A Hyde County deputy encountered a 65-year-old woman walking near a vehicle that had been left in a travel lane after a blind curve. She was slurring her words, could not answer basic questions and tried to enter his patrol car.
Those facts could describe a person who was intoxicated, experiencing a medical emergency or confused and looking for help. What happened next is now the subject of a family complaint and a possible civil lawsuit.
Sherry Smithwick’s family says she was injured when Hyde County Sheriff’s Sgt. W.R. Waters detained her March 31 near Engelhard. The sheriff’s office says Smithwick pulled away, twisted and continued resisting after she was taken to the ground. Waters’ incident report says he used forearm strikes to her back to keep her down, according to reporting by WITN.
Smithwick has Alzheimer’s disease. She was not charged.
There is no body-camera recording to show the encounter. The Hyde County Sheriff’s Office says it does not use body-worn cameras.
What the deputy’s report says happened
The sheriff’s office told WITN that deputies were dispatched around 6:41 p.m. March 31 to 33658 U.S. 264, near Patrick’s Curve and N & S Motors in Engelhard. A vehicle had been abandoned in a travel lane after a blind curve, and a woman was walking along the highway.
According to the office, Waters located Smithwick and said she attempted to enter his patrol vehicle. Her speech was so slurred that he could not understand her. After she could not answer several questions, Waters attempted to detain her.
The office says Smithwick actively resisted by pulling away and twisting. Waters pinned her against the patrol vehicle, then took her to the ground after she twisted away. His report says she continued trying to get up, so he delivered forearm strikes to her back. A second deputy arrived and helped place her in restraints.
Smithwick was taken to the sheriff’s office, evaluated by Hyde County EMS and released to her family after deputies learned she had Alzheimer’s, according to the statement. The office said a magistrate found no probable cause for charges because of her medical condition.
The statement does not identify the criminal offense Waters suspected before taking Smithwick into custody. It also does not say when EMS was requested, whether a medical cause for the slurred speech was considered at the roadside or whether a dash camera recorded any part of the encounter.
The family says the force caused serious injuries
Smithwick’s family provided WITN with photographs showing her condition after the encounter. Her son-in-law, Victor Gibbs, who told the station he has worked in law enforcement, said he initially thought she had been in a wreck because of the extent of her injuries.
The family says the amount of force was unnecessary for an older woman with dementia. Its attorney, Tyrell Clemons, told WITN that the family contacted the sheriff’s office repeatedly and later sent certified mail after receiving no answer. He said a civil action could follow if the office does not respond.
No lawsuit was reported as filed when WITN published the story Thursday. The family’s account is an allegation, and the available reporting does not establish that Waters violated criminal law, department policy or Smithwick’s constitutional rights.
It does establish that a woman who was never charged left a police encounter injured—and that the only official account of the force comes from the agency whose employee used it.
What the sheriff’s office has—and has not—said
After phone calls, emails and an in-person visit from WITN, Hyde County responded with basic incident information and Waters’ employment status.
The office said Waters remains an active sergeant and has no formal disciplinary action—meaning no suspension, demotion or dismissal—on his personnel record. It also said North Carolina law prevents it from discussing internal reviews, citizen complaints or personnel matters that did not result in one of those formal actions.
That response leaves an important distinction unresolved. No formal discipline is not the same thing as no complaint, no review or a finding that the force complied with policy.
The sheriff’s office did not say whether it opened an administrative use-of-force review, who handled the family’s complaint, what conclusion was reached or whether any policy or training change followed.
North Carolina law permits necessary force, not unlimited force
Under G.S. 15A-401, a North Carolina law-enforcement officer may use force when and to the extent the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to make an arrest or prevent an escape. The statute specifically says it does not excuse unreasonable or excessive force.
Federal excessive-force claims are judged under the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard established in Graham v. Connor. Courts consider the facts and circumstances confronting the officer rather than deciding the case with hindsight.
That standard does not make every injury unlawful. It also does not make the phrase “she resisted” a complete answer. The nature of the suspected offense, the immediate safety threat, the person’s actions, the amount of force used and the information available to the officer all matter.
Here, the public record is missing several of those pieces. The office has not publicly identified the suspected crime. There is no body-camera footage. The second deputy’s account has not been released. The timing and extent of medical evaluation are unclear. The office has not said whether its use-of-force policy authorizes repeated forearm strikes under these circumstances.
Dementia can look like defiance or intoxication
Confusion, wandering, difficulty answering questions and impaired speech can be signs of dementia or another medical problem. They can also make a person less able to understand commands and more frightened by physical contact.
North Carolina’s own Dementia-Capable NC strategic plan recommends expanding training for law enforcement and other first responders on dementia symptoms, wandering, communication and safety. The plan says the state should explore a minimum training standard for emergency workers.
The N.C. Department of Health and Human Services advises people requesting police help during a behavioral-health crisis to ask for a Crisis Intervention Team officer with specialized training. State rules require deputy sheriffs to complete annual in-service training, but Killjoy Media found no public information showing whether Waters had received CIT or dementia-specific training.
That is another question the sheriff’s office can answer without revealing confidential medical information or an employee’s private personnel file.
No camera means fewer answers, not fewer obligations
North Carolina law already makes law-enforcement recordings difficult to obtain. Under G.S. 132-1.4A, body-camera and dashboard-camera recordings are not public records, and releasing a copy generally requires a court order.
Hyde County’s problem is more basic: the sheriff’s office says it does not have body cameras at all.
Without video, the public is left with the deputy’s written narrative, the family’s account, injury photographs and whatever other records the agency has preserved. North Carolina’s public-records law makes criminal investigative files exempt from automatic disclosure, although basic facts about an arrest and its circumstances remain public.
Personnel law creates another wall around internal complaints. That may explain why the office will not discuss the contents of a review. It does not prevent the sheriff from saying whether a use-of-force review occurred, publishing the governing policy, identifying the reviewing authority or explaining what accountability process applies when no formal discipline results.
Questions Hyde County still needs to answer
- What suspected offense justified detaining Smithwick?
- When did Waters recognize that she might be experiencing a medical or cognitive crisis?
- When was EMS called, and what medical care was provided for her injuries?
- Did a patrol-car camera, nearby surveillance camera, dispatch recording or 911 call capture any part of the incident?
- Did the second deputy submit a separate report?
- Did the sheriff’s office conduct an administrative use-of-force review, and what was the outcome?
- What does agency policy say about strikes used against a restrained or partially restrained person?
- Do Hyde County deputies receive CIT or dementia-response training?
- Why did the family say its complaints went unanswered for months?
The sheriff’s office may have answers that support Waters’ decisions. If so, explaining the process would serve the deputy as well as the public. Refusing to discuss confidential personnel details does not require refusing to explain how the agency reviews force.
No camera recorded what happened on U.S. 264. That makes a serious, documented review more necessary—not less.
This article is based on WITN’s report, including the Hyde County Sheriff’s Office statement and the family’s account; North Carolina statutes; federal case law; and state guidance on dementia and crisis response. Continue reading Killjoy’s police accountability coverage.