VALLEY — Virgil Clark, a Valley resident, addressed the Valley City Council regarding a Dec. 27 incident that led to his arrest and later court proceedings. Clark asked the city to reimburse him $1,285 in expenses he said he incurred after his arrest and while defending himself.
“After my last visit here, I received a letter from the city denying my request for reimbursement of $1,285 that I had to spend following my arrest and defending myself,” Clark said. “I was not totally comfortable with the reasoning for the denial.”
Clark said the incident began when officers pursued him over the display of a vehicle tag. He brought the tag to the meeting and said its number was clearly visible to officers.
“This is what prompted them to pursue me at a high rate of speed to catch me,” Clark said.
Clark’s brother, Councilman Jim Clark, asked what happened when the case went to court and whether Virgil Clark was found innocent or guilty. Mayor Riley told Councilman Clark he could not participate in the matter because Virgil Clark is his brother.
Virgil Clark said he was found not guilty of charges related to obstruction of governmental operations.
“My defense was, how did me getting out of my car stop her from writing me a ticket for this tag?” Clark said. “The judge found me innocent of those charges.”
Clark said he had two conversations with Chief Shirey before the meeting — one by phone and another in Shirey’s office — but said he felt the chief defended the officer rather than fully considering his account of the incident.
“We went into her family history, and he told me that maybe she was just having a bad day,” Clark said. “However, that did not give her a right or a reason to assault me during that time.”
Clark accused the officer of making false statements, including telling him to get back in his vehicle and claiming he refused.
“One is that she told me to get back in the car and I told her no, which is nothing more than a lie,” Clark said. “She also deliberately misinformed me about what I had to do to get my car back.”
Clark said the only mistake he made was throwing up his hands in frustration. He said he is 70 years old, lives on a limited income and works part-time jobs to supplement his finances.
“$1,285 doesn’t come easy to me,” Clark said. “I just don’t feel like I’m being treated fairly in this situation.”
Clark also referred to video of the incident, saying it showed he could not have returned to his vehicle after the officer placed her hands on him because he was surrounded by the officer and two others.
He also said the video included a threat from the officer. The statement could not be independently verified during the meeting.
“I just feel like the city of Valley should have to reimburse me for the $1,285, and I feel like I’m owed that money,” Clark said.
Clark said he had made mistakes in the past but maintained that he did nothing wrong during the Dec. 27 incident. The female officer involved is no longer employed by the city, according to the discussion.
Shirey responded on behalf of the police department and cited state laws governing vehicle tags and compliance with officers during traffic stops.
Shirey said Section 32-651 addresses the display of vehicle tags and that anything obstructing a tag — including a drive-out tag or dark cover — can provide grounds for a traffic stop. He also cited Section 32-584.
Shirey then referenced Section 32-5A-4, which he said requires drivers to comply with an officer’s instructions during a lawful traffic stop.
“In this particular case, the officer instructed Clark to get back in his car,” Shirey said. “When he did not comply, he fell under Section 13A-10-2, which pertains to obstruction. At that point, he was arrested and taken into custody.”
Shirey said the issue ultimately came down to whether Clark followed a lawful order.
“At the end of the day, when an officer gives you a lawful order, legally, ethically and morally, you have to abide by that order,” Shirey said. “If an officer tells you to do something, you have to do that. In this case, he was wrong and should have gotten back in the car.”
The council did not take action on Clark’s reimbursement request during the meeting, however did deny his request from a previous meeting in May.
