Former Roanoke Rapids police Chief Bobby Martin says in a recently filed lawsuit against the city and others that his termination by City Manager Kelly Traynham was malicious and corrupt.
He says it was motivated by personal desire to protect a department head, protect her advantageous political connections with the department head and other local politicians to retaliate against him for following legitimate and valid actions.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit, which was filed on June 28 in Halifax County Superior Court are the city, Traynham in her individual and official capacities, Richardson and Davis Investigative Consulting Group and Richardson, Davis and Forest Investigative Consulting Group.
The consulting group investigated allegations of policy violations which led to the firings of Martin and his second in command — Captain Jamie Hardy — in April of last year.
Hardy, who is mentioned throughout the document, said via a text response he was not at liberty to currently discuss the matter.
City statement
In a statement on the matter by City Attorney Geoffrey Davis Tuesday evening, the city’s legal counsel said the city has not been served with the lawsuit as of yet, and, “I can't really respond to allegations with which we haven't been served.”
He said, however, “I will say that throughout the investigation that led to Chief Martin's termination, the city went out of its way to ensure that his rights to privacy in his personnel matters were protected — despite a lot of calls to open his personnel file up to public scrutiny.”
Said Davis: “If he has, in fact, filed a lawsuit against the city, that would be an interesting choice on his part, precisely because now the city is going to be required to respond to any of the allegations he makes, and I suspect to a large extent all of the information that we were legally required to keep private — to protect him — will be brought to light in a public filing.
“I think I've indicated before that there is a lengthy, detailed report in this matter, and it sounds like that there is a pretty good chance that whatever privacy rights he had to that are about to be waived.”
Davis continued his response saying, “Regardless, I always caution the public about making too many conclusions just based upon the allegations of a plaintiff in a lawsuit. The city, and I guess any other named parties, will respond formally, and the public will finally be able to hear the city's side of the matter. I look forward to that, so stay tuned.”
Claims of relief
Martin, who requests a jury trial, seeks six claims of relief in the lawsuit. In all the claims damages in excess of $25,000 are sought.
The first claim relates to wrongful termination in violation of public policy and damages.
The second claim relates to negligence on the part of the consulting group.
The third claim relates to unfair and deceptive trade practices on the part of the consulting group.
The fourth claim relates to wrongful interference with Martin’s contract on the part of the consulting group.
The fifth claim relates to obstruction of justice on Traynham’s part and an alternative claim against the consulting group.
The sixth claim comes under Article 1 of the North Carolina Constitution and is a claim for relief against the city.
“The civil rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Rights in Article I of the North Carolina Constitution are individual and personal rights entitled to protection against state action,” the lawsuit says. “To the extent a plaintiff has no other state law remedies under which they can proceed other than the provisions of the North Carolina Constitution, a plaintiff has a direct action under the State Constitution for violation of rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Rights.”
The basis for the lawsuit
Martin is being represented by Raleigh attorneys J. Heydt Philbeck and Phillip A. Collins.
Philbeck is an of counsel attorney for Bailey Dixon and Collins is a partner with the firm.
The complaint contends that Martin was alerted to criminal conduct including apparent use of illegal substances and potential solicitation of a minor by a fellow department head who is referred to only as “the department head” in the lawsuit.
“Martin took appropriate actions, including, but not limited to, referral of investigations of the department head to both the Halifax County Sheriff’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigations,” the complaint says. “In response to Martin's actions, the city manager, who was personally close to the department head and keenly aware of his political connections, attempted to compromise and obstruct any investigation of the department head, and ultimately decided that Martin should be terminated in retaliation for his faithfully performing the duties of his office.”
The complaint charges that the city manager, recognizing that she had no reasonable basis to terminate Martin, hired an investigative firm to find a pretext for termination. “The investigative firm conducted a biased investigation and produced a flawed report that the city manager utilized to justify Martin's termination.”
Ten years with the city
Martin worked in law enforcement for 27.5 years and for approximately 10 of those years he was employed with the Roanoke Rapids Police Department.
During his law enforcement career, Martin served with distinction, the complaint said.
On August 5, 2019, Martin was appointed RRPD Chief after having served as interim chief since January 30, 2019 and served in that capacity until his termination on April 21, 2023.
His accomplishments during his tenure included the following, according to the complaint:
Increased the number of RRPD officers receiving intermediate and advanced certificates from the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission than at any other time
Procured the Flock Camera System with the donations of business owners to better protect citizens and local businesses
Procured bullet proof vests for officers through a grant
Initiated a Tracker program for use of force events to help better prevent excessive force cases
Procured a police dog through donation to improve the department's search capacity
Secured grant for a Proactive Community Engagement Officer
Secured new patrol vehicles
Teamed up with a local business owner who donated help and flooring to update the police department
“As RRPD chief, Martin was wholly committed to his officers and the community they served,” the complaint says. “He often worked holidays so officers with young children could stay home to be with their families. He regularly worked shifts with squads during staff shortages and took calls with officers to lessen their burden. He constantly monitored radio traffic and would ride out in the middle of the night to check on his officers.”
He also made it a point, according to the document, to depoliticize the department, which included advancing consistency in the promotional process so that everyone was treated fairly based on their merits
The Justice League
When Martin was first appointed RRPD chief, the department head told him that he was part of the Justice League.
The complaint says the Justice League included Human Resources Director Christina Caudle and Traynham. “At that time the department head further stated that the Justice League looked out for each other and had each other's backs.”
In another conversation, the department head also bragged to Martin that he had the city council in his back pocket because he was good friends with a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives, who is not named in the complaint and former Councilman Wayne Smith, who stepped down from the panel last month due to health concerns. “The department head further stated that if Martin needed to get something done, he should just come to him.”
The complaint says in another conversation, the department head informed Martin that he was very close to the city manager and that he had a "behind the door" relationship with her.
Facebook search warrant
Around November of 2021, Hardy was approached by an RRPD detective regarding the department head's conduct. “The detective's teenage stepdaughter, who was a family friend of the department head, invited a teen-age friend (in the document referred to as female juvenile teen) to spend the night with her at the department head's house.
“After spending the night at the department head's house, the female juvenile teen reported that the department head's conduct, which included private Facebook messages that the department head had sent to her that night, made her feel uncomfortable.”
Hardy and the detective interviewed the female juvenile teen with her mother present. “During this interview, the female juvenile teen reported that the department head had privately messaged her on Facebook that night and on other occasions,” the complaint says. “The messages were not sexually explicit but the department head was messaging her late at night, telling her not to get him in trouble, telling her that she was his ‘fave,’ and that he was alone in the garage.”
The lawsuit says that the messages, coupled with the department head's reported intrusion into a room where he allegedly knew the teenagers were undressing were troubling and raised a concern that the department head had engaged in illegal communications or activities with minors.
Hardy obtained a search warrant signed by a superior court judge authorizing access to six months of the department head's Facebook messages.
The messages
The Facebook messages obtained pursuant to the search warrant did not include any sexually explicit communications with a minor but did reveal that the department head frequently used and had purchased marijuana. One message thread revealed that he had purchased 7.5 grams of marijuana from a neighbor.
In one Facebook message, the department head sent Traynham a sexually graphic still of Sharon Stone from the movie Basic Instinct and stated, "meeting memories!!!!" to which Traynham responded with a laughing emoji. “The department head then messaged ‘I love working with you ;)’ and Traynham replied ‘We make a great team, always have.’”
The department head also sent Traynham Facebook messages regarding his remodeling of a conference room in his department's building. “The department head had the conference room soundproofed and added a bathroom with a shower installed adjacent to the conference room.” The lawsuit says that employees had complained directly to Martin about the department head having sexual relations with women in the conference room, which they referred to as "the boom boom room."
In one Facebook message exchange, the department head bragged about his relationship with a state representative to a woman who supplied him with a vape pen and marijuana.
He described the state representative as paying out money like "Daddy Warbucks," specifically referencing $1 million dollars in grant money provided to his department.
The department head's Facebook messages included several exchanges with Caudle, according to the lawsuit. “In one such exchange, Caudle told the department head not to do the ‘back door political sh*t’ for Traynham like he did with the prior city manager and that he should make that clear to the state representative. The department head complained that he had been promised many things that had never materialized.”
Shocked by the messages
The complaint says that Martin and Hardy were shocked by the disturbing nature of some of these Facebook messages and were concerned that the close relationship between the department head and Traynham would prevent her from acting in the city's best interests.
“Despite his lack of trust in the city manager, Martin had a duty pursuant to city policy to disclose the department head's marijuana usage and the basis for the search warrant to her,” the lawsuit says.
On or around December 13, 2021, Martin and Hardy met with Traynham and the city attorney to discuss the search warrant and the department head's apparent extensive marijuana usage and purchases as revealed in his Facebook messages.
“During this meeting, Traynham appeared unconcerned about the department head's use of marijuana despite the fact that the department head was violating the city's substance abuse policy,” according to the document. “Martin explained to her that RRPD was still arresting people for marijuana possession.”
Martin informed Traynham that he would refer the matter to the Halifax County Sheriff’s Office. The information, according to the complaint, was turned over to HCSO Detective Shane Guyant to investigate further. Guyant is now chief of the Roanoke Rapids Police Department.
The lawsuit says that, “Traynham indicated that she was extremely pleased that Guyant would be looking into the matter and repeatedly stated that she and Guyant were very good friends. Martin was wary of Guyant's involvement due to the close friendship between Guyant and Traynham.”
The complaint contends that after this meeting, Traynham stopped returning Martin's phone calls and text messages.
Marijuana investigation
Soon after the meeting with Traynham, Martin and Hardy met twice with law enforcement officers from HCSO, including Guyant, to discuss referral of the matter to HCSO, which ultimately occurred.
On February 24, 2022, the lawsuit charges, Guyant sent a text to Hardy responding to an inquiry regarding the status of the investigation. "I have not had any luck at all. I spoke to Kelly (Traynham) about drug testing. (The) problem if he comes back positive, (the) first penalty is treatment. Marijuana cases are a joke in this county and more than likely would not be prosecuted. I'm sorry this is a tricky one."
The lawsuit alleges that Guyant subsequently admitted in an interview conducted by R&D that he knew that the department head had many friends, including a state representative, and that he was not going to ruin his career over some marijuana. “He further stated to Scott Hall of HCSO that he was going to be insubordinate and not do a thing with the investigation.”
Says the lawsuit: “On information and belief, Traynham never acted upon Guyant's proposal to have the department head drug tested, which was in violation of the city's substance abuse policy.”
City’s substance abuse policy
The city's substance abuse policy provides that the use or possession of illegal drugs is prohibited for city employees and will result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. The policy further provides that if there is reasonable suspicion that an employee is using or possessing drugs, the employee will be tested.
Under the policy, a report of prohibited drug use provided by a reliable or credible source constitutes reasonable suspicion.
“Martin's report to Traynham of the department head's extensive marijuana use as evidenced by his Facebook messages constituted a reasonable suspicion of prohibited drug use,” the lawsuit says. “Accordingly, Traynham had a duty to have the department head drug tested pursuant to the city's substance abuse policy. In violating the city's substance abuse policy, Traynham placed her personal relationship with the department head above her professional duties in service to the city.”
The lawsuit claims that in addition to violating the city's substance abuse policy, Traynham improperly disclosed to the department head details about the search warrant and Martin and Hardy's meeting with HCSO. “The city manager also privately spoke to Guyant about the meeting and disclosed her conversation with Guyant to the department head. In so doing, the city manager intentionally compromised the investigation by ‘tipping off’ her personal friend, the department head.”
The lawsuit further contends that after being tipped off by Traynham, the department head “asked his good friend,” former HCSO Chief Deputy Sheriff Corey Dixon “to find out what he could about the investigation. Dixon reportedly called the dispatcher to try and locate a case file number but was unsuccessful.”
The lawsuit purports that the department head also asked Caudle to look through Hardy’s personal file for him, which she did. “The department head and Caudle both knew that Caudle was prohibited by law from disclosing the contents of this file to the department head but because of her close relationship to the department head, she nevertheless complied with his request.”
Scrap metal investigation
On July 5, 2022, Roanoke Rapids Graded School District Superintendent Juliana Thompson was informed by school resource officers that certain RRGSD maintenance personnel had sold school system scrap metal to Powell's Garage and received payment from the sales totaling approximately $5,000, according to the lawsuit.
SRO Bruce Temple stated that the incident had been discovered through a Crimestoppers tip .
When Martin investigated the Crimestoppers tip, he learned from Lieutenant Roger Jenkins, who handled Crimestoppers for HCSO, that no tips on potential scrap metal thefts regarding the RRGSD had been received. “He further learned that the Crimestoppers phone had not been in operation for several months. Martin later contacted HCSO Detective Brian Biggerstaff, who also assisted with Crimestoppers, and he provided a log of all tips during the pertinent time frame that confirmed that no Crimestoppers tip regarding scrap metal and RRGSD had been received prior to July 5, 2022.”
The lawsuit says that Biggerstaff’s report was confirmed again by a letter of September 6, 2022, from Halifax County Sheriff Tyree Davis. “Based on this evidence, it was clear to Martin that SRO Temple had been untruthful about the existence of a Crimestoppers tip.”
In a September 6, 2022 letter to Thompson, Martin detailed what he had discovered regarding the apparent dishonest report by SRO Temple about the alleged Crimestoppers tip, the lawsuit says. “Temple was close friends with the state representative, (Halifax) County Commissioner Vernon Bryant (whose wife is a city council member), SRO Rex Stainback (who is) also a city council member and Guyant, Martin's successor as RRPD chief.”
The lawsuit says when Traynham reviewed the letter, “she was angry that Temple's actions had been reported and conveyed her displeasure to Martin. Traynham was well aware of Temple's close connections with these individuals and did not want to jeopardize her own career because of actions taken by Martin.”
On August 13, 2022, Temple was terminated from his SRO position “due to his untruthfulness regarding the Crimestoppers tip,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit contends that at his appeal hearing held on September 15, 2022, the state representative, Bryant, and former Commissioner Patrick Qualls attended the open session in a show of support for Temple. “When Temple entered the hearing room, they greeted him with hugs and handshakes,” and Temple was reinstated as SRO. “As revealed in the investigation, Temple's deceptive reporting of the scrap metal sale can be traced to the contentious relationship that had developed between the SROs and the RRGSD maintenance staff from the previous year.”
SRO involvement
On August 23, 2021, Robbie Clements, director of facilities and operations for the school system, reported the SROs for improperly using RRGSD vehicles as personal vehicles.
“On information and belief, the SROs were aware that maintenance staff had been selling scrap metal in the past but had never reported this activity until after they had been reported for improper use of school vehicles,” the lawsuit says.
In July of 2022, SROs Temple and Ron Baird had contacted Lieutenant Matt Brown of the HCSO, who was able to track a scrap metal sale to Powell's Garage and obtained photographs and documentation.
The lawsuit says Brown asked Temple and Baird if they wanted him to report the matter but they said they wanted to investigate further. “When the SROs met with Superintendent Thompson on July 5, 2022, they asked if they could be allowed to investigate the matter but Superintendent Thompson denied their request because the SROs were employees of the school system and she did not want school employees investigating each other.”
According to the complaint, Thompson contacted Martin that day for the purpose of having RRPD conduct an investigation. She also initiated an internal investigation.
That afternoon, according to the document, Thompson spoke with Clements who stated that the practice of selling scrap metal and retaining the funds had been in place since 2007.
The employees would cash the checks made out to them individually and the cash would be brought back to the maintenance shop and kept in a safe. “The money was used to purchase various supplies, jackets with their names on them, flowers for funerals, and to fund cookouts for RRGSD.”
Thompson, according to the lawsuit, immediately implemented changes to the policies and procedures for selling scrap metal.
The document says the following day Clements brought over approximately $14,000 in cash to RRGSD's finance director. “RRGSD's maintenance personnel had recorded expenditures from the fund in a log book. Based on the information she received, Thompson closed the internal investigation on July 13, 2022, and notified the SROs of this fact by certified mail.”
On July 8, 2022, Martin assigned Hardy to handle the scrap metal investigation and on July 12, 2022, Hardy interviewed the RRGSD maintenance personnel pursuant to Martin's orders. Hardy also discussed the case with an assistant district attorney who advised that she did not believe any charges should be brought, the lawsuit says. “After pressure from Martin, Hardy eventually interviewed the SROs in November of 2022 to complete the investigation. After completion of RRPD's investigation, Hardy, under Martin's authorization, referred the case to the State Auditor's office as he believed that they would be the best agency to review the matter.”
Temple said this morning, “I am appalled at many of these comments. I feel as though it would be inappropriate to make any references about my employer or my coworkers. I can assure you that there are lies presented and somebody should be held accountable for libel.”
RRGSD board of Trustees Chairman Mike Williams said this morning, “The Roanoke Rapids Graded School District has received a request from rrspin to comment on a lawsuit that has evidently been filed by former police Chief Bobby Martin against the city of Roanoke Rapids.”
Williams said, “It is my understanding that the Roanoke Rapids Graded School District has been referenced in the lawsuit. Since the lawsuit is a legal proceeding that will be resolved in the court system and references in the lawsuit regarding the Roanoke Rapids school district pertain to personnel matters the school district is prevented from commenting on these matters.”
Traffic stop
On February 6, 2022, the lawsuit contends that Martin initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle that had been parked at the department head's building.
Martin had received complaints about vehicles being parked at the building during non-operational hours, according to the document. In addition, Martin had been informed by a source at the department about missing equipment.
The weekend before the February 6 traffic stop, RRPD Officer Scott Blythe was discarding scrap metal into a dumpster located at the department head's building when he observed a vehicle with a Virginia tag parked next to the department head's truck.
Blythe noticed that the department head appeared nervous and reported this information to Hardy, who ran the tag on the vehicle.
On February 6, 2022, Martin was returning home from church and drove by the department head's building, according to the lawsuit. He observed a vehicle in the parking lot with a Virginia tag parked behind the department head's truck.
Martin called Hardy, who was off duty, about the situation and Hardy came to the location and observed the building from a different vantage point. Martin observed the department head exit the building and drive away in his truck. A female exited the building shortly thereafter and drove away in the vehicle with the Virginia tag.
The lawsuit says Martin contacted two officers on duty and had them pull over the vehicle with the Virginia tag.
Martin then approached the vehicle and introduced himself as the police chief. “He did not know the female operating the vehicle. However, she was one of the individuals to whom the department head had sent sexually explicit and drug-related Facebook messages,” the lawsuit said. “The female operator was in possession of the department head's identification badge which allowed her to access not only the department head's building but any other city government building.”
She said the department head had given her the badge because he was letting her do her personal laundry at the building, but that she had to leave to buy more detergent. “Martin confiscated the badge because of the department head's unauthorized use of the same,” the document said. “Immediately after the stop, the female operator contacted the department head and told him what had occurred. That same day the department head went to Traynham's home and complained to her about Martin's stop of the suspicious vehicle.”
FBI referral
Hardy and Martin had been informed at various times about equipment missing from the department head's department, according to the lawsuit. “Just prior to the traffic stop, Martin was informed that a tractor owned by the city had been loaned to (former) Chief Deputy Sheriff Corey Dixon of HCSO, one of the department head's friends.”
The document said that Martin also was informed that a city tractor was being used at the residence of the individual who was second in charge at the department head's department, which is in violation of city policy and the law.
The tractor was returned just prior to Martin's suspension, according to the lawsuit.
On March 30, 2022, Martin was informed that the department head's department poured a cement pad at the home of an employee with HCSO.
On August 10, 2022, Martin was made aware of a battery-powered grease gun purchased by the department head purportedly for the department that was missing, according to the document. “The source of this information stated that the city manager was overheard telling the department head that there was a ‘rat’ at his department.”
Following this August report, Martin and Hardy referred the matter of the missing equipment and potential political corruption involving the department head and possibly the city manager to the FBI. The estimated value of the missing equipment was approximately $25,000 to $30,000.
Missing drug seizure funds
Pursuant to state law, state and local enforcement agencies may collect revenue for equipment and operations through the seizure of controlled substances.
To receive these funds, law enforcement agencies must submit a completed BD-4 form to the North Carolina Department of Revenue.
In turn, NCDOR makes payment to the agency based on a portion of the total amount submitted.
In March of 2023, Hardy discovered that since 2015, NCDOR had remitted checks totaling approximately $237,000 to the city finance director in response to completed BD-4 form submissions, but that recent funds were missing or otherwise unaccounted for.
The money was discovered missing when the proceeds from the sale of a Ford Excursion were deposited into a general fund account when the funds should have been dedicated to a separate account for substance abuse tax seizures.
The lawsuit says Hardy went to the finance department and requested a budget sheet from the specific account for seizure funds but was denied a copy. “The city finance director refused to provide Hardy with a copy, stating she thought he would give it to an NCDOR agent. Due to the city's failure to direct these funds to RRPD, Hardy reported the issue to an NCDOR agent with Martin's authorization.”
Hardy also contacted the State Auditor's Office to report the missing funds. “Traynham and the city finance director were angry that outside agencies had been contacted.”
R&D investigation
“As a result of (the) RRPD's legitimate and justified law enforcement investigations and actions and given Temple's and the department head's political connections and the department head's close personal relationship with the city manager, Traynham decided to terminate Martin,” the lawsuit says. “On information and belief, Traynham's decision to terminate Martin was verbally supported and encouraged by the members of the Roanoke Rapids City Council even though they knew that the city had no legitimate basis to terminate Martin and that Martin's termination was in retaliation for performing the legitimate duties of his office as required by law.”
The lawsuit says that during the week of January 16, 2023, while Martin was attending the annual conference of the North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police, Traynham approached Captain Mike Moseley of RRPD and told him that he would be a good interim police chief if something were to happen to Martin. “On information and belief, Traynham knew that she had no reasonable basis to terminate Martin and that she would need to try and legitimize any such action by retaining a third party to investigate Martin for the sole purpose of finding some pretext for termination.”
Around early March of 2023, the city, based on Traynham's recommendation, hired Richardson & Davis Investigative Consulting Group to conduct an investigation of Martin, the lawsuit says. “On information and belief, Traynham conveyed to R&D, prior to and during its investigation, her desire to terminate Martin,” the lawsuit contends. “On March 8, 2023, Traynham advised Martin that she had a group looking into complaints about RRPD and that this would protect her and Martin.”
Martin was introduced to two investigators from R&D who informed him that he would be interviewed the following afternoon. At no point was Martin informed that he was under investigation.
The lawsuit says that pursuant to RRPD's Internal Affairs Policy, "Any member of the department who becomes the subject of an internal investigation will be provided a written statement of the allegations and his/her rights and responsibilities relative to the investigation by the internal investigator prior to any formal interview."
The lawsuit says the city violated this policy by failing to provide a written statement of the allegations against Martin prior to his interview by R&D. “Other persons interviewed by R&D had advance notice of the interview and were able to consult their notes during their interviews. Due to the lack of notice provided to Martin and the lack of opportunity to consult his notes, Martin was effectively ambushed by R&D.”
On March 10, 2023, both Martin and Hardy were placed on unpaid administrative leave. “Prior to conducting its investigation, R&D met with Traynham,” the document says. “Even though she was a source of some of the allegations against Martin and a participant to some degree in the actions to be investigated, she was not subject to any formal interview and, upon information and belief, any preliminary statements she provided to R&D were not recorded by any audio/video technology.”
The lawsuit contends the following:
On information and belief, allegations of misconduct by Martin were reported by the city manager to R&D and then simply repeated uncritically in R&D's report.
R&D made numerous misrepresentations and erroneous findings in its report which was clearly biased against Martin.
“In its report, R&D concluded that Martin had illegally and dishonestly investigated the department head,” the document says. “In support of this conclusion, R&D misrepresented the facts prompting the search warrant of the department head's Facebook messages.”
The excerpt from the report, which some portions have redacted, says of the Facebook search investigators believed Martin and others knew they did not possess reasonable suspicion to investigate the department head, especially when the female juvenile teen made no allegation of wrongdoing. The investigators believed Martin and others were targeting the department head illegally and they were dishonest in their investigations.
The report also noted that the female juvenile did say the department head “accidentally walked in on the girls while they were changing and immediately left the room."
However, according to the lawsuit, the audio from the interview in question reveals that it was stated that the female juvenile teen reported that the department head intentionally walked into the bedroom where he knew the girls were changing. “The investigators erroneously created the part about the intrusion being ‘accidental’ and the department head ‘immediately leaving the room.’ R&D never even bothered to ask the department head about the alleged intrusion.”
The lawsuit contends that by misrepresenting what was said in the interview, “R&D downplayed the seriousness of the allegations and made it appear that any further investigation into the department head was unjustified.
“Although (the female juvenile teen) did not allege that the messages were sexually explicit or that the department head sexually assaulted her, her reported allegations of the department head intentionally walking into a room where he knew she was undressing, privately messaging her, and telling her not to get him in trouble, warranted investigation into his Facebook messages to determine whether he had engaged in any criminal activity with minors or whether he was ‘grooming’ the young female for the future opportunity.”
R&D’s bias
The lawsuit says that R&D’s bias also was exemplified in its unjustified conclusion that Martin had been untruthful to the city manager regarding the status of any investigation of the department head.
The report, according to the lawsuit, says that Martin was deceptive to Traynham about the status of his investigation for almost one year despite multiple inquiries by the city manager on its status. “ … (Martin’s) … truthfulness on this matter is also refuted by the illegal investigative detention … on February 6, 2022, and later meeting with the FBI concerning the department head.”
Presumably, the only evidence R&D considered on the truthfulness issue was Traynham's own assertions to R&D that Martin had been "untruthful" to her. “No other evidence was referenced in R&D's report and R&D critically never questioned Martin on this issue. Had R&D done so, Martin would have informed them that Traynham only asked Martin once in late 2022 or early 2023 about whether RRPD had any active investigations of city employees and that Martin had informed her that RRPD did not, which was true at that time.”
Although, the lawsuit contends, that employees of the department head's department had complained to Martin and Hardy about missing equipment and the department head's sexual improprieties, RRPD never opened an active investigation, but rather referred the matter to the FBI. “The fact of the referral constituted evidence that no active investigation had ever taken place.”
The lawsuit counters the contention of an excerpt of the report which says the lone traffic stop of a female visitor to the department building hardly constituted evidence of an active "ongoing investigation" of the department head. “As to its legality, Martin was aware of the department head's apparent drug use, reports that the department head was using the building's conference room for sexual activity, reports of missing equipment from the department, and had observed the department head leave the female, who was not an employee of the city, alone in the building. Based on these circumstances, Martin had ample reasonable suspicion, the proper legal standard, to conduct a traffic stop of the vehicle.”
Erroneous conclusions and allegations
The lawsuit says R&D erroneously concluded that Martin had been "deceptive" to Traynham regarding the scrap metal investigation but provided no factual support for this conclusion.
The excerpt of the report says: “Additionally, it became apparent to the investigators that Chief Martin was deceptive to City Manager Traynham concerning the RRGSD Investigation concerning scrap metal. Again, Chief Martin failed to truthfully inform Traynham about the investigation, or lack thereof, despite repeated inquiries.”
But, the lawsuit says, nowhere in the report did R&D identify when these alleged "repeated inquiries" supposedly took place and at no time during its interview with Martin was he confronted with this allegation. “Again, R&D embraced a … charge of ‘dishonesty’ against Martin without even performing a rudimentary, unbiased investigation into the matter.”
The lawsuit says in its report that R&D erroneously sustained an allegation that the city manager had directed Martin to enlist an outside agency to handle the scrap metal investigation. “R&D never bothered to ask Martin if he had been directed by the city manager to use a third party and R&D referenced no written documentation substantiating the allegation. Again, R&D failed to ask Martin about a critical allegation leveled against him and simply declared that the allegation was true.”
The report, the lawsuit says, listed several allegations of misconduct by a person whose name was redacted from the document and that Martin confirmed he knew of these issues. However, the lawsuit says, “The audio recording of the interview reveals that several of these allegations were never even mentioned to Martin. R&D again misrepresented the facts.”
R&D's report was submitted to the city manager on March 27, 2023.
Termination
On April 4, 2023, Traynham sent Martin a notice of a pre-disciplinary conference. “In the notice, Traynham quoted the erroneous ‘findings’ in R&D's report, which included a baseless assertion that Martin was dishonest,” according to the lawsuit. “Because the notice of the pre-disciplinary conference and R&D's report would be reviewable by any law enforcement agency interested in hiring Martin, the report's baseless assertion that Martin was dishonest entails that no law enforcement agency will hire him.”
On April 19, 2023, Martin attended a pre-disciplinary conference with Traynham and Caudle. “During this conference, Martin exhaustively detailed the errors in R&D's report.”
On April 6, 2023, two days after the pre-disciplinary conference, Traynham informed Martin by letter that he was dismissed from employment effective immediately.
“Traynham's termination of Martin was malicious and corrupt, in violation of her duty as city manager, and motivated by her personal desire to protect her friend, the department head, from any subsequent investigation, to protect her own advantageous political connections with the department head and other local politicians, and to retaliate against Martin for his following legitimate and valid actions as chief of a law enforcement agency.”
Those valid actions include:
Obtaining a search warrant for the Facebook messages after a female teenager reported inappropriate conduct by the department head, including Facebook messages sent by the department head to the teen while she was spending the night at his house and after receipt of the department head's Facebook messages indicating extensive marijuana usage, and referral of the matter to HCSO
Reporting that the evidence showed that Temple, despite Temple's claim to the contrary, had not received a Crimestoppers tip regarding scrap metal theft
Conducting a legal traffic stop of a department head confidante who had been left alone in the department head's building during non-business hours
After receipt of reports of missing equipment at the department head's department, referral of the matter to the FBI
After discovery that drug seizure funds had not been directed to RRPD pursuant to statute, referral of the matter to the SBI.
“On information and belief, Traynham's decision to terminate Martin was verbally supported and encouraged by the city council members of Roanoke Rapids even though they knew the city had no legitimate basis for terminating Martin and that his termination was retaliation for performing valid and legitimate duties of his office, as required by law,” the lawsuit says. “Traynham's termination of Martin has directly and proximately caused him harms, losses, and damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in an amount in excess of $25,000.”
