Exclusive: Spruce Pine PD had No Written Policies in Place for Over 30 Years According to Federal Lawsuit

A federal lawsuit stemming from the February 2024 arrest of Dillon Randall Ledford at a Spruce Pine Walmart is entering a new phase, with attorneys for three Spruce Pine police officers asking a federal judge to throw out several of Ledford’s claims.

In a memorandum filed Aug. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, attorneys for former Spruce Pine Police Capt. Michael Keith Hollifield and officers Michael Ehtan Sale and Dalton Hunter Mace asked the court to grant summary judgment on eight categories of claims.

The case, Dillon Randall Ledford v. Town of Spruce Pine, et al., Civil Action No. 1:25-CV-165, arises from Ledford’s arrest at Walmart on Feb. 16, 2024.

Ledford sued the Town of Spruce Pine, Police Chief Kasey Cook, Hollifield, Sale and Mace under federal civil rights law and state law.

The defense filing does not seek dismissal of every claim in the lawsuit. Instead, it asks the court to rule in the officers’ favor on claims involving excessive force against Mace, bystander liability against Mace, failure to render medical aid, false arrest, malicious prosecution, battery against Mace, libel and punitive damages.

The filing is the defendants’ argument to the court. It is not a ruling by the judge, and Ledford has the opportunity to oppose the motion.

The arrest began with a welfare check

The circumstances surrounding the arrest are significant because the incident initially came to police as a wellness check, according to a November 2024 report released by the District Attorney’s Office.

Ledford had finished an eight-hour work shift and traveled to a gym in Marion before stopping at the Spruce Pine Walmart because he believed his blood sugar was dropping.

According to the DA's report, Ledford parked his yellow 2003 Mini Cooper with a black roof in an online grocery pickup area.

He entered Walmart for approximately eight minutes but left without buying anything. He then returned to his vehicle and remained there.

A Walmart employee eventually approached him and asked whether he had an online order. Ledford provided the name “McIntosh,” but the employee could not locate the order.

The DA's investigation said the employee later described Ledford as behaving unusually, including twitching, mumbling and repeatedly touching his hair and head.

A manager subsequently approached Ledford and asked him to move to another parking area or leave.

The manager then called 911.

The call was initially characterized as a request for a wellness check.

The manager told dispatch that Ledford had been sitting in a yellow Mini Cooper since approximately 7 p.m., was not responding to people and appeared to be twitching.

The manager also said Ledford's behavior had frightened some female employees.

Dispatch relayed the information to Spruce Pine officers at approximately 9:02 p.m.

The defense memorandum, however, emphasizes a different portion of the information officers received.

It says dispatch told officers that a man had been sitting in a Mini Cooper since approximately 7 p.m. and had been “scaring some of the female associates.”

The defense says officers did not receive the CAD report identifying the call as a welfare check.

Officers encounter Ledford

Officers Mace and Sale arrived first.

According to the defense filing, Ledford largely did not verbally respond to the officers. He answered “yes” when asked whether he had identification but otherwise did not engage verbally.

Hollifield arrived roughly 10 to 12 minutes later.

The defense says officers were unable to determine whether Ledford had a weapon because his hands were not consistently visible.

Hollifield then went inside Walmart and spoke with management.

According to the defense filing, the manager told Hollifield that Walmart wanted Ledford removed from the property because the vehicle was occupying a grocery pickup space.

Hollifield returned to the vehicle and told Ledford he was under arrest for trespassing.

What happened next is central to the federal lawsuit.

According to the defense account, Ledford moved away from Hollifield when the officer opened the vehicle door. The officers then struggled to remove him.

Once on the ground, the defense says Ledford refused to put his hands behind his back and continued struggling.

The defense says Ledford kicked Mace in the chest, causing Mace to lose his balance.

Mace's role is particularly important to the pending motion because the defense argues he did not independently use force against Ledford.

The filing states that Mace did not strike Ledford or deploy a weapon.

Sale, however, struck Ledford several times in the back while officers attempted to handcuff him.

Hollifield subsequently deployed a taser twice in drive-stun mode, according to the defense memorandum.

Ledford was eventually handcuffed.

SBI investigation documented a more detailed timeline

The November 2024 DA report provides additional details about the encounter.

According to that report, Sale struck Ledford in the back at least nine times while Ledford was lying on his hands.

Hollifield first activated the taser in an effort to gain compliance and then deployed it against Ledford after he continued resisting, according to the report.

The report states that Ledford became more combative following the first taser deployment.

Mace told investigators that one of Ledford's kicks struck him in the chest and caused him to fall against the vehicle door.

A second taser deployment ultimately allowed officers to secure both of Ledford's hands.

Radio records cited in the DA report show an officer telling dispatch at 9:15 p.m., “be advised, we're fighting.”

At 9:17 p.m., officers reported that they had one male in custody.

SBI investigators also obtained taser records showing two trigger events that night.

The incident was captured by two Walmart surveillance cameras, according to the DA report.

The medical issue became central after the arrest

The case also involves Ledford's Type 1 diabetes.

The defense memorandum says officers did not know Ledford was diabetic during the initial encounter.

The DA report says Mace learned about Ledford's diabetes after the arrest, while waiting at Walmart for a tow truck.

According to the report, Mace was told by the tow truck operator that Ledford was diabetic. Mace also recalled receiving information from a Mitchell County sheriff's deputy.

Mace then went to the police department and informed Hollifield and Sale.

Officers checked on Ledford, who confirmed that he was diabetic and said he did not feel well.

Mace offered him a Mountain Dew and crackers.

After consuming them, Ledford said he felt better and did not need additional assistance, according to the DA report.

The defense memorandum emphasizes those facts in arguing that officers were not deliberately indifferent to Ledford's medical needs.

It also notes that Ledford did not seek hospital treatment until the following afternoon.

He was treated for minor aches, pains and abrasions and was discharged, according to the DA report.

But the DA investigation raised concerns about the lack of medical intervention

The DA's conclusion was more nuanced than simply finding the officers' actions appropriate.

The District Attorney's Office determined that criminal charges should not be filed against the officers.

But the report expressly acknowledged concerns about the officers' handling of Ledford's apparent medical condition.

The DA's Office wrote that, “with the benefit of hindsight,” the failure to involve medical personnel to evaluate Ledford's condition at the scene was “cause for concern.”

The office nevertheless concluded that the omission did not rise to the level of a criminal violation.

The report also noted that the Spruce Pine Police Department did not have a written taser policy at the time of the incident.

The department's rules and regulations document was dated 1991, according to the DA's report, and the SBI investigation found no written taser policy in effect when Ledford was arrested.

The report said Hollifield had completed taser training in 2009 and recertified in 2012.

The DA's Office ultimately declined to prosecute any of the officers.

Importantly, the DA's report also concluded that Ledford's apparent medical condition undermined the criminal charges originally brought against him.

After reviewing the evidence, prosecutors determined there was not competent evidence that Ledford willfully resisted, delayed or obstructed officers.

The office also concluded the evidence did not establish that Ledford understood that his permission to remain on Walmart property had been revoked.

The trespassing and resisting charges were dismissed.

Defense now argues officers had probable cause

The federal defense takes a different legal focus.

Attorneys for Hollifield, Sale and Mace argue the officers had probable cause to arrest Ledford for trespassing because Walmart management wanted him removed from the property.

They also point to warrants issued by a magistrate for the resisting, delaying or obstructing charges.

The defense argues that because probable cause existed, Ledford cannot establish false arrest or malicious prosecution under federal law.

The attorneys also argue that the excessive-force claim against Mace should fail because he did not strike Ledford or use a weapon.

They contend his participation consisted primarily of helping remove and restrain Ledford during an active struggle.

The defense further argues that Mace is protected by qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that can shield government officials from personal liability when their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

The medical-care claim is also disputed

Ledford alleges that the officers failed to provide appropriate medical assistance.

The defense argues that the evidence does not establish deliberate indifference.

According to the memorandum, officers did not know Ledford was diabetic when the physical confrontation began.

Once they learned of the condition, the defense says, they provided him with food and a drink, checked on him and asked whether he wanted medical assistance.

The defense also points to Ledford's statement that he felt better and his decision not to seek hospital treatment until the following day.

The defense argues that those facts fall short of the legal standard required to establish deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The federal case now turns to what the evidence can prove

The pending summary judgment motion asks the federal court to decide whether there is enough evidence for several of Ledford's claims to proceed toward trial.

The court has not ruled on the motion in the filing submitted Aug. 27.

The case illustrates a distinction between criminal liability and civil liability.

The DA's Office previously concluded that the available evidence did not support criminal charges against the officers.

That determination did not resolve whether the officers' conduct violated Ledford's constitutional rights or state law.

The DA's report expressly stated that its role was limited to determining whether criminal violations could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It said questions involving departmental policy and civil liability were outside the office's role.

That leaves those questions for the federal litigation.

For Ledford, the lawsuit seeks civil remedies for what he alleges were constitutional violations during the arrest.

For the officers, the pending motion argues that the evidence does not establish those violations and that they are entitled to judgment before trial.

The federal court will ultimately determine whether the disputed claims survive summary judgment.

The case is Dillon Randall Ledford v. Town of Spruce Pine, et al., No. 1:25-CV-165, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.