Sheriff's Dept. subject of $1m lawsuit
KNOXVILLE — A Pioneer woman has filed a $1 million federal lawsuit against the Scott County Sheriff’s Department, alleging that her civil rights were violated.
Beverly Sue Byrd, 37, of Pioneer, alleges that she was unlawfully arrested by Detective Don Laxton. She names Det. Laxton, Scott County Sheriff Anthony Lay, and Scott County as co-defendants in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Knoxville in late February, but only came to light after local officials were served papers regarding the lawsuit last week.
Byrd, who is represented by Wartburg Attorney Andrew Hall, alleges that Det. Laxton arrested her at her Lay Lane residence on Sept. 25, 2007, “without sufficient probable cause to believe that [Byrd] had committed a crime.”
According to an arrest warrant on file in the Scott County Circuit Court Clerk’s office, Byrd was charged by Det. Laxton of filing a false police report and two counts of insurance fraud. Those charges stem from November 2006, when Byrd reported two shotguns missing from her residence and filed an insurance claim on the guns.
In the warrant, Det. Laxton wrote that Byrd had pawned the guns in question at Shylock’s Pawn Shop in Clinton in June 2007, and had picked them up in September 2007.
Byrd initially appeared in Scott County General Sessions Court on Oct. 31, 2007, for a preliminary hearing. At the time, the court granted a four week continuance in the case. A second continuance was granted on Nov. 28, 2007, to allow the state additional time to prepare its case. On Dec. 12, 2007, Byrd again appeared in court, but prosecutors successfully motioned for nolle prosequi, a filing that essentially means that prosecution of the charges will not be followed through.
In her complaint, Byrd alleges that the reason for the charges not being pursued was because Det. Laxton “had first told the state that he had serial numbers of guns allegedly involved in offense,” and later told the state that he did not.
Byrd charges that she suffered embarrassment and humiliation because of the false arrest, and that she was maliciously prosecuted and subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of her Fourth and Eighth Amendment constitutional rights.
Attorneys for the defendants in the case are currently preparing their response to the lawsuit.