Former Roanoke Rapids police Captain Jamie Hardy through his attorney became the first defendant to respond to a federal lawsuit initiated by the owner of the former Pomp Boys Motors.

In the fourth defense of his response filed Tuesday Hardy’s attorney — Patrick Flanagan of Cranfill Sumner LLP — said Hardy “was acting without malice and with a good faith belief that his duties were carried out in accordance with the laws and constitution of the United States and the state of North Carolina.”

The response requests the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and that Hardy recovers his costs.

The response also asks for other relief the court deems proper.

In the lawsuit Vivian Pompliano, the owner of the classic car and auto repair shop, claims that harassment by the police department led to the demise of her business.

Most of Hardy’s admissions come down to factual pieces such as the police department received a number of complaints about the business and that Hardy visited the business while in uniform.

The response admits numerous counts of elderly exploitation and a single count of obtaining property by false pretenses were filed against Pompliano.

Those charges were later dismissed, her attorney said in the original complaint and a press statement sent out in July. The dismissals are acknowledged in Hardy’s response.

In Pompliano’s claims for relief in her complaint the ones that apply to Hardy are all denied. 

The claims for relief in total are as follows:

Prosecution without probable cause and fabrication of false evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment

Retaliatory arrest in violation of the First Amendment 

Tortious interference with contract under North Carolina Common Law

Violation of Article 1-19  of the North Carolina Constitution 

Violation of the North Carolina Constitution dealing with selective enforcement

Common law negligence

Civil conspiracy against the RRPD defendants, Evans, Harvey, Beacham and L&R

Respondeat superior — committing a wrongful act while within the scope of employment

Indemnification — compensation for harm or loss

 “If it is determined that the answering defendant was negligent or grossly negligent, which again is denied, and that such negligence was a direct and proximate cause of the injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff, then it is alleged that the plaintiff was negligent and grossly negligent that such negligence or gross negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries or damages, if any,” the response says, with the answer to seventh defense stating, “The answering defendant did not engage in, promote, or further any policy or practice which deprived plaintiffs of any rights secured by the constitution or laws of this land.”