WHITE: DEADLY FORCE JUSTIFIED

The use of deadly force against Neal Seamster, who was fatally shot July 2 by a law enforcement officer during an incident at Sheetz in Riverdale, does not warrant criminal charges against the police involved, Halifax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Kim Slayton White said Friday. White made the announcement at a 2 p.m. press conference to reveal evidence collected by the Virginia State Police.
White said the facts, as demonstrated in a surveillance video furnished by Sheetz and by interviewing witnesses, clearly establish that the law enforcement officers were justified in using deadly force against Seamster, who they suspected of engaging in criminal activity.
“The tragic, unwise and unlawful choices made by Mr. Seamster thereafter left the officer with little choice but to use deadly force,” White concluded.
However, family members present for the investigative release said they were dissatisfied with the findings and said many questions remained unanswered. A family spokesman, Angela Meredith, aunt of the victim, said she and family members have contacted the U.S. Department of Justice, asking for a more objective decision — and not one arrived at by White, whom, Meredith noted, deals with the officers involved in the shooting on a daily basis.
She also indicated the family has talked with several law firms about the possibility of bringing suit against the law enforcement officers and agencies that were responsible for the shooting.
“We know Neal had some problems with law enforcement,” Meredith said, “but he didn’t deserve to be killed for smoking marijuana.”
The press conference by White was the first opportunity for the public to view video of the incident, which unfolded at the Sheetz parking lot in broad daylight on July 2. Seamster was killed by a single shot fired by Deputy Tom Lewis, a member of the Halifax/South Boston Regional Narcotics and Gang Task Force, after Lewis was struck by Seamster’s car as he was backing out sharply from the parking lot.
Lewis, who was placed on paid administrative leave after the incident, has been reinstated to his duties, White said.
The seven page report issued by White to members of the media, family members and other interested citizens outlines the events of that evening, beginning at 6:41 p.m. when Seamster and his female companion, Ceclie Nicole Oliver, stopped at the Sheetz store at the intersection of US 58-501. After pulling up, both individuals got out of the 2003 Chevrolet to go inside the store. Seamster was the driver of the vehicle, which was registered to Oliver. Neither Seamster nor Oliver had a current operator’s license, according to the report.
Oliver told investigators that she went to the restroom while Seamster purchased a cigar. After making the purchase, Seamster returned to his car at just after 6:47 p.m.
In the meantime, at 6:46 p.m., four officers with the Halifax/South Boston Regional Narcotics and Gang Task Force stopped at Sheetz to buy beverages, after having been elsewhere in the county. The SUV carrying the Task Force members was parked two spaces from Seamster’s car, with no vehicles between them. The four Task Force officers were dressed in plainclothes, but each had a law enforcement badge attached to a chain around his neck which can be displayed by pulling the badges to the outside of their shirts.
Three of the four officers — Sheriff’s Investigator Tom Lewis and South Boston’s Tracy Mocarsky, along with State Police Agent Mark Campbell — went inside Sheetz while the fourth, South Boston Police Department Investigator Mike McGregor, remained outside in the SUV. McGregor, according to the report, saw Seamster exit Sheetz, smiling at Oliver and shaking the cigar in the air. He immediately saw that the cigar was being used a rolling paper for marijuana, as Seamster shook the tobacco content out of the cigar. White said it’s common for marijuana users to remove tobacco from a cigar and replace it with marijuana, making what officers typically call a “blunt.”
McGregor continued to watch Seamster and saw him dropping material from inside the cigar out of the driver’s side window. He used his cell phone to call Lewis, who was still inside the store and told him what he had seen, the report recounts. Lewis told the other two officers what McGregor had relayed to him. The officers decided that Mocarsky should walk to the Chevrolet and see what he might observe and see if Seamster would talk to him.
Just after 6:50 Mocarsky, alone, walked from the double doors of Sheetz to the driver’s side of Seamster’s Chevrolet. Mocarsky did not have any weapons drawn nor was his law enforcement badge displayed, the report said.
As Mocarsky got close to the Chevrolet, he could see the cigar in Seamster’s hands and recalled saying to Seamster through the open driver’s side window something like “Hey, what are you doing?” Within the next four seconds, Mocarsky is seen on the store surveillance video reaching to his neck and pulling out the chain on which his badge was displayed. “How about talking to us for a minute,” Mocarsky said, according to the report. Less than a second later, Seamster began backing up the car and Mocarsky leaned in towards the driver’s window and told Seamster to stop. The store’s videotape shows Mocarsky raising his hands.
At nearly the same time Mocarsky was talking to Seamster, two people on bicycles can be seen in the tapes entering the Sheetz parking lot from U.S. 58, moving in the frame behind the car operated by Seamster.
As McGregor saw the vehicle coming close to the bicyclists, he got out of the SUV and ran towards the Chevrolet, yelling, “Stop police,” the report states. As McGregor approached the Chevrolet, he pulled his police badge from inside his shirt, but Seamster continued to back up. Another civilian witness saw Seamster’s car “flying toward her car,” and she screamed to her sister, who was a passenger in her car, “to look out for the car.” That witness said she knew those who were yelling were police officers and that she could see their badges hanging down from their necks.
At this point McGregor reached the front of the Chevrolet and drew his gun, continuing to yell, “Stop. Police.” Seamster, however, put the car in drive and hit McGregor as the car lurched forward, with the officer lifted over the driver’s side front corner of the car, causing McGregor to roll across the edge of the car’s hood and land on the pavement by the driver’s side near the door. McGregor continued to try to get Seamster to stop.
In the meantime, Campbell and Lewis had run out of Sheetz and were in the parking lot, approaching Seamster’s car. They both had their badges displayed as they continued towards McGregor to try and help him. Both had their guns drawn. As Lewis got closer to McGregor, Seamster’s car continued to go forward and the front of the car struck Lewis, who jumped up to keep the car from running over him. He landed on top of the hood of the car and fired his weapon.
The store’s surveillance video shows that at 6:51 p.m., the front windshield of the car was shattered by a single bullet. At that point Lewis fell into the windshield over the edge of the roof, back to the trunk and on to the ground behind the car, which stopped after going several more feet forward as Seamster put it into park. The car came to a halt 16 seconds after Mocarsky first approached Seamster.
Oliver, the passenger inside, got out of the passenger door and got down on the ground before being removed from the scene. She told the first officer she spoke to there that she had told Seamster to stop the car, “but he wouldn’t listen,” the report states.
Checking on Seamster, officers realized that he had been shot in the chest and within 30 seconds they began applying pressure to his chest, while he was still in the driver’s seat. A medic arrived at 6:54 p.m. and Seamster was removed from the driver’s seat and placed on the pavement of the parking lot at the medic’s direction. But the medic quickly realized that nothing could be done as Seamster had died.
The report notes that as officers approached Seamster rolling the cigar, they had no prior knowledge of him and had no idea he would have any reason to attempt to run from them.
Police subsequently determined that Seamster was driving on a suspended operator’s license since his license had been suspended for a number of prior driving under the influence convictions. Since he had been convicted of driving on a suspended license on two previous occasions, a third conviction would result in mandatory jail time, the report notes.
He also had a pending case in Danville for possession of marijuana which had not yet gone to trial. There was also a warrant from Danville charging him with shoplifting with a juvenile who had been apprehended. Seamster, they alleged, had run from Danville officers there and from a Wal-Mart loss prevention officer; a family member later contacted a magistrate in Danville about Seamster’s turning himself in, although she was apparently unable to do so, the report states.
Also, Seamster had been convicted of a felony and was required to serve jail time for probation violations. That experience “would have heightened” Seamster’s reluctance to be in a position to have to serve additional time in jail, White said.
The report also states that two days prior to the July 2 shooting, there was a theft claim filed with Caswell County, NC. where Seamster lived, linking him to a crime as “a person of interest.”
Meredith on Friday questioned that aspect of the investigators’ report, saying her nephew could not have been involved in the Caswell crime since Seamster had been at a cook-out with Oliver in Buggs Island at the time of the theft.
Following the release of the investigation’s findings, one questioner asked White why she had not turned the matter over to an outside prosecutor since she had to work on a daily basis with the officers involved in the shooting. White responded that the citizens of Halifax County had elected her to make the tough decisions and she felt it her duty to do so.
In addition to media representatives and family members, also in the Halifax County Circuit Courtroom was William Avon Keen, head of the local chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC). Keen said his group is always interested in events surrounding the work of police offices.
Meredith said after the press conference that she was not surprised, but nevertheless appalled, by the conclusions of White and police investigators.
“We expected it to go that way, that it would be [ruled] justified,” she said on the steps of the Courthouse. “We don’t agree with that, we think it was absolutely unjustified.”
She asked “what was the urgency” that led officers to confront a small-time drug user, suggesting police acted rashly when they could have defused the incident by arresting Seamster after he drove off from the Sheetz lot.
“My nephew also had to make rapid decisions when someone approached him, asking ‘what are you doing,’” said Meredith.

REPORT OF FINDINGS
IN
DEATH OF RANDOLPH NEAL SEAMSTER, JR.

The following report has been prepared in order to set forth facts determined, legal
standards applied and conclusions reached following the investigation of the events of July 2,
2008 when Randolph Neal Seamster, Jr. was shot and killed by a law enforcement officer in
Halifax County, Virginia.

Statement of Facts

On July 2, 2008, Randolph Neal Seamster, Jr. (known as Neal) was with Ceclie Nicole
Oliver all day. They had known each other for less than a week. Spending most of the day in
Mecklenburg County, Virginia, the two later went to Danville, Virginia where Mr. Seamster
purchased thirty-five dollars of marijuana, according to Ms. Oliver. Ms. Oliver said that she
does not use marijuana but that Neal Seamster had used it two days prior in her presence.

After purchasing the marijuana, Mr. Seamster and Ms. Oliver started back to Clarksville,
Virginia, which is in Mecklenburg County. They travelled east on Route 58, leading them
through Halifax County, Virginia. Neal Seamster was driving a 2003 Chevrolet registered to
Ms. Oliver. Neither Mr. Seamster nor Ms. Oliver had a current operator’s license.

When the two got to the intersection of Routes 58 and 501 in Halifax County, they
stopped at the Sheetz gas station and convenience store. Surveillance video shows that they
arrived at 6:41 p.m. Neal Seamster parked the Chevrolet in a parking spot near the glass double
doors of Sheetz on the Route 58 side of the parking lot. Both Mr. Seamster and Ms. Oliver
immediately got out of the car and went inside Sheetz. According to Ms. Oliver, she went to the
restroom. Surveillance video confirms that Ms. Oliver did not make any purchase before
returning to the front passenger seat of the car at 6:45 p.m.

Upon entering Sheetz, Neal Seamster immediately approached the counter to purchase,
according to Ms. Oliver, a cigar to use to roll marijuana in (known as a “philly blunt”). Mr.
Seamster was not waited on until 6:47 p.m. The surveillance video shows him hand what
appears to be an identification card to the store clerk and then pay for the item and leave. Neal
Seamster returned to the driver’s seat of the Chevrolet at 6:47:20 p.m.

In the meantime, officers assigned to the Halifax/South Boston Regional Narcotics and
Gang Task Force, had just completed a meeting with an informant elsewhere in the county and
had stopped at Sheetz to purchase beverages. All of the officers were still on duty, however.
Surveillance video shows the Task Force vehicle arriving at Sheetz at 6:46 p.m. The Task Force
vehicle was parked two spaces west of the Chevrolet being operated by Neal Seamster, with no
vehicles parked between them. The Task Force vehicle was a large SUV that sits higher than the
Chevrolet car. The four Task Force officers were dressed in plain clothes. However, each had a
law enforcement badge attached to a chain around his neck. The badges are easily displayed by
pulling them to the outside of the shirts of the officers.

Three of the four officers who arrived in the SUV went inside Sheetz. Investigator Tom
Lewis went inside the double doors on the Route 58 side at 6:46:30 p.m., immediately followed
by Agent Mark Campbell and then Investigator Tracy Mocarsky. As each officer entered Sheetz,
each went to the right and none appeared even to see Neal Seamster who was waiting at a
counter to the left of the double doors. According to the surveillance video, Mr. Seamster never
did anything unruly or disruptive that would have called attention to him in the store. Neal
Seamster was inside of Sheetz for less than one minute after the Task Force officers arrived.

Investigator Mike McGregor remained inside the Task Force vehicle while the other three
went into Sheetz. Investigator McGregor saw a female (who we now know as Ms. Oliver) sitting
in the passenger seat of the car parked just to the east of the Task Force vehicle. Investigator
McGregor also saw Neal Seamster come out of Sheetz, smiling at Ms. Oliver, and shaking the
cigar (what the officer refers to as a “blunt”) in the air.

Investigator McGregor, who has been a police officer for seven years and has achieved
Corporal rank, recognized the “blunt” as a device often used as a rolling paper for marijuana.
Based upon his experience and specialized training, Investigator McGregor was aware that users
of marijuana typically will remove the tobacco from the cigar or “blunt” and replace it with
marijuana.

Investigator McGregor continued to watch Neal Seamster as he got into the driver’s seat
of the Chevrolet parked to the east of the Task Force vehicle. The investigator could see Mr.
Seamster manipulating the cigar and observed him dropping material (tobacco) from inside the
cigar out of the driver’s side window. Investigator McGregor also saw Neal Seamster looking
around as if to see if anyone was watching.

Upon observing the suspicious activity, Investigator McGregor called the cell phone of
Investigator Lewis, who was still in Sheetz, and described for him what he could observe in the
Chevrolet. Surveillance video shows Investigator Lewis on his cell phone at 6:49 p.m.
Investigator Lewis notified the other two officers still in Sheetz of Investigator McGregor’s
observations. Investigator Mocarsky looked out of the Route 58 side of the store and could see
Neal Seamster with his head looking down towards his lap, where Neal Seamster’s hands
appeared to be. The Task Force members decided that Investigator Mocarsky would walk up to
the Chevrolet to see what he could observe and to see if Neal Seamster would talk to him.

Surveillance video shows Neal Seamster in the Chevrolet for nearly three and a half
minutes, not moving the car, before Investigator Mocarsky approached. The video also shows
movement by the hands of Mr. Seamster consistent with the observations made by Investigators
McGregor and Mocarsky.

At 6:50:48, Investigator Mocarsky, alone, walked from the double doors of Sheetz to the
driver’s side window of the Chevrolet. Investigator Mocarsky did not have any weapons drawn.
Upon initial approach, the investigator did not have his law enforcement badge displayed.

Investigator Mocarsky got close enough to the Chevrolet that he could see inside of the
car and saw the “blunt” in Neal Seamster’s hands. The investigator recalls saying to Mr.
Seamster through the driver’s side open window something like, “Hey, what are you doing?”
Within four seconds of Investigator Mocarsky’s initial encounter with Neal Seamster, the
surveillance tape shows the Investigator Mocarsky reaching at his neck and pulling the chain
upon which his badge was displayed. As he was pulling out his badge, Investigator Mocarsky
said to Neal Seamster, “How about talking to us for a minute.” Less than one second later, Mr.
Seamster began backing up the Chevrolet. Investigator Mocarsky leaned in towards the driver’s
window and told Mr. Seamster to stop. On the surveillance video, Investigator Mocarsky is seen
raising his hands.

As Investigator Mocarsky was speaking to Neal Seamster, two people on bicycles can be seen
entering the Sheetz parking lot from Route 58, travelling in the direction of the rear of the car
being operated by Neal Seamster. When Mr. Seamster began backing up, the Chevrolet came
extremely close to hitting both of the bicyclists. Observing this, Investigator McGregor, got out
of the Task Force vehicle and ran towards the car being driven by Mr. Seamster, yelling, “Stop.
Police.” As Investigator McGregor approached the Chevrolet, he pulled his police badge from
the inside of his shirt and displayed it on a chain.

Mr. Seamster continued to back the Chevrolet rapidly. A civilian witness saw that his car was
“flying toward her car.” She screamed to alert her sister, who was her passenger, “the car, the
car, look out for the car!” The witness also stated that she could hear the law enforcement
officers yelling at Mr. Seamster for him to stop the car. The civilian witness stated that she knew
those who were yelling were police officers and that she could see the badges hanging down
from their necks.

As Mr. Seamster nearly hit the car of the civilian witness, Investigator McGregor had reached
the front of the Chevrolet being backed up by Mr. Seamster. By then Investigator McGregor had
drawn his gun and was continuing to yell, “Stop. Police.” Mr. Seamster, however, put the
Chevrolet in drive and hit Investigator McGregor with the driver’s side front corner of the car,
causing the Investigator to roll across the edge of hood of the car and land on the driver’s side
near the door. Investigator McGregor immediately tried to get Mr. Seamster to stop as he
approached the driver’s side window.

In the meantime, both Agent Campbell and Investigator Lewis had run out of Sheetz and were in
the parking lot approaching the Chevrolet Mr. Seamster was operating when Investigator
McGregor was struck. Both Agent Campbell and Investigator Lewis had their badges displayed
on chains outside of their shirts. Agent Campbell and Investigator Lewis continued towards
Investigator McGregor to help him. Both drew their guns. As Investigator Lewis got closer to
Investigator McGregor, Mr. Seamster continued accelerating the Chevrolet forward. The front
of the car struck Investigator Lewis, who jumped up to keep the car from running him over. The
Investigator landed on top of the hood of the car and fired his weapon. The surveillance video
shows the shattering of the front windshield from the single bullet at 6:51:00 p.m. Investigator
Lewis then fell into the windshield, over the edge of the roof, back to the trunk and to the ground
at the rear of the car.

Mr. Seamster stopped the car after travelling several more feet forward and can be seen putting
the car in park on the surveillance video at 6:51:04 p.m., sixteen seconds after Investigator
Mocarsky first approached the car. The passenger from the Chevrolet, Ceslie Oliver, got out of
the passenger door and got down on the ground before she was removed from the area. To the
first officer she spoke to on the scene, Ms. Oliver said that she told Mr. Seamster to stop the car,
“but he wouldn’t listen.”

When the officers checked on Mr. Seamster, they realized he had been shot in the chest. Within
about 30 seconds, the officers began applying pressure to Mr. Seamster’s chest, while he was
still seated in the driver’s seat. When a medic arrived at 6:54 p.m., Mr. Seamster was removed
from the driver’s seat and placed on the parking lot pavement, at the medic’s direction. The
medic soon realized that nothing could be done medically for Mr. Seamster as he had died. The
medical examiner from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner’s Office concluded that Mr.
Seamster died as a result of a single gunshot wound to the chest.

When officers approached Mr. Seamster when he was rolling the blunt, they had no prior
knowledge of him and had no idea that he would have any reason to attempt to run from them.
However, after some investigation, it is apparent that Mr. Seamster may have felt an obligation
to run from law enforcement.

First, Mr. Seamster was driving on a suspended operator’s license as his license had been
suspended for a number of prior driving under the influence convictions. As he had on at least
two occasions been convicted of driving on a suspended license, a third conviction would result
in mandatory jail time.

Second, Mr. Seamster had a pending case in the City of Danville for possession of marijuana.
His case had not yet been to trial.

Third, Mr. Seamster had a warrant for his arrest pending in the City of Danville for shoplifting at
WalMart. Investigation revealed that WalMart employees observed Mr. Seamster and a juvenile
stealing from the store. Although the juvenile was apprehended at WalMart, Mr. Seamster ran
from loss prevention officers and Danville Police officers and had not yet been arrested for the
offense. A family member of Mr. Seamster had contacted a magistrate in Danville about Mr.
Seamster turning himself in. However, the family member stated that she could not get him to
do so nor could she get Mr. Seamster’s father to assist her in getting him to turn himself in.

Fourth, Mr. Seamster previously had been convicted of a felony and had been required to serve
time in jail for probation violations. Certainly that experience would heighten Mr. Seamster’s
reluctance to be in a position to have to serve additional time in jail.

Finally, just two days prior to July 2, 2008, there was a theft claim filed with Caswell County,
N.C., the county where Mr. Seamster resided. The claim involved a large amount of monetary
loss and a breaking and entering. It was under investigation by the Caswell County Sheriff’s
Office. Mr. Seamster was a “person of interest” and had been linked to the crime by the victim
of the theft.



Applicable Law

It long has been held as law in Virginia, and affirmed in federal court decisions, that an analysis
such as this one must be made from the perspective of the officer who uses deadly force.

“Much deference must be given to the officer in the field as he makes life and
death decisions in an instant, often as to whether his life or the life of a citizen
will be put in danger. An officer in the performance of his duty as such, stands
on an entirely different footing from an individual. He is a minister of justice,
and entitled to the peculiar protection of the law.”

Mercer v. Commonwealth, 150 Va. 588, 599 (1928).

“The . . . focus should be on the circumstances at the moment that force was
used and on the fact that officers on the beat are not often afforded the luxury of
armchair reflection.”

Elliott v. Leavitt, 99 F.3d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1996).

The cases go on to instruct that the perspective from which an officer’s actions must be judged is
that of the officer himself at the time of the incident and not from an “after the fact” review.
Allowance must be made “for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second
judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.” Anderson v. Russell,
247 F.3d 125, 129 (4th Cir. 2001).

Certainly an analysis of this case must begin with the initial encounter between law enforcement
and Mr. Seamster. The law of the country for 40 years has been that a law enforcement officer
has the right, and frankly the obligation, to detain an individual in order to conduct an
investigation into possible criminal activity—that activity, which based upon the officer’s
training and experience would constitute reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal
activity. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980).

In the case now under analysis, the officers clearly had reasonable and articulable suspicion that
Mr. Seamster was engaged in criminal activity while he was seated in the car in front of Sheetz.
Investigator McGregor, a law enforcement officer for seven years and a special officer assigned
to the regional drug task force, is well trained and experienced in the manner in which marijuana
is used in Halifax County. He has made untold arrests for such an offense and has testified in
court numerous times on the issue. He was in a position to clearly observe Mr. Seamster hollow
out the cigar to make room for the marijuana; he observed Mr. Seamster remove tobacco from
the cigar and discard it on the parking lot of Sheetz. In addition, Investigator Mocarsky, a law
enforcement officer for eight years and also a special officer assigned to the regional drug task
force, is also well trained and experienced in the manner in which marijuana is used in Halifax
County. He, as well, has made untold arrests for such an offense and has testified in court
numerous times on the issue. As Investigator Mocarsky approached the car, he observed in Mr.
Seamster’s hands material he knew to be used for rolling marijuana “blunts.”
The United States Supreme Court confirms that the officer’s behavior in approaching Mr.
Seamster was appropriate:
“[I]f there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person
has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify
him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain
additional information.”
Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985).
“A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to
maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be
most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.”
Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972).
The Virginia Supreme Court further has held that an individual has no right to resist an
investigatory stop, better known as a “Terry stop.” This is so, even if the stop is later determined
to be an illegal one. See Commonwealth v. Hill, 264 Va. 541 (2002). The reasoning for this is
best set forth in a Maryland appellate court decision:

“Close questions as to whether an officer possesses articulable suspicion must
be resolved in the courtroom and not fought out on the streets.”

Id. at 548, quoting State v. Wiegman, 714 A.2d 841, 849-850 (Md. 1998). Thus, Mr. Seamster’s
flight from the lawful police encounter was unlawful.
Mr. Seamster’s flight, alone, however, is not what justifies the use of deadly force. It is the
rapidly escalating dangerousness of the flight that does. First, Mr. Seamster nearly backs into
two bicyclists. Next, he nearly backs into another vehicle with persons inside. Third, he pulls
forward into a law enforcement officer, never stopping. Fourth, Mr. Seamster strikes another
officer. (The striking of each police officer constitutes two felonies). Mr. Seamster drives in this
manner notwithstanding the business of the parking lot and the surrounding highways and in
total disregard of police commands to stop and of their drawn weapons. In fact, when Mr.
Seamster was shot, he was not driving towards the closest exit of the parking lot but in the
direction of other customers there on the scene, around whom he would have to navigate to get to
another exit.
Again, the United States Supreme Court provides guidance in evaluating the amount of force that
can lawfully be used by a law enforcement officer:
“Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of
serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not unconstitutionally
unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.”

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 9 (1985).

“[I]f the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon [in this case a motor
vehicle] . . . deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and
if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”

Id. at 11 – 12.

More recently, the United States Supreme Court, just last year, found as reasonable a law
enforcement officer’s use of potentially deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect whose actions put
the officers and the public at risk. See Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007). While the suspect
in Scott involved a high speed chase on a roadway, the Supreme Court commented on what was
shown on the police videotape: The pursuit showed that the suspect “posed an actual and
imminent threat to the lives of any pedestrians who might have been present, to other civilian
motorists, and to the officer involved . . .” Id. at 1178. An analysis of the surveillance video in
this case reveals the same facts.

The Scott Court acknowledged that the officer’s use of force was highly likely to result in loss of
life or serious injury but stated further that “[w]e think it appropriate in this process to take into
account not only the number of lives at risk, but also their relative culpability.” Id. at 1178. Just
as the suspect in Scott recklessly and with no regard for others placed himself, the officers and
civilians in danger, so did Mr. Seamster.

Conclusion

The facts as established in the surveillance video and witness interviews clearly establish that the
law enforcement officers were justified in their approach of Neal Seamster, who they suspected
to be engaged in criminal activity. The tragic, unwise and unlawful choices made by Mr.
Seamster thereafter left the officer with little choice but to use deadly force. That use of deadly
force by the officer does not warrant any criminal charges.



This _____________ day of August, 2008.






__________________________________________
Kim Slayton White
Commonwealth’s Attorney for Halifax County

 

Surveillance video