the traffic stop.
13. Taylor alerted dispatch that he believed the vehicle Plaintiff was driving in fled from him
during a prior traffic stop. However, Plaintiff was not the driver of the vehicle in the
prior incident. The driver of the vehicle that had previously fled from Taylor was never
identified and Plaintiff was never charged in the prior incident.
14. After seeing Taylor’s blue lights, Plaintiff immediately slowed down and applied his
brakes. Plaintiff then signaled and moved from the left lane to the right lane.
5
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
15. After moving to the right lane, Plaintiff then exited on the Riverside Road ramp and
pulled into the grass. This ramp is well outside the city limits of Lancaster.
16. As Plaintiff was exiting the ramp, Taylor informed dispatch that the reason for his stop of
Plaintiff was speeding and reckless driving.
17. As Plaintiff was coming to a stop, Taylor maneuvered his vehicle in an aggressive
manner by cutting in front of Plaintiff’s car.
18. Plaintiff then began to back up as Taylor’s actions frightened him.
19. As Plaintiff began to back up, Taylor came out of his car and drew his department issued
firearm. Plaintiff then ducked his head down so that Taylor could not see him as he
backed up.
20. Taylor began to point his firearm at Plaintiff’s vehicle. Taylor then began to yell “Go
ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.” at Plaintiff’s vehicle as he ran towards Plaintiff’s vehicle.
21. Taylor then fired three rounds at Plaintiff’s vehicle. The first two rounds were fired as
the passenger’s side of Plaintiff’s vehicle was in front of Taylor. The last round, which
struck Plaintiff’s vehicle, was fired towards the back of Plaintiff’s vehicle, and struck the
rear tail light.
22. Plaintiff then fled the traffic stop and a high-speed chase commenced. As Plaintiff was
fleeing, Taylor jumped in his vehicle and stated, “Shots fired. He tried to run me over.”
23. After Plaintiff’s tire blew out, Plaintiff jumped from his vehicle and ran into the woods
away from Taylor.
24. A manhunt for Plaintiff ensued involving various state and local agencies. Plaintiff was
never located on September 6, 2021.
6
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
25. Defendant Hall, who was the acting Chief of Police, called a press conference sometime
during the afternoon of September 6, 2021.
26. Hall told the assembled members of the media that Plaintiff had tried to run Taylor over
and that Taylor had to jump out of the way to avoid being hit. Further, Hall stated that
Taylor fired at Plaintiff as he was jumping out of the way.
27. When Hall was asked if Plaintiff should be considered armed and dangerous, he told the
media Plaintiff should be considered armed and dangerous based on what was on the
video. (The video referred to by Hall would later come to be identified as a rear-facing
in-car camera that was equipped in Taylor’s car.)
28. Plaintiff was arrested and served warrants on September 18, 2021 for Attempted Murder
(Taylor was listed as the alleged victim), Failure to Stop for a Blue Light, Reckless
Driving and Speeding. Plaintiff’s bond was denied by the City Court and Plaintiff
remained incarcerated at the Lancaster County Detention Center.
29. On September 22, 2021, the Lancaster County Public Defender’s Office was appointed to
represent Plaintiff on his pending charges. A motion for discovery was made on
September 22, 2021.
30. On October 4, 2021, Plaintiff, by and through his Public Defender, received reports and
three videos from the Sixth Circuit Solicitor’s Office related to the incident through
discovery on the criminal charges. These videos included a rear-facing dash camera that
captured video of the shooting.
31. Based upon his review of the discovery on October 4, 2021, Plaintiff became aware that
factual inconsistencies existed between the facts as alleged on his arrest warrant and what
was captured by Taylor’s rear-facing dash camera.
7
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
32. On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff was scheduled for a bond hearing on the Attempted
Murder and Failure to Stop for a Blue Light charges. Prior to the bond hearing, the State
dismissed Plaintiff’s Attempted Murder charge. Bond was subsequently set on the
Failure to Stop for a Blue Light charge in the amount of $25,000.00 surety.
33. The remaining charges made by the City from Taylor’s traffic stop were dismissed by the
Sixth Circuit Solicitor’s Office on May 23, 2022.
34. At all times prior to the shooting incident involving Taylor, Plaintiff was compliant with
Taylor by braking, signaling and pulling off the exit ramp of the highway.
35. While not listed as the prosecuting officer, upon information and belief, Taylor facilitated
the false warrants signed against Plaintiff by then Lieutenant Paul Knight by misleading
Lt. Knight as to what had occurred.
36. Upon information and belief, a policy of the City allowed for officers to sign warrants
prepared by other officers that they lacked first-hand knowledge of.
37. Upon information and belief, Taylor prepared the warrants in this matter that he knew or
should have known to be false and presented them to Lt. Knight who signed them.
Because of the City’s policy and Taylor’s deceit, Taylor was able to intentionally shield
himself from signing a false warrant.
38. Nevertheless, the allegations prepared by Taylor were false and did not constitute
probable cause of a crime occurring because they did not happen. Further, the facts as
alleged, even if they were true, did not give rise to a charge of attempted murder.
39. Further, Hall facilitated Taylor’s deceit about what had occurred by declaring that Taylor
had fired in self-defense while jumping out of the way of Plaintiff’s vehicle as it
attempted to strike Taylor.
8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
40. During the course of procuring warrants against Plaintiff for Attempted Murder of
Taylor, Taylor made multiple false statements that were ultimately disproven by the
video from Taylor’s rear-facing dash camera.
41. First, Taylor stated that he exited his vehicle and began to order Plaintiff out of the car.
This never occurred. Instead, Taylor told Plaintiff, “Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.”
42. Second, Taylor alleged that Plaintiff then backed his vehicle 10-15 feet and began to
speed in the direction of Tayor. However, upon review of the video, it was evident that
Plaintiff has already began backing up his vehicle as Taylor comes around the corner of
his patrol car. Further, Taylor then proceeded to charge towards Plaintiff’s vehicle.
43. Taylor then claimed that Plaintiff began to speed in his direction at which point he began
to tactically retreat backwards. However, Taylor never retreated in the video and instead
ran towards Plaintiff’s vehicle while yelling to “Go ahead.” Taylor then gets in position
and fires twice at Plaintiff’s vehicle on the passenger side near the front passenger door.
He fires a final shot at the rear of Plaintiff’s vehicle as he drives away.
44. Taylor claimed that he did not have a safe avenue of escape which caused him to fire
upon Plaintiff’s vehicle. This was also not true as Taylor charged towards Plaintiff’s
vehicle. If Taylor did not have a reasonable avenue of escape, it was because of Taylor’s
intentional actions.
45. Finally, Taylor claimed that after the first two shots were fired at Plaintiff, Plaintiff
abruptly turned the wheels left and fled the traffic stop. Again, this was simply not true
as video showed Taylor shooting at the passenger side of Plaintiff’s car as Plaintiff drove
away. Further, video evidence showed Plaintiff’s tires turning away from Taylor before
the shots were fired. Finally, Taylor’s own admission in the warrant did not mention why
9
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
the third shot was fired if Plaintiff began to drive away at that point given the noticeable
pause between the first two shots and the third shot that ultimately struck Plaintiff’s
vehicle.
46. Upon information and belief, the Defendants acted together to produce false warrants
against Plaintiff to justify Taylor’s unlawful, aggressive, cruel and illegal actions in this
matter.
47. Taylor knew or should have known that there was no lawful reason to position his vehicle
and engage in a felony style traffic stop on Plaintiff for speeding and reckless driving.
48. Taylor knew or should have known that Plaintiff did not attempt to strike him with his
vehicle.
49. Taylor knew or should have known that Plaintiff had done nothing that justified the use
of excessive and potentially deadly force against Plaintiff.
50. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this matter Taylor was employed by
the City of Lancaster Police Department as a Lieutenant in charge of training for the
department.
51. Taylor, based on his training and position, was or should have been well-versed in the
policies and procedures of the City of Lancaster Police Department.
52. Upon information and belief, Taylor’s actions constituted multiple violations of the City
of Lancaster Police Department.
53. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this matter, Hall was employed by
the City of Lancaster Police Department as the acting Chief of Police for the department.
10
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
54. Upon information and belief, after Taylor’s use of force against Plaintiff, Taylor was
allowed by the City and Hall to remain on active duty during the pending investigation by
the State Law Enforcement Division.
55. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this matter, the City knew or should
have known of past policy violations involving Taylor.
56. Taylor acted in violation of generally accepted law enforcement standards.
57. Hall acted in violation of generally accepted law enforcement standards.
58. Due to Hall’s false comments about what the video from Taylor’s car showed, Hall put
Plaintiff at a risk of substantial harm by implying that he had tried to murder a police
officer and was armed and dangerous. Hall knew or should have known that this
statement, which Plaintiff would later discover through the course of discovery, was
false.
59. Taylor’s conduct was plainly incompetent, cruel, and vicious and he knowingly violated
clearly established laws by engaging in a felony traffic stop outside of the city limits of
Lancaster, maneuvering his vehicle in a matter that endangered not only Plaintiff but the
general public as well, immediately drawing his weapon on Plaintiff for speeding, firing
three shots at Plaintiff when he was not legally justified to do so constituting excessive
force and engaging in a scheme with the other Defendants to falsely imprison Plaintiff in
order to cover up Taylor’s own illegal and unconstitutional actions all in violation of
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
60. Because of Defendant’s actions and scheme to mask Taylor’s illegal and unconstitutional
actions, Plaintiff was charged with the attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, a
11
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
charge that Defendant’s knew or should have known was false and not based on probable
cause.
61. Because of Defendant’s actions and scheme to mask Taylor’s illegal and unconstitutional
actions, Plaintiff was charged with the failure to stop for a blue light after the shooting
incident which, Defendants knew or should have known, was false and not based on
probable cause.
62. Due to Plaintiff being charged with the attempted murder of a police officer, his bond
was denied by the municipal Judge causing him to be falsely imprisoned between the
dates of September 18, 2021 to November 16, 2021.
63. Such false imprisonment was a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s scheme to
mask Taylor’s illegal and unconstitutional actions against Plaintiff.
64. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff was confined against his will for months with
his bond denied, suffered mental and/or physical injuries, lost wages, emotional distress,
expenses and will incur additional medical expenses in the future.
65. Plaintiff did nothing to warrant Taylor shooting at him and the subsequent false
statements made by Taylor to justify Plaintiff’s false arrest and false imprisonment.
66. Taylor, along with the other Defendants, in this matter violated Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights for no other reason than his supercilious, officious, and intrusive attitude, wanting
to get even with Plaintiff for what he perceived as Plaintiff’s prior chase with Taylor,
using the events that followed the initiation of the traffic stop as an excuse to attempt to
brutally assault Plaintiff without any legal authority to do so and to use his own false
allegations and statements to falsely imprison Plaintiff.
12
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
42 USC 1983, 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th Amendment Violations
67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs above as if repeated herein.
68. The acts and omissions of Defendants by attempting to physically harm and torture
Plaintiff, detaining and arresting Plaintiff, or allowing the same, without articulable
suspicion, probable cause, legal authority to do so and without legal justification, no
reasonable basis or probable cause to believe a crime had been committed violated the
Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.
69. Further, Hall is liable for the actions of Taylor, as he was aware or should have been
aware that Taylor had a history of policy violations. Further, in the instant case, Hall
knew that Taylor had not acted in self-defense when shooting at Plaintiff, but continued
to promote the false narrative that he did. Hall, as acting Chief, had the opportunity to
prevent further unconstitutional acts of Taylor, yet he chose not to do so, endangering the
public and Plaintiff
70. By the actions and omissions described above, Hall and Taylor, in their individual
capacity and acting under the color of law, deprived Plaintiff of the clearly established
and well settled constitutional rights protected by the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution:
a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as secured by the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;
b. The right to be free from excessive and/or unreasonable force in the course of a
seizure as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;
c. The right to be free from the use of unlawful force as secured by the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments;
13
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
d. The right to be free from reckless, deliberately indifferent, and conscience
shocking searches and seizures and/or excessive force as secured by the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment;
e. The right to be free from injury, detention or arrest without substantive and
procedural due process and from state created/enhanced danger as secured by the
Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.
f. The right to be free from an unlawful and false arrests and/or detention without
such arrest and/or detention being based on probable cause or reasonable
suspicion as secured by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.
g. The right to be free from excessive bail as secured by the Eighth Amendment.
h. And other such particulars as may be learned through discovery.
71. Upon information and belief, Defendant City engaged in a policy of allowing warrants to
be signed by officers who had no first-hand knowledge of cases before they were signed.
72. As a result of this policy, then Lt. Paul Knight signed a warrant in Plaintiff’s case that
was prepared by Taylor and contained numerous false statements that Defendants knew
or should have known were false.
73. Upon information and belief, this process was overseen by Defendant Hall.
74. This process led to a false warrant being sworn to in Plaintiff’s case to cover up
Defendant Taylor’s unlawful and unconstitutional actions, while allowing Taylor to
absolve himself of having to sign the false affidavit himself.
75. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described actions of Defendants, while
acting at all times under the color of law, Plaintiff suffered physical harm, emotional
harm, alteration of his lifestyle, humiliation, apprehension, anxiety, stress, depression,
14
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
embarrassment, shame, fear, and/or a loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has suffered
expenses and will continue to have expenses in the future. Defendants are sued in their
individual capacities.
76. Plaintiff asks the Court to award damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and
costs.
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence and Gross Negligence State Tort Claims Act
77. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs above as if repeated herein.
78. Defendant the City, its employees, agents, and contractors departed from the duties of
care required by law enforcement officers and the agencies that hire train and employ
these officers and were thereby negligent careless, grossly negligent, and reckless and
acted in violation of the duties owed to Plaintiff in that they committed one or more of
the following acts or omissions, any and all of which were a departure from the
prevailing duties of care:
a. Failing to ensure the safety, security, freedom, and well-being of Plaintiff;
b. Failing to appreciate the conditions that existed on the day in question through
their employees and/or agents;
c. Failing to adhere to proper law enforcement procedure through their employees
and/or agents including, but not limited to, failing to ensure there was sufficient
cause to detain and/or arrest citizens, namely Plaintiff;
d. Failing to intervene and prevent other officers, employees, and/or agents from
unlawfully detaining, assaulting, and/or arresting Plaintiff unlawfully;
e. Failing to properly hire, train, and supervise their officers and/or agents;
f. Failing to release from employment officers that would place the public at risk;
15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
g. Failing to have in place proper and adequate policies, procedures, and protocols
for law enforcement to perform investigations, searches, and seizures pursuant to
the law and proper police procedure, training of officers, or if such policies
procedures, and protocols were in place, in failing to use due care or even slight
care to enforce them;
h. Failing to ensure the accuracy and validity of any charge which Defendants and/or
its employees, agents, and contractors decide to arrest and take away the liberties
of a citizen, namely, Plaintiff;
i. Falsely and wrongfully imprisoning citizens who have not committed criminal
acts.
79. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, reckless disregard
for the truth, and departure from the standards of care owed by Defendant City, its
employees, agents, and contractors, Plaintiff suffered physical harm, emotional harm,
alteration of his lifestyle, humiliation, apprehension, anxiety, stress, depression,
embarrassment, shame, fear, and/or a loss of enjoyment of life in addition to expenses for
which Plaintiff is entitled to recover in an amount to be determined by a jury at the trial in
this action.
80. Plaintiff asks the Court to award damages and costs.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
False Imprisonment
81. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs above as if repeated herein.
82. Defendants initiated and orchestrated false criminal proceedings against Plaintiff which
resulted in Plaintiff’s False Imprisonment on both Attempted Murder and Failure to Stop
for a Blue Light Charge.
16
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
83. Plaintiff’s false imprisonment began on September 18, 2021 and did not end until
November 16, 2021 when, after Plaintiff’s Attempted Murder warrant was dismissed,
Plaintiff was able to post bond.
84. Plaintiff was restrained by Defendants and the restraint was unlawful and intentional.
85. Defendants’ false imprisonment was intentional and malicious and carried out with the
intention of covering up Defendant Taylor’s excessive force by orchestrating a plan to
incarcerate Plaintiff on serious charges so that bond would be denied.
86. Further, upon information and belief, Defendant Taylor continued to employee this plan
by testifying during Plaintiff’s preliminary hearing on Plaintiff’s Failure to Stop for a
Blue Light charge that he believed the failure to stop occurred prior to the shooting
incident. This directly contradicted statements made to SLED investigators during the
course of their investigation against Taylor and directly contradictory to what he called
out on the radio prior to the shooting as the basis for his traffic stop.
87. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and malicious acts by Defendants,
Plaintiff suffered physical harm, emotional harm, alteration of his lifestyle, humiliation,
apprehension, anxiety, stress, depression, embarrassment, shame, fear, and/or a loss of
enjoyment of life in addition to expenses for which Plaintiff is entitled to recover in an
amount to be determined by a jury at the trial in this action and punitive damages.
88. Plaintiff seeks damages and punitive damages.
FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Abuse of Process
89. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs above as if repeated herein.
17
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
90. Defendants abused process in order to cover up his use of excessive force against
Plaintiff.
91. Defendant Taylor initiated a criminal process in this matter for the ulterior purpose of
covering up his use of excessive force against Plaintiff and such process was not proper
in the regular conduct of the proceeding.
92. Defendant Hall furthered Taylor’s abuse of process by allowing false warrants to be
issued for Plaintiff’s arrest for the attempted murder of Taylor and by telling members of
the media that Plaintiff had tried to run over Taylor.
93. All Defendants maliciously maintained criminal charges against the Plaintiff in order to
limit their liability to Plaintiff.
94. As a result, Plaintiff was incarcerated for months without being able to post a bond
because of the seriousness of the charges.
95. It was not until Plaintiff sought a judicial review of his bond that the State dismissed
Plaintiff’s Attempted Murder charge. Defendants never acted to correct the unlawful and
unconstitutional prosecution of Plaintiff.
96. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and malicious acts by Defendants,
Plaintiff suffered physical harm, emotional harm, alteration of his lifestyle, humiliation,
apprehension, anxiety, stress, depression, embarrassment, shame, fear, and/or a loss of
enjoyment of life including expenses for which Plaintiff is entitled to recover in an
amount to be determined by a jury at the trial in this action and punitive damages.
97. Plaintiff seeks damages and punitive damages.
AS A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
ASSAULT
98. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs above as if repeated herein.
18
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
99. Defendant Taylor assaulted Plaintiff by firing his weapon at Plaintiff’s vehicle with the
intent to physically harm Plaintiff.
100. Taylor’s actions placed Plaintiff in reasonable fear of bodily harm.
101. Plaintiff seeks damages and punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief:
A. For judgment against Defendants for actual, compensatory and punitive damages,
and future damages to be determined by the Court and a jury;
B. For attorney’s fees and costs where applicable;
C. For the costs and disbursements in the pursuit of this action; and
D. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
September 24, 2023
___________________________
M. Ryan Payne, Esq.
Attorney For Plaintiff
The Law Office of M. Ryan Payne, LLC
PO BOX 575
115 Main Street
Heath Springs, SC 29058
803-797-5009
mryanpayne@gmail.com
19
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242
20
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF LANCASTER. ) ) CASE NO: 2023-CP-29- ) ) QUINTERIUS LAMONT CLINTON, ) ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) VS. ) SUMMONS ) ) THE CITY OF LANCASTER, SOUTH ) CAROLINA, SEAN DONALD TAYLOR ) (IN BOTH HIS INDIVIDUAL AND ) PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY), & ) PHILLIP HALL (IN BOTH HIS ) INDIVIDUAL AND PROFESSIONAL ) AND PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY) ) ) ) DEFENDANTS. ) ______________________________ ) TO: THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the complaint herein, a copy of which is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to this complaint upon the subscriber, at the address shown below, within thirty (30) days after service hereof, exclusive of the day of such service, and it you fail to answer the complaint, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. September 24, 2023 _________________________________ M. Ryan Payne, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff The Law Office of M. Ryan Payne, LLC PO BOX 575 Heath Springs, SC 29058 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF LANCASTER ) ) CASE NO: 2023-CP-29- ) ) QUINTERIUS LAMONT CLINTON, ) ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) VS. ) COMPLAINT ) ) THE CITY OF LANCASTER, SOUTH ) CAROLINA, SEAN DONALD TAYLOR ) (IN BOTH HIS INDIVIDUAL AND ) OFFICIAL CAPACITY), ) PHILLIP HALL (IN BOTH HIS ) INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL ) CAPACITY) ) ) ) DEFENDANTS. ) ______________________________ ) The Plaintiff named herein, complaining of the Defendants, would respectfully show unto this Honorable Court and allege as follows: PREFACE This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional right be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, excessive force, false imprisonment, and excessive bail under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff alleges law enforcement officers Sean Donald Taylor and Phillip Hall, who at the time of this incident were employed by the City of Lancaster Police Department, as part of a plan, scheme, and practice, harassed citizens by fabricating fraudulent grounds and using false warrants signed by officers with no first-hand knowledge of the facts of 2 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 cases to arrest innocent citizens who are without substantial financial means to assert their legal and constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges Sean Taylor and Phillip Hall, with the City of Lancaster Police Department, without provocation, assaulted and attempted to physically abuse Plaintiff by firing three shots at his vehicle during a traffic stop for speeding and reckless driving. Sean Taylor and Phillip Hall, along with the City of Lancaster Police Department, then created false charges and arrested Plaintiff. Phillip Hall, the acting chief of police at the time of this incident, had knowledge of prior incidents of Sean Taylor’s history of policy violations, knew or should have known that Sean Taylor was a threat to the community, yet acted in disregard of this knowledge and without slight care of the same. Sean Taylor and Phillip Hall are being sued in their individual capacity. Plaintiff brings state law claims for negligence/gross negligence, false imprisonment, negligent hiring, negligent training, negligent supervision, negligent retention, negligence (general), gross negligence, abuse of process and assault against Sean Taylor, Phillip Hall and the City of Lancaster who violated Plaintiff’s civil rights. PARTIES 1. The Plaintiff, Quinterius Lamont Clinton, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a citizen and resident of Lancaster County, South Carolina. 2. Defendant The City of Lancaster, South Carolina (hereinafter “City”) is a political subdivision of the State of South Carolina as defined by S.C. Code 15-78-30(h) and is being sued pursuant to the South Carolina State Tort Claims Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At all times hereinafter mentioned in this lawsuit, the City acted and carried on its business by and through its agents, servants, and/or employees. Additionally, these 3 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 agents, servants, and/or employees were operating within the scope of their officially assigned and/or compensated duties. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sean Donald Taylor (hereinafter “Taylor”) is a citizen and resident of Spartanburg County, South Carolina. At all times alleged in the Complaint Taylor was a Lieutenant employed by the City of Lancaster Police Department and at all relevant times was acting in the course and scope of his official duties and under color of State law. Taylor is being sued in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages under Federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state tort claims. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Phillip Hall (hereinafter “Hall”) is a citizen and resident of Lancaster County, South Carolina. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Hall was employed by the City of Lancaster Police Department and serving as the acting Chief of Police, and at all relevant times was acting in the course and scope of his official duties and under color of State law. Hall is being sued in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages under Federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state tort claims. 5. This suit is brought in Lancaster County, South Carolina where Plaintiff resides and where the tortuous acts committed by Defendants occurred. Additionally, upon information and belief, a majority of the parties to this action and witnesses are residents of Lancaster County, South Carolina. 6. The allegations included herein are under the jurisdiction of this Court. 4 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 7. Venue is proper as Defendant is a municipality operating within the boundaries of Lancaster County and the acts and/or omissions giving rise to these causes of action substantially occurred in Lancaster County, South Carolina. FACTS 8. On September 6, 2021, Defendant Taylor was monitoring traffic on the Highway 9 Bypass within the city limits of Lancaster. 9. Despite having a strong possibility of interaction with the public, Taylor did not have a body camera on his person as required by S.C. Code 23-1-240. 10. Around 9:35 A.M. Taylor allegedly clocked Plaintiff traveling 70 MPH in a 45 MPH zone within the city limits of Lancaster. 11. Taylor followed Plaintiff outside the city limits of Lancaster and activated the blue lights in his department issued Dodge Charger. 12. Taylor would later state that he activated his blue lights within the city limits of Lancaster so that he would be protected under the color of the law should anything happen during the traffic stop. 13. Taylor alerted dispatch that he believed the vehicle Plaintiff was driving in fled from him during a prior traffic stop. However, Plaintiff was not the driver of the vehicle in the prior incident. The driver of the vehicle that had previously fled from Taylor was never identified and Plaintiff was never charged in the prior incident. 14. After seeing Taylor’s blue lights, Plaintiff immediately slowed down and applied his brakes. Plaintiff then signaled and moved from the left lane to the right lane. 5 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 15. After moving to the right lane, Plaintiff then exited on the Riverside Road ramp and pulled into the grass. This ramp is well outside the city limits of Lancaster. 16. As Plaintiff was exiting the ramp, Taylor informed dispatch that the reason for his stop of Plaintiff was speeding and reckless driving. 17. As Plaintiff was coming to a stop, Taylor maneuvered his vehicle in an aggressive manner by cutting in front of Plaintiff’s car. 18. Plaintiff then began to back up as Taylor’s actions frightened him. 19. As Plaintiff began to back up, Taylor came out of his car and drew his department issued firearm. Plaintiff then ducked his head down so that Taylor could not see him as he backed up. 20. Taylor began to point his firearm at Plaintiff’s vehicle. Taylor then began to yell “Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.” at Plaintiff’s vehicle as he ran towards Plaintiff’s vehicle. 21. Taylor then fired three rounds at Plaintiff’s vehicle. The first two rounds were fired as the passenger’s side of Plaintiff’s vehicle was in front of Taylor. The last round, which struck Plaintiff’s vehicle, was fired towards the back of Plaintiff’s vehicle, and struck the rear tail light. 22. Plaintiff then fled the traffic stop and a high-speed chase commenced. As Plaintiff was fleeing, Taylor jumped in his vehicle and stated, “Shots fired. He tried to run me over.” 23. After Plaintiff’s tire blew out, Plaintiff jumped from his vehicle and ran into the woods away from Taylor. 24. A manhunt for Plaintiff ensued involving various state and local agencies. Plaintiff was never located on September 6, 2021. 6 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 25. Defendant Hall, who was the acting Chief of Police, called a press conference sometime during the afternoon of September 6, 2021. 26. Hall told the assembled members of the media that Plaintiff had tried to run Taylor over and that Taylor had to jump out of the way to avoid being hit. Further, Hall stated that Taylor fired at Plaintiff as he was jumping out of the way. 27. When Hall was asked if Plaintiff should be considered armed and dangerous, he told the media Plaintiff should be considered armed and dangerous based on what was on the video. (The video referred to by Hall would later come to be identified as a rear-facing in-car camera that was equipped in Taylor’s car.) 28. Plaintiff was arrested and served warrants on September 18, 2021 for Attempted Murder (Taylor was listed as the alleged victim), Failure to Stop for a Blue Light, Reckless Driving and Speeding. Plaintiff’s bond was denied by the City Court and Plaintiff remained incarcerated at the Lancaster County Detention Center. 29. On September 22, 2021, the Lancaster County Public Defender’s Office was appointed to represent Plaintiff on his pending charges. A motion for discovery was made on September 22, 2021. 30. On October 4, 2021, Plaintiff, by and through his Public Defender, received reports and three videos from the Sixth Circuit Solicitor’s Office related to the incident through discovery on the criminal charges. These videos included a rear-facing dash camera that captured video of the shooting. 31. Based upon his review of the discovery on October 4, 2021, Plaintiff became aware that factual inconsistencies existed between the facts as alleged on his arrest warrant and what was captured by Taylor’s rear-facing dash camera. 7 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 32. On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff was scheduled for a bond hearing on the Attempted Murder and Failure to Stop for a Blue Light charges. Prior to the bond hearing, the State dismissed Plaintiff’s Attempted Murder charge. Bond was subsequently set on the Failure to Stop for a Blue Light charge in the amount of $25,000.00 surety. 33. The remaining charges made by the City from Taylor’s traffic stop were dismissed by the Sixth Circuit Solicitor’s Office on May 23, 2022. 34. At all times prior to the shooting incident involving Taylor, Plaintiff was compliant with Taylor by braking, signaling and pulling off the exit ramp of the highway. 35. While not listed as the prosecuting officer, upon information and belief, Taylor facilitated the false warrants signed against Plaintiff by then Lieutenant Paul Knight by misleading Lt. Knight as to what had occurred. 36. Upon information and belief, a policy of the City allowed for officers to sign warrants prepared by other officers that they lacked first-hand knowledge of. 37. Upon information and belief, Taylor prepared the warrants in this matter that he knew or should have known to be false and presented them to Lt. Knight who signed them. Because of the City’s policy and Taylor’s deceit, Taylor was able to intentionally shield himself from signing a false warrant. 38. Nevertheless, the allegations prepared by Taylor were false and did not constitute probable cause of a crime occurring because they did not happen. Further, the facts as alleged, even if they were true, did not give rise to a charge of attempted murder. 39. Further, Hall facilitated Taylor’s deceit about what had occurred by declaring that Taylor had fired in self-defense while jumping out of the way of Plaintiff’s vehicle as it attempted to strike Taylor. 8 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 40. During the course of procuring warrants against Plaintiff for Attempted Murder of Taylor, Taylor made multiple false statements that were ultimately disproven by the video from Taylor’s rear-facing dash camera. 41. First, Taylor stated that he exited his vehicle and began to order Plaintiff out of the car. This never occurred. Instead, Taylor told Plaintiff, “Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.” 42. Second, Taylor alleged that Plaintiff then backed his vehicle 10-15 feet and began to speed in the direction of Tayor. However, upon review of the video, it was evident that Plaintiff has already began backing up his vehicle as Taylor comes around the corner of his patrol car. Further, Taylor then proceeded to charge towards Plaintiff’s vehicle. 43. Taylor then claimed that Plaintiff began to speed in his direction at which point he began to tactically retreat backwards. However, Taylor never retreated in the video and instead ran towards Plaintiff’s vehicle while yelling to “Go ahead.” Taylor then gets in position and fires twice at Plaintiff’s vehicle on the passenger side near the front passenger door. He fires a final shot at the rear of Plaintiff’s vehicle as he drives away. 44. Taylor claimed that he did not have a safe avenue of escape which caused him to fire upon Plaintiff’s vehicle. This was also not true as Taylor charged towards Plaintiff’s vehicle. If Taylor did not have a reasonable avenue of escape, it was because of Taylor’s intentional actions. 45. Finally, Taylor claimed that after the first two shots were fired at Plaintiff, Plaintiff abruptly turned the wheels left and fled the traffic stop. Again, this was simply not true as video showed Taylor shooting at the passenger side of Plaintiff’s car as Plaintiff drove away. Further, video evidence showed Plaintiff’s tires turning away from Taylor before the shots were fired. Finally, Taylor’s own admission in the warrant did not mention why 9 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 the third shot was fired if Plaintiff began to drive away at that point given the noticeable pause between the first two shots and the third shot that ultimately struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. 46. Upon information and belief, the Defendants acted together to produce false warrants against Plaintiff to justify Taylor’s unlawful, aggressive, cruel and illegal actions in this matter. 47. Taylor knew or should have known that there was no lawful reason to position his vehicle and engage in a felony style traffic stop on Plaintiff for speeding and reckless driving. 48. Taylor knew or should have known that Plaintiff did not attempt to strike him with his vehicle. 49. Taylor knew or should have known that Plaintiff had done nothing that justified the use of excessive and potentially deadly force against Plaintiff. 50. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this matter Taylor was employed by the City of Lancaster Police Department as a Lieutenant in charge of training for the department. 51. Taylor, based on his training and position, was or should have been well-versed in the policies and procedures of the City of Lancaster Police Department. 52. Upon information and belief, Taylor’s actions constituted multiple violations of the City of Lancaster Police Department. 53. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this matter, Hall was employed by the City of Lancaster Police Department as the acting Chief of Police for the department. 10 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 54. Upon information and belief, after Taylor’s use of force against Plaintiff, Taylor was allowed by the City and Hall to remain on active duty during the pending investigation by the State Law Enforcement Division. 55. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this matter, the City knew or should have known of past policy violations involving Taylor. 56. Taylor acted in violation of generally accepted law enforcement standards. 57. Hall acted in violation of generally accepted law enforcement standards. 58. Due to Hall’s false comments about what the video from Taylor’s car showed, Hall put Plaintiff at a risk of substantial harm by implying that he had tried to murder a police officer and was armed and dangerous. Hall knew or should have known that this statement, which Plaintiff would later discover through the course of discovery, was false. 59. Taylor’s conduct was plainly incompetent, cruel, and vicious and he knowingly violated clearly established laws by engaging in a felony traffic stop outside of the city limits of Lancaster, maneuvering his vehicle in a matter that endangered not only Plaintiff but the general public as well, immediately drawing his weapon on Plaintiff for speeding, firing three shots at Plaintiff when he was not legally justified to do so constituting excessive force and engaging in a scheme with the other Defendants to falsely imprison Plaintiff in order to cover up Taylor’s own illegal and unconstitutional actions all in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 60. Because of Defendant’s actions and scheme to mask Taylor’s illegal and unconstitutional actions, Plaintiff was charged with the attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, a 11 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 charge that Defendant’s knew or should have known was false and not based on probable cause. 61. Because of Defendant’s actions and scheme to mask Taylor’s illegal and unconstitutional actions, Plaintiff was charged with the failure to stop for a blue light after the shooting incident which, Defendants knew or should have known, was false and not based on probable cause. 62. Due to Plaintiff being charged with the attempted murder of a police officer, his bond was denied by the municipal Judge causing him to be falsely imprisoned between the dates of September 18, 2021 to November 16, 2021. 63. Such false imprisonment was a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s scheme to mask Taylor’s illegal and unconstitutional actions against Plaintiff. 64. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff was confined against his will for months with his bond denied, suffered mental and/or physical injuries, lost wages, emotional distress, expenses and will incur additional medical expenses in the future. 65. Plaintiff did nothing to warrant Taylor shooting at him and the subsequent false statements made by Taylor to justify Plaintiff’s false arrest and false imprisonment. 66. Taylor, along with the other Defendants, in this matter violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights for no other reason than his supercilious, officious, and intrusive attitude, wanting to get even with Plaintiff for what he perceived as Plaintiff’s prior chase with Taylor, using the events that followed the initiation of the traffic stop as an excuse to attempt to brutally assault Plaintiff without any legal authority to do so and to use his own false allegations and statements to falsely imprison Plaintiff. 12 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 42 USC 1983, 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th Amendment Violations 67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs above as if repeated herein. 68. The acts and omissions of Defendants by attempting to physically harm and torture Plaintiff, detaining and arresting Plaintiff, or allowing the same, without articulable suspicion, probable cause, legal authority to do so and without legal justification, no reasonable basis or probable cause to believe a crime had been committed violated the Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. 69. Further, Hall is liable for the actions of Taylor, as he was aware or should have been aware that Taylor had a history of policy violations. Further, in the instant case, Hall knew that Taylor had not acted in self-defense when shooting at Plaintiff, but continued to promote the false narrative that he did. Hall, as acting Chief, had the opportunity to prevent further unconstitutional acts of Taylor, yet he chose not to do so, endangering the public and Plaintiff 70. By the actions and omissions described above, Hall and Taylor, in their individual capacity and acting under the color of law, deprived Plaintiff of the clearly established and well settled constitutional rights protected by the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution: a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; b. The right to be free from excessive and/or unreasonable force in the course of a seizure as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; c. The right to be free from the use of unlawful force as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; 13 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 d. The right to be free from reckless, deliberately indifferent, and conscience shocking searches and seizures and/or excessive force as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment; e. The right to be free from injury, detention or arrest without substantive and procedural due process and from state created/enhanced danger as secured by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. f. The right to be free from an unlawful and false arrests and/or detention without such arrest and/or detention being based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion as secured by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. g. The right to be free from excessive bail as secured by the Eighth Amendment. h. And other such particulars as may be learned through discovery. 71. Upon information and belief, Defendant City engaged in a policy of allowing warrants to be signed by officers who had no first-hand knowledge of cases before they were signed. 72. As a result of this policy, then Lt. Paul Knight signed a warrant in Plaintiff’s case that was prepared by Taylor and contained numerous false statements that Defendants knew or should have known were false. 73. Upon information and belief, this process was overseen by Defendant Hall. 74. This process led to a false warrant being sworn to in Plaintiff’s case to cover up Defendant Taylor’s unlawful and unconstitutional actions, while allowing Taylor to absolve himself of having to sign the false affidavit himself. 75. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described actions of Defendants, while acting at all times under the color of law, Plaintiff suffered physical harm, emotional harm, alteration of his lifestyle, humiliation, apprehension, anxiety, stress, depression, 14 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 embarrassment, shame, fear, and/or a loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has suffered expenses and will continue to have expenses in the future. Defendants are sued in their individual capacities. 76. Plaintiff asks the Court to award damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence and Gross Negligence State Tort Claims Act 77. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs above as if repeated herein. 78. Defendant the City, its employees, agents, and contractors departed from the duties of care required by law enforcement officers and the agencies that hire train and employ these officers and were thereby negligent careless, grossly negligent, and reckless and acted in violation of the duties owed to Plaintiff in that they committed one or more of the following acts or omissions, any and all of which were a departure from the prevailing duties of care: a. Failing to ensure the safety, security, freedom, and well-being of Plaintiff; b. Failing to appreciate the conditions that existed on the day in question through their employees and/or agents; c. Failing to adhere to proper law enforcement procedure through their employees and/or agents including, but not limited to, failing to ensure there was sufficient cause to detain and/or arrest citizens, namely Plaintiff; d. Failing to intervene and prevent other officers, employees, and/or agents from unlawfully detaining, assaulting, and/or arresting Plaintiff unlawfully; e. Failing to properly hire, train, and supervise their officers and/or agents; f. Failing to release from employment officers that would place the public at risk; 15 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 g. Failing to have in place proper and adequate policies, procedures, and protocols for law enforcement to perform investigations, searches, and seizures pursuant to the law and proper police procedure, training of officers, or if such policies procedures, and protocols were in place, in failing to use due care or even slight care to enforce them; h. Failing to ensure the accuracy and validity of any charge which Defendants and/or its employees, agents, and contractors decide to arrest and take away the liberties of a citizen, namely, Plaintiff; i. Falsely and wrongfully imprisoning citizens who have not committed criminal acts. 79. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, reckless disregard for the truth, and departure from the standards of care owed by Defendant City, its employees, agents, and contractors, Plaintiff suffered physical harm, emotional harm, alteration of his lifestyle, humiliation, apprehension, anxiety, stress, depression, embarrassment, shame, fear, and/or a loss of enjoyment of life in addition to expenses for which Plaintiff is entitled to recover in an amount to be determined by a jury at the trial in this action. 80. Plaintiff asks the Court to award damages and costs. FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION False Imprisonment 81. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs above as if repeated herein. 82. Defendants initiated and orchestrated false criminal proceedings against Plaintiff which resulted in Plaintiff’s False Imprisonment on both Attempted Murder and Failure to Stop for a Blue Light Charge. 16 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 83. Plaintiff’s false imprisonment began on September 18, 2021 and did not end until November 16, 2021 when, after Plaintiff’s Attempted Murder warrant was dismissed, Plaintiff was able to post bond. 84. Plaintiff was restrained by Defendants and the restraint was unlawful and intentional. 85. Defendants’ false imprisonment was intentional and malicious and carried out with the intention of covering up Defendant Taylor’s excessive force by orchestrating a plan to incarcerate Plaintiff on serious charges so that bond would be denied. 86. Further, upon information and belief, Defendant Taylor continued to employee this plan by testifying during Plaintiff’s preliminary hearing on Plaintiff’s Failure to Stop for a Blue Light charge that he believed the failure to stop occurred prior to the shooting incident. This directly contradicted statements made to SLED investigators during the course of their investigation against Taylor and directly contradictory to what he called out on the radio prior to the shooting as the basis for his traffic stop. 87. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and malicious acts by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered physical harm, emotional harm, alteration of his lifestyle, humiliation, apprehension, anxiety, stress, depression, embarrassment, shame, fear, and/or a loss of enjoyment of life in addition to expenses for which Plaintiff is entitled to recover in an amount to be determined by a jury at the trial in this action and punitive damages. 88. Plaintiff seeks damages and punitive damages. FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Abuse of Process 89. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs above as if repeated herein. 17 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 90. Defendants abused process in order to cover up his use of excessive force against Plaintiff. 91. Defendant Taylor initiated a criminal process in this matter for the ulterior purpose of covering up his use of excessive force against Plaintiff and such process was not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding. 92. Defendant Hall furthered Taylor’s abuse of process by allowing false warrants to be issued for Plaintiff’s arrest for the attempted murder of Taylor and by telling members of the media that Plaintiff had tried to run over Taylor. 93. All Defendants maliciously maintained criminal charges against the Plaintiff in order to limit their liability to Plaintiff. 94. As a result, Plaintiff was incarcerated for months without being able to post a bond because of the seriousness of the charges. 95. It was not until Plaintiff sought a judicial review of his bond that the State dismissed Plaintiff’s Attempted Murder charge. Defendants never acted to correct the unlawful and unconstitutional prosecution of Plaintiff. 96. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and malicious acts by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered physical harm, emotional harm, alteration of his lifestyle, humiliation, apprehension, anxiety, stress, depression, embarrassment, shame, fear, and/or a loss of enjoyment of life including expenses for which Plaintiff is entitled to recover in an amount to be determined by a jury at the trial in this action and punitive damages. 97. Plaintiff seeks damages and punitive damages. AS A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION ASSAULT 98. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs above as if repeated herein. 18 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 99. Defendant Taylor assaulted Plaintiff by firing his weapon at Plaintiff’s vehicle with the intent to physically harm Plaintiff. 100. Taylor’s actions placed Plaintiff in reasonable fear of bodily harm. 101. Plaintiff seeks damages and punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief: A. For judgment against Defendants for actual, compensatory and punitive damages, and future damages to be determined by the Court and a jury; B. For attorney’s fees and costs where applicable; C. For the costs and disbursements in the pursuit of this action; and D. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully Submitted, September 24, 2023 ___________________________ M. Ryan Payne, Esq. Attorney For Plaintiff The Law Office of M. Ryan Payne, LLC PO BOX 575 115 Main Street Heath Springs, SC 29058 803-797-5009 mryanpayne@gmail.com 19 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 24 9:54 PM - LANCASTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2901242 20