Politics & Government
Civil Rights Lawsuit Reinstated Over Anal Cavity Search By Memphis PD
A lower court must now decide whether police stonewalled releasing internal records of the incident to avoid a lawsuit.

By Jamie Satterfield, Tennessee Lookout
September 9, 2022
A federal appellate court is giving a man who was subjected to an anal cavity search by a Memphis police officer without cause and against department regulations a chance to prove the agency slow-walked an investigation into the incident to avoid a lawsuit.
Find out what's happening in Memphisfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
A divided panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals this week reinstated Deaundra Billingsleyβs civil-rights lawsuit against the Memphis Police Department over the actions of Memphis Officer Christopher Tracy in a July 2019 encounter.
Records show Billingsley filed a complaint against Tracy and Memphis Officer Justin Vazeii one day after Tracy bent a handcuffed Billingsley over the hood of a police cruiser, pulled down his pants and placed his finger βup the second knuckle jointβ into Billingsleyβs anus.
Find out what's happening in Memphisfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
Although the Memphis agency ultimately deemed both officers guilty of βneglect of dutyβ and violating police search procedures, the finding came only three days before the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit was set to elapse, records show.
Billingsley wasnβt notified of that finding until the statute of limitations expired. He filed suit anyway, but attorneys for the Memphis police agency convinced U.S. District Judge Mark Norris to toss out the case solely because Billingsley had missed the filing deadline by five days.
In full public view and without consent, Tracy then pulled down Mr. Billingsleyβs outer pants, reached a hand inside of Mr. Billingsleyβs undershorts, rubbed his hand over Mr. Billingsleyβs buttocks, then forcibly inserted (his finger) into Mr. Billingsleyβs anus.
β Lawsuit filed against Memphis Police Department
Norris ruled there was no proof the Memphis police agency intentionally stonewalled Billingsley, but, in a two-to-one decision, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed.
βThe first basis of (Norrisβ) holding was that (Billingsley) has failed to allege sufficient facts that show (Memphis police) misrepresented or concealed a material fact,β the opinion stated. βOur review of the record leads to a different conclusion.β
β(Billingsleyβs lawsuit) maintains that the city βslow-walkedβ the processing of (Billingsleyβs) complaint in order to conceal from (Billingsley) the date his cause of action accrued,β the opinion continued. βFor instance, (Billingsley) submits that the city completed its substantive investigation into the matter in late 2019 but did not close the inquiry until July 28, 2020, just three days before the filing deadline applicable for civil rights claims.
βMoreover, the city denied (Billingsleyβs) June 30, 2020, open-records request, stating that βthere are no existing responsive records,ββ the opinion stated. β(Billingsley) asserts that the cityβs refusal to provide responsive documentation was pretextual, made to conceal the date the cause of action accrued.
βAbsent discovery on whether (Billingsley) is entitled to (stop the Memphis police agency) from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense, it is premature to dismiss (Billingsleyβs) civil rights suit,β the opinion stated. βWe vacate the district courtβs order and remand for discovering concerning the timeliness of the claim.β
Despite the Memphis Police Departmentβs determination the two officers violated departmental policies, there is no indication the pair were disciplined. Both remain on the force, and the agency now says it βunequivocallyβ denies Billingsleyβs allegations.
βDid you check his (expletive) good?β
Billingsley was βwalking down a residential street in the Binghampton neighborhoodβ of Memphis on July 31, 2019, and stopped to talk to a βyoung manβ identified in the lawsuit only with the initials βD.M.β
βThis activity was not a crime,β his lawsuit stated. βIt did not give the reasonable appearance of being a crime.β
Tracy and Vazeii arrived a short time later and βyelled at Mr. Billingsley and D.M. to put their hands on the hood of the patrol car,β the lawsuit stated. Without probable cause of any wrongdoing, Vazeii searched βD.M.β and βplaced a small bag of what appeared to be cannabis on the hood of the patrol car, claiming he had recovered it from D.M.βs person,β the lawsuit stated.
Tracy ordered Billingsley to put his hands behind his back, handcuffed him, pushed him against the police cruiser and βbegan invasively searching his person,β the lawsuit stated.
It is presently unknown how many other innocent citizens (Memphis Police officers) Tracy, Vazeii, or both have accosted, detained, and raped, but the outrageous criminal conduct of these men on July 31, 2019 demonstrates that they pose a clear and present danger to those unfortunate communities that the city still pays them to patrol
β Lawsuit filed against Memphis Police Department
βUpon information and belief, Tracy and Vazeii would not have detained Mr. Billingsley and Tracy would not have searched Mr. Billingsleyβs person without consent but for the fact that Mr. Billingsley is black,β the lawsuit alleged.
βIn full public view and without consent, Tracy then pulled down Mr. Billingsleyβs outer pants, reached a hand inside of Mr. Billingsleyβs undershorts, rubbed his hand over Mr. Billingsleyβs buttocks, then forcibly inserted (his finger) into Mr. Billingsleyβs anus,β according to the lawsuit. βAt some point during Tracyβs search of Mr. Billingsleyβs person, Vazeii said to Tracy, βDid you check his (expletive) good?β
βTracy had no legal basis for forcibly inserting his finger into Mr. Billingsleyβs anus and doing so served no legitimate law enforcement purpose, the lawsuit continued. βDuring this time, upon information and belief, Vazeii subjected D.M. to similar unreasonable and conscience-shocking abuse.β
The officers continued to detain Billingsley until a βsizeable crowdβ began to gather at the scene of the encounter, according to the lawsuit.
βAfter approximately another hour β¦ the officers released Mr. Billingsley,β the lawsuit stated. βThey had never even asked for his name. Sometime thereafter, the officers released D.M. without charge, got back in their patrol car and drove away.β
Itβs not clear from the litigation what the officers did with the bag of suspected marijuana they claimed they found in the pocket of βD.M.β
βNo one answeredβ
Billingsley called the Memphis agencyβs internal affairs unit one day later to file a complaint. He would later reach out to that unit βat least four or fiveβ times as months passed with no word on the status of the unitβs investigation, according to the lawsuit.
When Billingsley sought a copy of his own complaint, the internal affairs unit told Billingsley that he βneeded to be represented by an attorney before (the agency) would speak further or release to him any information.β
Billingsley eventually hired attorney Jacob Webster Brown, who took repeated steps to obtain information from the agency in preparation for filing a lawsuit. At one point, according to an affidavit filed by Brown, the lawyer was told to show up at the internal affairs unit in order to receive the information he sought. He did β only to be greeted by a locked door, the affidavit stated.
Memphis Police Department Internal Affairs letter by Anita Wadhwani on Scribd
βI remained outside for approximately 20 minutes and repeatedly knocked on the door,β Brown wrote. βStill, no one answered the door. I also telephoned (the unit) from the hallway outside (the unit office). Not at all to my surprise, no one answered the phone.β
Brown also filed a request via the Tennessee Open Records Act for a copy of Billingsleyβs complaint and any related documents in late June. The agency denied the request, stating it had no records βresponsiveβ to the attorneyβs request and that the investigation into Billingsleyβs mistreatment was ongoing, the lawsuit stated.
It was only after the statute of limitations had expired that Billingsley and his attorney received notice via a one-page letter that the agency had deemed the two officers guilty.
βIt is presently unknown how many other innocent citizens Tracy, Vazeii, or both have accosted, detained, and raped, but the outrageous criminal conduct of these men on July 31, 2019 demonstrates that they pose a clear and present danger to those unfortunate communities that the city still pays them to patrol,β the lawsuit stated.
Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit network of state government news sites supported by grants and a coalition of donors.