Eastern NC deputy fired after violent arrest was a ‘wandering officer’
by Lucas Thomae, Carolina Public Press January 31, 2025
A federal judge will decide whether two people have legal standing to sue after being brutalized by Washington County sheriff’s deputies in 2022.
A video of a violent interaction involving Gary Thomas Jr. and Mary Moore outside the courthouse in Plymouth shocked many after it was released.
Now, Thomas and Moore are suing Washington County Sheriff’s Deputy JeffreyEdwards, who was fired days after the incident. They are also bringing claims against officers who failed to intervene and officials for inadequate hiring and training practices.
Carolina Public Press learned that Edwards was previously fired from the State Highway Patrol in 2010. He didn’t work as a law enforcement officer for a decade before being hired by Washington County.
The incident highlights concerns surrounding “wandering officers” — a term used to describe those who continue to work in law enforcement even after being fired.
Washington County clash
According to the complaint, Edwards arrested Thomas for driving with a suspended license and marijuana possession during a March 2022 traffic stop.
Edwards transported Thomas to the Washington County Courthouse in Plymouth, where the jail is located. Deputy Brian Mizelle, who is another defendant in the lawsuit, met Edwards in the courthouse parking lot.
Edwards pulled Thomas, who was handcuffed, out of his police car and pushed him against the vehicle, according to the complaint. Edwards then forced Thomas to the ground and held him face down with the force of his body weight.
Around that time, Moore arrived at the courthouse with two other women to bail Thomas out of jail. Edwards and Mizelle had begun to drag Thomas towards the courthouse.
Moore grabbed her smartphone and told the deputies that she was recording the scene. She followed them as they continued to drag her nephew.
This image from a bystander’s cellphone, obtained by Carolina Public Press, captured the violent encounter between Washington County Sheriff’s Deputy Jeffrey Edwards and Gary Thomas Jr.
That’s when Edwards struck Moore in the face, knocking her to the ground. He placed her in handcuffs as well.
Edwards then took Thomas and Moore to jail.
Jail staff refused to place Thomas and Moore in a holding cell without the proper paperwork from a judge. Additionally, they wanted a medical clearance for Moore, whose mouth had been bloodied from being hit by Edwards.
Thomas and Moore posted bail, and were treated for their injuries at a hospital the following day.
A video of the incident circulated widely on social media and was the subject of local and national news coverage.
Edwards was fired by the Washington County Sheriff’s Office less than a week later. No criminal charges were filed against him.
The District Attorney’s office dropped all criminal charges against Thomas and Moore “in the interests of justice.”
Washington County agencies liable, lawsuit argues
In September 2023, attorneys from the National Police Accountability Project and a Charlotte law firm filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Thomas and Moore.
The lawsuit brings a deluge of claims against Edwards and Mizelle for excessive force; additional officers on the scene who failed to intervene; and top law enforcement officials in Washington County and the town of Plymouth for their hiring and training practices.
One revelation is that Edwards had been fired by the State Highway Patrol for undisclosed conduct in 2010.
According to publicly-available data, Edwards did not work as a North Carolina law enforcement officer during the decade between his dismissal and his hiring in Washington County.
Plaintiff attorney Keisha James said she believes Washington County’s failure to properly screen Edwards makes the county liable.
“The hiring procedures that they have in place are so deficient,” James said, “that it was almost inevitable that somebody like Edwards would be hired.”
‘Wandering officers’
The phenomenon of law enforcement officers who bounce between agencies after firings or resignations from their previous jobs goes back to at least the 1990s. These officers may work at upwards of 10 agencies over the course of their careers, never staying at one job for too long.
Often, these officers are able to continue working because they are rarely decertified by the state commissions in charge.
According to the N.C. Department of Justice’s revocation and suspension data web page, Edwards was still certified — at least as of Oct. 12, 2022. That’s seven months after he was fired from the Washington County Sheriff’s Office.
The first systematic investigation of wandering officers was published in the Yale Law Journal in 2020. In that study, Duke Law School professor Ben Grunwald and University of Chicago Law School professor John Rappaport combed through employment data of 98,000 Florida law enforcement officers over a 30-year period.
They identified more than 1,000 — equivalent to 3% of all officers in the state — who worked for Florida agencies after previously being fired.
In North Carolina, the N.C. Department of Justice disclosed the employment history of more than 68,000 officers going back to 1973. That searchable database can be accessed using the National Police Index, a collaborative data project between several organizations.
However, that data does not include the reason for each officer’s separation from their previous departments. Reasons might include resignation, retirement, dismissal or death.
CPP submitted a records request to the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Education and Training Standards Commission seeking a report that could shed more light on the details of Edwards’ firing from the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. However, the commission did not respond to the request before the posting of this story.
Additionally, Washington County officials did not respond to a request for comment as well.
Was this preventable?
Not much happened with the civil case until December, when Edwards, the Washington County Sheriff’s Office and town of Plymouth each filed separate motions for summary judgement, asking presiding Judge James C. Dever III to dismiss the claims against them.
Edwards and Mizelleargued they are entitled to “qualified immunity” — a legal doctrine which protects individual officers from being sued.
Last week, the plaintiffs filed a response to the motions for summary judgement, reiterating their case for each claim.
James emphasized the importance of seeking justice not just from the officers involved, but the agencies that enabled that behavior.
“All of these failures at Washington County created a situation,” she said, “where something like that could happen.”
by Sarah Michels, Carolina Public Press April 5, 2025
More than 61,000 voters challenged by NC Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin have 15 business days to prove their eligibility, or have their ballots removed from the count in Griffin’s 2024 bid to unseat Justice Allison Riggs, according to a Friday ruling from a three-judge panel of the NC Court of Appeals.
After all votes were tallied in November, the contest came down to 734 votes, with incumbent Riggs, a Democrat, in the lead. Soon thereafter, Griffin, a Republican Court of Appeals judge, asked for recounts and filed election protests.
The recounts maintained Rigg’s lead, while the State Board of Elections dismissed the protests.
Since then, Griffin’s legal challenges and countering lawsuits from Riggs have made their way through state and federal courts on their path to a delayed resolution while Riggs retains her seat.
Friday, the most significant decision in the case came down from two Republican justices on the North Carolina Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision from the panel, the court declared that Griffin’s protests were valid.
Incomplete voter registrations
The panel majority ruled that the largest portion of challenged voters, those who have “incomplete voter registrations” without a driver’s license or Social Security number included in their elections records, are ineligible to vote because they were not registered to vote correctly.
The blame lies squarely on the State Boards of Elections, which did not update voter registration form to make that information required in accordance with the federal Help America Vote Act, the panel majority opinion states.
Once the issue was identified in 2023, the State Board issued a new registration form, but didn’t go back and contact registrants who didn’t list a driver’s license or Social Security number, or check a box saying they had neither to be assigned a unique identification number.
Now, the appellate court panel says those voters are ineligible. The majority emphasized that the court has the right to remove ballots cast by these voters from the count, but is choosing not to do so immediately.
Instead, they are returning the case to the Wake County Superior Court, and instructing them to tell the State Board to contact impacted voters to provide them an opportunity to fill in the missing information. If voters do so within 15 business days of notification, their votes will count. If not, they will be removed from the count for the Supreme Court race, but not other races.
Overseas and military photo ID
The court panel ruled similarly on Griffin’s second protest, which challenged overseas and military voters who did not provide photo identification with their absentee ballots.
During legal proceedings, the State Board has argued that under the state’s Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act, overseas and military voters are exempt from the voter ID requirement. UMOVA is contained in a separate statute from the one including photo ID requirements, and the Board argued that was intentional.
The appellate court panel disagreed. It ruled that the two statutes were intended to be read together, and that all voters are subject to the photo ID requirement.
Again, implicated voters have 15 business days to provide photo identification or an exception form, or be removed from the count.
In his dissent, Judge Toby Hampson, the loan Democrat on the panel, said providing time to fix these issues does not make up for the fact that impacted voters followed the rules available to them at the time.
“The proposition that a significant portion of these 61,682 voters will receive notice and timely take curative measures is a fiction that does not disguise the act of mass disenfranchisement the majority’s decision represents,” Hampson wrote.
Panel nixes ‘Never Residents’
North Carolina law includes an exception to the state constitution’s residency requirement for a small subset of voters labeled “Never Residents:” overseas U.S. citizens who were born outside the country and whose parents or legal guardians’ last residence was North Carolina.
Friday, the appellate court ruled that statute ran afoul of the state Constitution, and voided the votes of Never Residents.
Panel dissent and equal protection issues
Hampson’s dissent had a few arguments that may be seen again in future litigation.
First, he questioned the timing of Griffin’s protests. The statutes and Board interpretations that are being challenged have been in existence for several election cycles.
The majority declared that eligibility is determined as of Election Day, Hampson noted.
“Despite professing this basic tenet, the majority changes the rules of the 2024 election — and only for one race — months after election day,” he wrote. “It does so even though there is no actual showing or forecast that any challenged voter was not registered or otherwise unqualified to vote.”
Second, Hampson objected to which votes are being challenged. All protests include only early and absentee voters, since that was the information Griffin had available at the time he filed them.
Additionally, the overseas and military photo ID protest only includes Guilford County ballots.
“Each of these voters is at risk of being disenfranchised while similarly-situated voters are not, simply because of the county in which they reside, when they cast their ballot, or their physical location,” Hampson wrote.
What’s next after appeals panel?
The appellate decision may be key in determining the ultimate outcome of the race.
Riggs has already declared her intention to appeal the decision to the North Carolina Supreme Court, calling it a “deeply misinformed decision that threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people.”
However, if the North Carolina Supreme Court comes to a very possible 3-3 tie, the appellate court’s decision would be the one that stands. Either way, if the state high court fails to take the case or acts to leave the panel’s ruling in place, Riggs’ legal team has indicated it will likely return the case to the federal courts on equal protection grounds.
The State Board also issued a statement saying that they would comply with the order, if it goes into effect.
“Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this ongoing legal dispute, any voter who is concerned that their voter registration information is incomplete or is not up to date should submit an updated voter registration form,” the statement read.
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin was less neutral.
“This partisan decision has no legal basis and is an all-out assault on our democracy and the basic premise that voters decide who wins their elections, not the courts,” he said in a statement. “If upheld, this could allow politicians across the country to overturn the will of the people.”
While Griffin has stayed mum since November, North Carolina Republican Chairman Jason Simmons called the ruling a “victory for the rule of law and election integrity” in a social media post.
“This decision and order finally holds the N.C. State Board of Elections accountable for their actions and confirms every legal vote will be counted in this contest,” he wrote.
SUMMARY: Republican Judge Jefferson Griffin is contesting over 60,000 votes in his race against Democratic Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs, claiming registration and ID deficiencies. A 2-1 NC Court of Appeals ruling, with Republican judges siding with Griffin, allows voters 15 business days to correct issues. Riggs, leading by 734 votes after two recounts, vowed to appeal, warning the ruling threatens over 65,000 lawful votes. Griffin also challenges military and overseas ballots. The GOP praised the decision; Democrats condemned it as partisan. The state Supreme Court, with a 5-2 Republican majority, will likely hear the appeal. Riggs has recused herself.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-04 13:39:00
(The Center Square) – Two of three judges on a North Carolina appellate decision say Republican Jefferson Griffin’s appeal has merit and ordered the State Board of Elections to recalculate the nation’s only unresolved election from Nov. 5.
On the 151st day since Election Day, the North Carolina Supreme Court Seat 6 race – an eight-year term seat – has yet to be decided. Friday’s announced decision, from oral arguments two weeks ago, gives 15 business days after notice for missing data in registration records of voters to be filled in, and overseas voters not providing photo identification as required by law to do so.
The voters who never lived in North Carolina are to be dropped from the totals.
Those instructions – Justices John Tyson and Fred Gore supported the ruling, Tobias Hampson dissented – could be appealed. And, it doesn’t give a clear indication if Griffin or Judge Allison Riggs will be the winner.
Riggs, the Democrat and incumbent on the bench after appointment by then-Gov. Roy Cooper, has been poised for a 734-vote triumph as the litigation saga plays out in multiple lawsuits and in both state and federal courtrooms. Griffin, a state appellate judge, has appealed every decision against him.
On Election Night, with 2,658 precincts reporting, Griffin led Riggs by 9,851 votes of 5,540,090 cast. Provisional and absentee ballots that qualified were added to the totals since, swinging the race by 10,585 votes.
The majority opinion read in part, regarding equal terms and fundamental rights in free elections, “This right is violated when ‘votes are not accurately counted (because) (unlawful) () ballots are included in the election results’ The inclusion of even one unlawful ballot in a vote total dilutes the lawful votes and ‘effectively ‘disenfranchises’’ lawful voters.”
The majority opinion is covered in the first 36 pages of the ruling; Hampson’s dissent is in the final 30 pages.
Anderson Clayton, chairwoman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, has called the win “decisive.” Jason Simmons, chairman of the North Carolina GOP, said earlier votes in question are “blatant violations of state law.”
In response to Friday’s announcement, Clayton said the court put party affiliation above the rights of North Carolina voters.” Simmons said, “Today’s decision confirms the facts were on Judge Griffin’s side. This a victory for the rule of law and election integrity.”
The state elections board, majority 3-2 Democrats, and Riggs have been aligned in the litigations.
The Supreme Court bench has historically been nonpartisan and partisan, and since going back to the latter, was 6-1 Democrats in 2019. It is 5-2 Republicans today.
The state Supreme Court calendar has already begun, with Riggs still in place until the election is decided. She has been recused from any proceedings involving the election. Similarly, Griffin has not been involved in any at the appellate level.
Griffin protested about 65,000 ballots on multiple counts, and the state board rejected all of them. Most were by 3-2 party-line votes.
The protests the state board denied included registration records of voters, such as lack of providing either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. State law for that has been in place two decades, dating to 2004.
Other ballots protested and denied by the state board included voters overseas who have never lived in the United States, and for lack of photo identification provided with military and overseas voters.
