SUIT OVER POLICE SEARCH SETTLED

$30,000 Paid To Black Motorist And Lawyers Over Traffic Stop

A $20 million lawsuit filed against a state police field supervisor accused
of illegally detaining and repeatedly searching a black motorist two years
ago in Hanover County has been settled for $30,000.

Samuel H. Brown and his attorneys received a $30,000 check to settle the
suit in mid-February. The Times-Dispatch obtained a copy of the check from
the state Division of Risk Management.

The suit was settled about two weeks after U.S. District Judge Robert E.
Payne indicated Brown's case had merit but probably would not bring a
significant monetary award if it went to trial. He urged both parties to
quickly resolve the case "rather than airing your dirty laundry," according
to a transcript of a Jan. 14 hearing.

Payne seemed sympathetic to Brown's case and had strong words for the
assistant attorney general who defended Sgt. William C. Blydenburgh's
actions. Part of the Aug. 8, 2000, traffic stop was recorded by a video
camera in another officer's car, unbeknownst to Blydenburgh.

A copy of that videotape was anonymously passed to local lawyer Frank G.
Uvanni, who eventually took Smith's case along with Richmond attorney David
L. Epperly Jr. The Times-Dispatch also was provided a copy and published an
August 2002 story about its contents and the subsequent lawsuit.

In sworn statements, two officers who assisted Blydenburgh during the
traffic stop indicated Blydenburgh acted inappropriately and sometimes
illegally, and at one point urged one of the officers with a drug-detection
dog to fabricate a "false alert" for narcotics in Brown's car.

"I have never seen a case like this . . . , where two sworn officers of the
Virginia State Police come in and demonstrate how badly another Virginia
State Trooper has acted," Payne told Assistant Attorney General Edward M.
Macon at the January hearing. "Why on Earth should this case not go to a
jury to decide who is telling the truth?"

At the time of the disputed traffic stop, Blydenburgh instructed state
troopers how to lawfully conduct drug-interdiction stops and headed a team
that patrolled Virginia's interstate highways looking for drug couriers.

In seeking dismissal of the case, state authorities argued that
Blydenburgh, as a state officer, was entitled to qualified immunity even if
he made a mistake in judgment. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that
excuses law-enforcement officers from civil liability unless their conduct
violates clearly established law.

During the Jan. 14 hearing in federal court, Payne repeatedly questioned
and at times expressed strong skepticism of the state's defense and
interpretation of the traffic stop, the transcript shows.

Brown, then a lumber salesman, was driving south on Interstate 95 on his
way home to Florence, S.C., when Blydenburgh pulled him over for an object
dangling from his rear-view mirror and the tint on his car windows.

At Blydenburgh's urging, Smith removed a graduation tassel with an
eight-ball charm from his mirror. Then Smith asked to be allowed to go, but
he was detained for more than 90 minutes during a futile search for drugs.

"[I]t's ridiculous what you all have done in this case, and the way you
have handled it," Payne told Macon during the January hearing.

"You have a serious problem here," Payne added. "You have two sworn
officers of the law who have identified serious infractions of the law,
potentially on the part of another law-enforcement officer who is supposed
to be a leader, a man who was disciplined, apparently, for this event, and
you all have managed to wiggle, waggle and shake around and avoid the truth
coming out. Now I'm convinced about that."

Payne frequently expressed strong misgivings about the state's version of
events. For example, he scoffed at Macon's contention that Smith was
"acting increasingly nervous" as Blydenburgh questioned him and searched
his vehicle.

"He wasn't acting nervous," said Payne, who viewed the tape. "He's acting
agitated and frosted at the conduct he was encountering. That's what you
see. . . . That man's body language bespeaks irritation at the police for
harassing him."

About a month before the hearing, Magistrate Judge David G. Lowe issued a
report about the case and recommended that Blydenburgh be granted qualified
immunity for stopping Brown and the initial search of his vehicle. But he
said a jury should decide whether a violation occurred during subsequent
interior and exterior searches of Brown's car, and to Blydenburgh's "pat
down" of Smith before he was allowed to go.

Questions also were raised about whether Blydenburgh had a racial bias
against blacks, and whether that played a role in Smith's stop.

Payne noted that in sworn statements taken from officers on Blydenburgh's
team, the sergeant was said to have frequently referred to blacks as "jakes."

In addition, Payne noted, Blydenburgh's fellow officers said he made
"racial and derogatory slurs over the state police radio while having
face-to-face conversations with citizens during police contact."

Macon dismissed allegations that Blydenburgh had any racial animosity,
pointing out that Blydenburgh is married to a black woman.

Blydenburgh was eventually removed from the drug-interdiction team he
supervised and transferred to a supervisory position in the state police
office in West Point.

The attorney general's office and Smith's attorneys declined comment on the
case or its settlement. As part of the agreement, both parties agreed the
case was resolved "without any admission of liability by the defendant,"
and that "neither party will be considered a prevailing party."