Shane Huffman Lawsuit: SCDNR Night Arrest and Dropped Charge

Timothy Shane Huffman’s lawsuit against the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources is a civil suit filed in October 2025 alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation after he was arrested during a deer decoy sting in November 2024 and the criminal charge against him was later dismissed for insufficient evidence. The case is pending in Richland County Common Pleas Court, where a discovery dispute is now before the judge.

The Night of the Arrest

On November 15, 2024, SCDNR Patrol Officer Robert Thomas and Lance Corporal Zach Tatum were running an undercover operation on Cox Mill Road, a rural two-lane road near Taylors in Greenville County. They had placed a fake whitetail buck in a field to draw out suspected night hunters.¹

Huffman had been deer hunting earlier that day and was driving home with his girlfriend after picking up dinner. He saw what he thought was a deer, stopped, backed up, and looked at the decoy through binoculars under a full moon. His rifle, a day/night scope, and a thermal monocular were in the truck from his earlier hunt. According to his civil complaint, none of that equipment was in use or within immediate reach.²

Thomas initiated a traffic stop, arrested Huffman, and charged him with night hunting under South Carolina Code Section 50-11-705(E). Huffman was handcuffed at the scene and taken to the Greenville County Detention Center.²

What the Body Camera Recorded

The lawsuit relies heavily on Thomas’s own body camera footage. Before pulling Huffman over, Thomas told Tatum by phone that Huffman had not shined any light on the decoy. The footage captured Thomas saying, “He’s not got a light out… He’s not taking off… He never put them directly on it,” followed by, “I’m going to stop him no matter what.”³ During the stop, Thomas acknowledged to Huffman that stopping and looking at deer without a light was not illegal.²

The complaint says the footage also captured Thomas calling the encounter “a once in a career stop” and expressing interest in towing Huffman’s truck because it was “nice.” It alleges both officers repeatedly muted or turned off their body cameras during the incident in violation of SCDNR policy, and that Thomas misrepresented the equipment in the truck to a supervisor identified only as “Frank” to justify the arrest and seizure.² Defense attorney Lori Murray, who reviewed the footage, said publicly there was “no probable cause for the stop.”⁴

What It Cost Before the Charge Was Dropped

Officers seized Huffman’s Toyota Tacoma, his rifle, and his hunting gear. Although they told him the seizure was mandatory, the complaint alleges body camera footage shows they had been told by a supervisor that it was discretionary.² After his release, Huffman paid $2,500 to SCDNR to recover his truck, plus several hundred dollars more in impound lot fees.⁵

On March 7, 2025, the prosecution dismissed the criminal case for “insufficient evidence,” notifying Murray by email.³ Huffman’s complaint states the charge was dropped because he had “never displayed or used artificial light in a manner capable of disclosing the presence of deer,” a required element of the offense.²

What the Lawsuit Claims

Huffman filed suit on October 8, 2025 in the Court of Common Pleas, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Richland County (Case No. 2025-CP-40-06930). Attorneys Lori Murray and Patrick McLaughlin filed on his behalf, asserting three causes of action: false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and defamation.²

The false arrest claim alleges officers seized, restrained, and detained Huffman and his property without probable cause. The malicious prosecution claim contends SCDNR continued pursuing the charge despite clear evidence no law had been broken, and that officers misrepresented facts and law to the court. The defamation claim is based on what the suit describes as false statements by SCDNR officers accusing Huffman of criminal activity he did not commit. The complaint also alleges SCDNR leadership in Columbia was involved in the decision to continue prosecuting the case and to require the $2,500 fee for the return of Huffman’s vehicle.²

How SCDNR Is Defending

SCDNR filed its answer on November 14, 2025, denying the bulk of the allegations while admitting basic facts about the decoy operation, the stop, and the dismissal.⁶ The agency’s main defenses:

Probable cause existed to arrest Huffman for night hunting.
The South Carolina Tort Claims Act applies, capping damages against a state entity at $300,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence, with exceptions to liability for discretionary acts and for the institution of judicial proceedings.⁷
Any statements by employees in the performance of their duties were true, and absolute and qualified privilege applies to the defamation claim.
Huffman’s own conduct contributed to his damages and he failed to mitigate them.

SCDNR also challenged venue, arguing that Richland County is not the proper location, and demanded a jury trial.⁶

The Discovery Fight

On December 29, 2025, McLaughlin filed a motion to compel discovery, accusing SCDNR of “improper discovery conduct.” The motion alleges the agency failed to provide signed, sworn responses to interrogatories as required by Rule 33 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and improperly asserted privilege over certain materials.⁸ McLaughlin asked the court to either strike SCDNR’s answers to the complaint or order the agency to fully respond.⁹ As of January 2026, the docket did not show a response from SCDNR.³

McLaughlin has pressed a similar discovery fight before. He represented hemp farmer Trent Pendarvis in a case against the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, where Dorchester County Circuit Judge Maite Murphy sanctioned SLED Chief Mark Keel in February 2023 for what she described as “intentional, willful, and bad faith” discovery conduct, fining him $11,307.36 for McLaughlin’s attorney fees. Keel paid the fine in December 2024 after the South Carolina Court of Appeals and Supreme Court declined to overturn the sanctions.¹⁰¹¹

The Statute at the Center of the Case

South Carolina Code Section 50-11-705(E) provides that displaying or using artificial light at night to reveal the presence of deer, while possessing certain firearms, constitutes prima facie evidence of night hunting. A first offense carries fines of $500 to $2,500, up to one year of imprisonment, or both.¹² The use of artificial light is the triggering element. Huffman says he used binoculars under moonlight and never turned on a light; the prosecution agreed when it dismissed the charge. SCDNR nonetheless maintains in its answer that probable cause existed, and has not publicly explained how that position squares with Thomas’s recorded acknowledgment that Huffman had no light out.⁶

Where the Case Stands

The civil case is active in Richland County Common Pleas Court. The most recent public filing is Huffman’s December 2025 motion to compel. No ruling on that motion or any subsequent scheduling order had appeared on the docket as of early 2026.⁹ SCDNR continues to deny the allegations and has demanded a jury trial.

1
Outdoor Life. Hunter Sues South Carolina DNR Wrongful Arrest
2
QC News. Timothy Shane Huffman v. SCDNR Complaint
3
WSPA. SCDNR Loses Career Hunting Case, Hunter Sues
4
OutdoorHub. Hunter Sues SCDNR
5
QC News. SCDNR Loses Career Hunting Case, Hunter Sues
6
QC News. SCDNR Answer to Huffman Lawsuit
7
South Carolina Legislature. South Carolina Tort Claims Act
8
QC News. Huffman Motion to Compel Discovery
9
Yahoo News. SCDNR Loses Career Hunting Case, Hunter Sues
10
The Post and Courier. SLED Mark Keel John Pendarvis Hemp Lawsuit Sanctions
11
QC News. SLED Chief’s Appeal of Discovery Misconduct Sanctions Dismissed
12
Justia. South Carolina Code Section 50-11-705