Imperfect justice: How complaints about private security get bottled up in the court system

In early December, Greensboro human relations administrator Yamile Nazar Walker made a dramatic finding in a report about the alleged assault of transit patron Russell Kilfoil by Lankford Protective Services Lt. Byron Wayne Meadows at the Depot on July 2:

"Meadows' reaction towards Kilfoil is suspect and unwarranted... [surveillance] video clearly shows Meadows' right arm striking Kilfoil on the left side of his head, face and neck.

"In order to reach a conclusion in a situation such as this one as to whether [Greensboro's ordinance covering discrimination in a public accommodation] was violated, the question must be asked, 'Would Meadows' reaction to a citizen 'smoking' under the slip have been the same if the citizen would have been anyone but Mr. Kilfoil, a young Latino male?' The analysis of this investigation determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that discrimination based on Mr. Kilfoil's national origin (in conjunction with his age and gender) was the motivating factor for how Mr. Meadows' reacted towards Mr. Kilfoil."


Surveillance video shows alleged assault of GTA passenger by private security guard from Jordan Green on Vimeo.


Before filing a complaint with the Greensboro Human Relations Commission, Kilfoil took out a warrant for the private security guard's arrest on July 8. For unexplained reasons, the warrant was not served until two days before Christmas. Procedural hurdles have arisen in both Kilfoil's criminal complaint against Meadows and that of Hiram Gardner, another man who alleged he was also asaulted by the private security guard at the Depot in early July. Gardner's case was dropped by the DA yesterday after Gardner fled a courtroom upon learning of warrants for his arrest, too. Kilfoil's case against Meadows is scheduled to go to trial on Jan. 29. Read about it here.

UPDATE: Jan. 14, 2:53 p.m.

Chief District Court Judge Joseph E. Turner responds to questions about conduct by Guilford County magistrates:

"We do have a policy in the 18th Judicial District that requires parties seeking a warrant against a law enforcement officer to be referred to the District Attorney’s office before a warrant will be issued. Once the District Attorney refers the case back to a magistrate, a warrant will be issued. It sounds as if the original mistaken belief regarding the offender being an officer was corrected and the magistrate proceeded correctly thereafter.

"With regard to the name issue, obviously the more accurate the name and other information available, the better the service of process will be. I have no idea, beyond the phonetically similar sounding name or misspelling, what database or familiarity the magistrate used to try to put the defendant’s full name on the warrant. Nonetheless, it sounds like the matter was simply resolved by amendment to the warrant when picked up by the intended defendant.

"... It sounds as if you have come across two instances where there were temporary problems that were corrected and addressed in an appropriate fashion. I would remind you these are two cases among thousands that go before our magistrates each month."