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.”
www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 21:25:00
(The Center Square) – Authorization of sports agents to sign North Carolina’s collegiate athletes for “name, image, and likeness” contracts used in product endorsements is in legislation approved Wednesday by a committee of the state Senate.
Authorize NIL Agency Contracts, known also as Senate Bill 229, is headed to the Rules Committee after gaining favor in the Judiciary Committee. It would likely next get a full floor vote.
Last year the NCAA approved NIL contracts for players.
Sen. Amy S. Galey, R-Alamance
NCLeg.gov
“Athletes can benefit from NIL by endorsing products, signing sponsorship deals, engaging in commercial opportunities and monetizing their social media presence, among other avenues,” the NCAA says on its website. “The NCAA fully supports these opportunities for student-athletes across all three divisions.”
SB229 spells out the information that the agent’s contract with the athlete must include, and requires a warning to the athlete that they could lose their eligibility if they do not notify the school’s athletic director within 72 hours of signing the contract.
“Consult with your institution of higher education prior to entering into any NIL contract,” the says the warning that would be required by the legislation. “Entering into an NIL contract that conflicts with state law or your institution’s policies may have negative consequences such as loss of athletic eligibility. You may cancel this NIL agency contract with 14 days after signing it.”
The legislation also exempts the NIL contracts from being disclosed under the state’s Open Records Act when public universities review them. The state’s two ACC members from the UNC System, Carolina and N.C. State, requested the exemption.
“They are concerned about disclosure of the student-athlete contracts when private universities don’t have to disclose the student-athlete contracts,” Sen. Amy Galey, R-Alamance, told the committee. “I feel very strongly that a state university should not be put at a disadvantage at recruitment or in program management because they have disclosure requirements through state law.”
Duke and Wake Forest are the other ACC members, each a private institution.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article primarily reports on the legislative development regarding NIL (name, image, and likeness) contracts for collegiate athletes in North Carolina. It presents facts about the bill, committee actions, and includes statements from a state senator without using loaded or emotionally charged language. The piece neutrally covers the issue by explaining both the bill’s purpose and the concerns it addresses, such as eligibility warnings and disclosure exemptions. Overall, the article maintains a factual and informative tone without advocating for or against the legislation, reflecting a centrist, unbiased approach.
SUMMARY: Donald van der Vaart, a former North Carolina environmental secretary and climate skeptic, has been appointed to the North Carolina Utilities Commission by Republican Treasurer Brad Briner. Van der Vaart, who previously supported offshore drilling and fracking, would oversee the state’s transition to renewable energy while regulating utility services. His appointment, which requires approval from the state House and Senate, has drawn opposition from environmental groups. Critics argue that his views contradict clean energy progress. The appointment follows a controversial bill passed by the legislature, granting the treasurer appointment power to the commission.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 14:47:00
(The Center Square) – Called “crypto-friendly legislation” by the leader of the chamber, a proposal on digital assets on Wednesday afternoon passed the North Carolina House of Representatives.
Passage was 71-44 mostly along party lines.
The NC Digital Assets Investments Act, known also as House Bill 92, has investment requirements, caps and management, and clear definitions and standards aimed at making sure only qualified digital assets are included. House Speaker Destin Hall, R-Caldwell, said the state would potentially join more than a dozen others with “crypto-friendly legislation.”
With him in sponsorship are Reps. Stephen Ross, R-Alamance, Mark Brody, R-Union, and Mike Schietzelt, R-Wake.
Nationally last year, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act – known as FIT21 – passed through the U.S. House in May and in September was parked in the Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
Dan Spuller, cochairman of the North Carolina Blockchain Initiative, said the state has proven a leader on digital asset policy. That includes the Money Transmitters Act of 2016, the North Carolina Regulatory Sandbox Act of 2021, and last year’s No Centrl Bank Digital Currency Pmts to State. The latter was strongly opposed by Gov. Roy Cooper, so much so that passage votes of 109-4 in the House and 39-5 in the Senate slipped back to override votes, respectively, of 73-41 and 27-17.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a factual report on the passage of the NC Digital Assets Investments Act, highlighting the legislative process, party-line votes, and related legislative measures. It does not adopt a clear ideological stance or frame the legislation in a way that suggests bias. Instead, it provides neutral information on the bill, its sponsors, and relevant background on state legislative activity in digital asset policy. The tone and language remain objective, focusing on legislative facts rather than promoting a particular viewpoint.
