Questions arise regarding Greenfield PD’s use of force

Story by Senior Investigative Reporter Shannon Taylor

Backstory:

On Sep. 19, a traffic stop for speeding made by Assistant Police Chief Danny Smith led to a man from Memphis, Dallas Davis, being issued a traffic citation. Later it was determined that Davis was a convicted felon dating back to 2015 for theft of property in Shelby County and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

Then, according to the first affidavit, On Oct. 17 Davis appeared in Greenfield city court and was advised of the warrant. Davis then proceeded to flee on foot while being told to stop. Davis then entered a white SUV, determined to belong to him, and left the scene.

Multiple eyewitnesses that attended court that day said that Smith chased Davis out of the courtroom and multiple shots were fired by Smith as soon as he opened the courtroom door. This led to the courtroom being put on lockdown for 10-15 minutes. There was nothing in the first affidavit stating that shots were fired, however, Greenfield City Judge Langdon Unger confirmed that shots were fired and that nothing he saw or heard indicated that Davis was armed at the time. Almost a month later, the Press spoke with Smith who also confirmed that he was the officer that fired the shots.

Multiple conflicting reports received:

It took Greenfield Chief of Police Joey Radford over a week to put out a press release regarding the incident and then another affidavit was received two weeks after the incident- both stating a much different story than the first affidavit received.

The press release stated that “On Oct.17 while attempting to apprehend an individual with an active warrant, two shots were fired outside of Greenfield City Court by an officer with the Greenfield Police Department. The suspect had run from officers, ignored commands to stop, gotten into a vehicle and was driving off-road in the direction of two officers when the shots were fired. No injuries were reported, and the suspect has since been taken into custody on additional charges of resisting stop, halt and frisk, evading arrest and aggravated assault on a police officer. On Oct. 19, Dallas Davis was booked into the Weakley County Jail on four new charges and is currently free on a $10,000 bond. His next court appearance is scheduled for Nov. 30 in General Sessions Court.”

Details concerning the shots fired and Davis driving off-road in the direction of officers were not reported in the original affidavit but were later added. This raised questions and suspicions by many people the Press spoke with, that the Greenfield Police Department was not going to report on the shots being fired until questions started being asked.

On Oct. 28 the Press received another affidavit that stated on Oct. 17 at 4:30 p.m., an R/O (Reporting Officer) was in city court and was notified that Davis had a warrant out for his arrest. The R/O then went into the patrol room where Davis was standing when Davis took off on foot out of the building with the R/O in pursuit trying to stop him. Davis then got into a white SUV while the R/O was approximately six feet in front of the vehicle, in the front yard of the Greenfield Police Department. Davis then placed the vehicle in drive and went towards the R/O where evasive action was taken to move out of harm’s way. Davis then abruptly turned left while on the sidewalk. The vehicle went down the sidewalk to Front Street.

Eyewitnesses:

The Press spoke with Davis who stated that he knew he shouldn’t have run and later regretted it, but that he had just gotten into his vehicle when Smith started firing shots. He said that the other two officers weren’t even in the vicinity until after the shots were fired. Eyewitness statements corroborated this.

Derrick Elliot, who was in the courtroom at the time this happened, told the Press that the shots occurred before Davis entered his vehicle and that Smith “fired shots as soon as he opened the exit door.”

Another eyewitness, Kim Barner, said that within two seconds of Smith running out the door, shots were fired. Smith then told people in the courtroom that he fired the shots because Davis had put a fellow officer in danger, speaking of a younger officer in the courtroom who tried chasing Davis. Barner stated that Smith did not say that Davis tried to hit him with his car.

Greenfield Police Department’s “Duty to Intervene Policy”:

The Press obtained a copy of the Greenfield Police Department’s Duty to Intervene Policy and under deadly force restrictions it prohibits shooting at or from moving vehicles, stating that “officers are prohibited from discharging their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless officers reasonably believe deadly force is necessary to defend the officer or a third person from the use, or imminent use, of deadly force. Officers shall, as a policy, avoid tactics that could place them in a position where a vehicle could be used against them. When confronted with an oncoming, moving vehicle, officers should attempt to move out of its path, when possible, and should generally avoid placing themselves in situations where the use of deadly force is more likely.”

The affidavit states that Davis put his vehicle in drive and drove towards an officer, but eyewitness reports do not coincide with the affidavit reports. Davis was also unarmed.

The policy also states, “when officers are about to discharge their firearms, they should be aware of their field of fire, including the backdrop, so as to avoid creating an unnecessary, substantial risk of harm to innocent persons. Officers are prohibited from discharging their firearms when, based on the totality of the circumstances, discharging a firearm would constitute a greater risk to innocent human life than the risks posed by the subject’s actions.

Eyewitnesses reported that there were people standing outside the courtroom and they did not understand why Smith fired shots as soon as he opened the door to the courtroom with people standing outside, some of them children.

The policy further states, “Officers are prohibited from drawing and pointing their firearms at or in the direction of a person, absent an objectively reasonable determination that the situation may escalate to the point where deadly force would be authorized under this policy.

More conflicting information:

Davis also told the Press that he has been trying to retrieve the bullets from the rear of his vehicle, contradicting details in affidavits and the press release where it claimed that Davis was driving towards officers when shots were fired meaning that bullets would have been in the front of the vehicle.

Davis said he would be taking pictures of the holes and bullets and is in the process of obtaining an attorney for the case.

The Press reached out to District Attorney Colin Johnson to see if an investigation was being done into the use of force by Smith and he stated “Our office is not conducting an investigation. We haven’t asked anyone to look into the facts of this case.” The question remains for many people the press spoke with as to why Johnson hasn’t “asked anyone to look into the facts of this case.”

When the Press reached out to the TBI to see if they would be investigating the matter, TBI’s Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ronnie Faulkner said, “The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation can only investigate cases at the request of the local District Attorney. TBI has not received a request and cannot look into this matter. We have not been contacted by the Weakley Co District Attorney’s Office to investigate this matter.”

The Press spoke with many eyewitnesses as well as residents of Greenfield who are hoping that now maybe the TBI will look into the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident.

History of use of force:

In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers or others.”

In this case, the affidavit reads that Davis was driving towards officers, meaning that Greenfield PD is using the vehicle as a weapon which has, according to the New York Times, who did an investigation into a common defense for shooting motorists in 2021, “found that some officers had put themselves in danger and that others appeared to face no peril at all.”

The New York Times investigation into the matter and their story, “How Police Justify Killing Drivers: The Vehicle Was a Weapon” written by Kim Barker, Steve Eder, David D. Kirkpatrick and Arya Sundaram states that “In dozens of fatal cases over the past five years, officers reacted similarly, jumping in front of vehicles or failing to move out of the way.” With the Greenfield Police’s Duty to Intervene Policy clearly stating that officers are prohibited from shooting at a moving vehicle and to be aware of bystander risks, it remains to be seen why shots were fired at a vehicle witnesses say was driving away from officers and at a driver who was unarmed.

Police Chief Radford stalls answering questions on investigation:

At Greenfield’s November board meeting, Radford was questioned by alderman Kelly Keylon who asked if the investigation at city hall been completed yet and Radford said the case was still pending. Keylon said she wasn’t talking about the case in court, but that she was asking if the investigation into the entire incident had been completed, which Radford said it was completed.

Radford then said he was in the process of consulting with the city attorney, Beau Pemberton, in reference to it and the DA so when he gets the rest of their input it will be finalized. This was after stating that the investigation had been completed.

Keylon said, “The city attorney is here so do you all expect that to be done this month, next month, six months from now?”

Pemberton said, “I’m expecting it to be done this month. The chief and I have spoken a couple times since this happened and I give him the guidance he needs, and I’ve told him to continue forth with whatever work he has to finish up.” Radford said it would be completed at the end of the month.

Keylon said, “I’ve been asked by several people so I’m just going to ask: why did it take the city so long to at least say it’s under investigation and we’ll give a statement when the investigation is complete instead of appearing to stick our heads in the sand and pretend it didn’t happen?”

Radford said, “I reached out to some professional people and under their advice that’s what was determined that was the best determination we could make at the time.”

Keylon asked who the professional people he reached out to were and Radford said the district attorney, city attorney and the public information officer with the TBI. Keylon said, “So Beau’s legal advice was to not even say it’s under investigation?”

Pemberton said that the first time he was apprised of the situation was when he received Keylon’s email asking a question and that’s when he started looking into it which was several days after the incident, negating what Radford previously said.

Radford did not seek Pemberton’s advice right after it happened, but instead waited until several days had passed. “Just so the records clear: I was not brought into the discussion until several days after.”

The Press asked DA Johnson if he had spoken to Radford like Radford claimed but Johnson refused to go on the record with his comment on that.

Greenfield mayor Cindy McAdams said that she was out of the country when the incident happened. When the Press asked if she was currently involved with the incident she stated, “No, Pemberton is handling it.”

Regarding McAdams statement, the Press looked into the city attorney’s duties which found that those duties typically include giving legal advice to city leaders on matters that affect the city, not “handling” an entire incident or investigation.

FOIA request denied:

The Press sent an FOIA request to the Greenfield Police Department for the body cam footage as well as camera footage from inside and outside the courtroom during the timeframe the incident took place to provide transparency to the public regarding the incident, however, Pemberton denied the request citing an exemption to the open records request. “The Defendant, Mr. Davis, is currently under active charges for the events arising out of the episode at Greenfield City Court, and the case file, along with the body camera footage, are part of that evidentiary file being used by the 27^th Judicial District’s District Attorney General’s office in their current prosecution of Mr. Davis and accordingly governed by the TN Rules of Criminal Procedure.”

Davis’s court date is scheduled for Nov. 22 at 10 a.m.

This is a developing story.