A business owner is seeking damages after claiming she was wrongfully arrested and prosecuted on felony charges that were later dismissed, raising questions about the conduct of local law enforcement and the impact on her livelihood. Vivian Pompliano filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on April 24, 2026, naming Antonio Seward, a police officer for the Town of Roanoke Rapids, as defendant.
According to the court filing, Pompliano operated Pomp Boys Motors in Roanoke Rapids under AJP Group LLC, described as a female majority-owned franchise focused on classic car restoration. The complaint alleges that beginning in spring 2022, Officer Seward and other members of the Roanoke Rapids Police Department “systematically began to harass and create unfounded criminal charges” against her. The document states that officers distributed fliers encouraging customers to contact civil lawyers or file complaints related to Pomp Boys Motors.
The lawsuit outlines several criminal cases initiated by Seward against Pompliano: two counts of exploitation of an elderly adult involving Jonell Gay Little and Charles Eason, and one count of identity theft involving Beatrice Lovette. The complaint asserts that “the basis for each charge… rested solely on the allegations that the parties were in a business relationship and each alleged victim was over 65,” with no evidence provided that any alleged victims met the legal definition of disabled adults under North Carolina law.
Pompliano was indicted by a Halifax County grand jury but all charges were voluntarily dismissed by the District Attorney’s office before trial on March 8, 2024. The plaintiff claims there was “no documented evidence” supporting the charges at any stage and alleges that misleading or withheld information influenced both investigators and grand jurors. In one instance involving identity theft allegations by Beatrice Lovette, Pompliano’s filing includes an affidavit from her credit card company stating its machines do not require signatures—contradicting key elements of the accusation.
The complaint further describes disputes over vehicle repairs with other customers cited as victims in criminal proceedings. It argues that Officer Seward proceeded with warrants based only on customer dissatisfaction or pricing concerns without sufficient grounds for criminal action. “There existed no probable cause to seek charges or an indictment to be issued without misleading, withheld or false evidence being presented to the grand jury,” according to the document.
As a result of these events, Pompliano claims she suffered significant financial losses including expenses incurred defending herself against accusations, damage to her reputation within the community, loss of income due to her business closing, lost investments and profits. She is seeking compensatory damages “in excess of Seventy Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($75,000.00),” as well as punitive damages against Officer Seward individually.
The legal action is brought under federal statute 42 U.S.C §1983 for violations of Fourth Amendment rights regarding unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution. The suit also seeks indemnity from any applicable insurance policies held by the Town of Roanoke Rapids covering actions taken by its officers within their official duties.
Pompliano’s attorney is Lloyd (Clif) Smith III from Pritchett & Burch PLLC in Windsor, North Carolina. The case is identified as Case 5:26-cv-00266-M.
Source: 526cv00266_Pompliano_v_Seward_Complaint_Eastern_District_North_Carolina.pdf
