Browse
Log in / Register
Share
Updated May 9, 2026
ENIGMA, Ga. — The former mayor and the city clerk at the time are suing the town's ex-police chief after both were arrested in connection with tracking devices placed on his patrol car.
The civil action, filed in Berrien County Superior Court, accuses the former chief of malicious prosecution, false arrest, and civil rights violations. The complaint says the arrests grew out of personal friction inside a small town government, not probable cause.
Enigma sits in the farm belt of south Georgia, a town of roughly 1,300 people where city hall and the police department are only a short walk apart. Local officials often wear multiple hats, and disputes that might stay private in a bigger city can spill into public view quickly.
According to the lawsuit, that is exactly what happened here. The former chief found tracking devices on his city-owned patrol vehicle and reported them to investigators. What should have been an investigation into the devices themselves became, in the plaintiffs' view, a way for the chief to punish people he blamed for political tension in Enigma.
The two say they had nothing to do with the trackers. They also claim the former chief used his position to steer the investigation toward them and away from anyone else. The arrests, they argue, were made without solid evidence and were meant to embarrass them.
The lawsuit paints a picture of a police chief trying to protect his turf. In Enigma, the chief's job puts him in constant contact with the mayor and the city clerk. The complaint alleges that the chief took routine oversight as a personal attack and eventually decided to strike back.
That kind of claim is hard to prove, but the lawsuit is designed to force the former chief to answer questions under oath. The plaintiffs want a jury to hear about text messages, police reports, and witness statements that they say never got a fair look during the criminal investigation.
The complaint does not rely on a single dramatic moment. Instead, it describes a pattern: missed evidence, changed stories, and pressure from the chief to keep the case moving even when, according to the plaintiffs, the trail went cold.
GPS trackers are small, cheap, and easy to attach under a vehicle. They send location data straight to a phone, which makes them useful for surveillance. Georgia law treats unauthorized tracking carefully, and the discovery of such devices on a police car naturally draws serious attention.
But the plaintiffs argue that the attention was redirected at them for the wrong reasons. They are not suing over the tracker itself. They are suing over what happened after the tracker was found: the arrests, the embarrassment, and the damage to their reputations.
The lawsuit also raises a broader question. When local officials clash, should the dispute be handled through personnel rules and ethics reviews, or can a police chief use an arrest as a weapon? The former mayor and the city clerk say the latter happened here, and they want a court to send that message.
The biggest challenge for the plaintiffs is Georgia's official immunity law. Public employees, including police chiefs, generally cannot be sued for doing their jobs if they were acting within the scope of their duties. That shield is strong, but it is not absolute.
Georgia courts have long said that a public employee loses immunity when acting with actual malice or intent to injure. The lawsuit aims straight at that exception. The complaint spends a lot of time describing what it calls a pattern of hostility and revenge, because that is exactly the kind of evidence needed to push past an immunity defense.
If the judge agrees that the plaintiffs have presented enough facts to show malice, the case moves forward. If not, the lawsuit could be dismissed before a jury ever hears it.
Two legal claims sit at the core of the case: false arrest and malicious prosecution.
False arrest means the person was held without legal justification. In this situation, the plaintiffs must show there was no probable cause to connect them to the devices. Their lawyers say the investigation never produced that kind of proof.
Malicious prosecution is a higher bar. In Georgia, a plaintiff must show that the original case ended in their favor and that it was started for an improper purpose. The complaint says that is what happened: no conviction, but plenty of damage to their names.
Neither claim is easy to win, but both are ordinary civil claims. The lawsuit is not trying to rewrite Georgia law. It is trying to apply existing law to what the plaintiffs describe as an abuse of power.
The case is still in its early stage. The former chief has not filed an answer yet, and no hearing has been scheduled. The next major step will likely be a motion to dismiss, where the chief's lawyers will argue that his actions were protected by immunity.
If the case survives that motion, both sides will begin gathering evidence. That means depositions, records requests, and close scrutiny of every decision made during the investigation.
For a town like Enigma, that process can be disruptive. But the lawsuit is already having an effect: it sends a warning to small-town officials that private grudges can become public legal fights.
This lawsuit is not just about two former employees. It is about the line between police power and personal retaliation. In small towns, that line can blur easily because everyone knows where everyone works, lives, and spends time.
The plaintiffs are asking for compensation for lost wages, emotional distress, legal costs, and damage to their reputations. They also want punitive damages, which are meant to punish wrongful conduct and discourage similar behavior in the future.
Whether they win or lose, the case has become a chapter in Enigma's history. It is a reminder that a tracking device found under a patrol car can lead far beyond a criminal investigation, and that in a small town, a simple piece of plastic can set off a legal war.
