Officers accused of violating a family's constitutional rights by raiding their home in the middle of the night told a North Carolina federal court Tuesday that the suit should be dismissed for failing to state a claim, and that they deserved immunity since they thought a thief was on the premises.

In a memo in support of their motion to dismiss and motion to strike, the defendants claimed that even if Alisa Carr and Avery Marshall had their constitutional rights violated, "an officer facing the same facts and circumstances as [defendants Detective Sergeant J. Dylan] Thomas and [Detective Sergeant William] Murphy could have believed that his conduct was lawful."

Lee County officers Thomas and Murphy showed up at the family's home along with other officers on April 10, 2024, in an attempt to capture Joseph Clark Jr., who had allegedly been breaking into vehicles and stealing things from within, according to the filing. Tracking Clark using his cellphone data, police came to believe he was located within 52 meters of the couple's home.

Although the couple claims that there are several houses near theirs and there was no reason to believe Clark was at their residence, the Lee County defendants argue this was not the case.

"The Pender County Tax Assessor, clearly contradicts such claims, and shows that there are no other residences located within 52 meters of plaintiffs' residence," the filing said, explaining that other law enforcement officers with similar information would have similarly sought a warrant to search the family's home.

The couple, who said in their 2025 suit that they suffered injuries and property damage during the 1 a.m. raid on their home, claimed that no warrant would have been issued if the judge had known that the vehicle parked in their driveway did not match the description of the car the suspect was seen riding in, the memo said.

Thomas obtained the search warrant, "however, plaintiffs fail to assert facts sufficient to plausibly allege that Thomas was aware that any of his statements were false or that he had a high degree of awareness that any of his statements were probably false. Thus, Thomas is entitled to qualified immunity and plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," according to the filing.

Plus, the memo said the couple never explained why Thomas would want to execute a search warrant on a home for a wanted criminal suspect without actually believing there was evidence the suspect was there.

As to Murphy, the filing said there were "no allegations whatsoever" regarding what he did, was told or witnessed.

There were no allegations that Murphy "played any role in applying for the search warrant" and the memo said the North Carolina federal court and many others have "recognized that merely assisting in the execution of a facially valid search warrant fails to state a constitutional violation."

The memo goes on to say that the couple's arguments claiming violations of the Constitution's takings clause are misplaced, as eminent domain was not used against them.

"The Fourth Circuit, as well as other federal courts across the country, have repeatedly held that the Takings Clause is inapplicable to instances where law enforcement has executed search warrants, and instead evaluates related claims under the Fourth Amendment," the memo said, asking to also have counts they viewed as duplicative dismissed.

The memo said that Lee County, one of the counties whose officers helped execute the search warrant, should be dismissed as a defendant "because it is not a proper party to this lawsuit," which involved claims against the sheriff or his deputies.

The couple were offered a settlement, which they rejected, according to the court filing, asking that details of the negotiation be stricken from the record as "immaterial, impertinent, and highly prejudicial because they included impermissible allegations regarding pre-litigation settlement negotiations between parties" in violation of federal evidence rules. 

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comments Tuesday.

Carr and Mitchell are represented by Marie L. Miller and Jared McClain of the Institute for Justice and by R. Daniel Gibson of Davis Hartman Wright LLP.

The government is represented by Nicholas David Acevedo and Bradley Owen Wood of Womble Bond Dickinson LLP and Scott D. MacLatchie of Hall Booth Smith PC.

The case is Carr et al. v. Thomas et al., case number 7:25-cv-00583, before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

--Editing by Kelly Duncan.