London Mayor Weddle Hit with Lawsuit from Former Police Officer in Explosive Legal Showdown

Photo by: Laurel County Sheriff's Office/LEX (C) 2025 All Rights Reserved

London, Kentucky (SPA)--- Eight months after police fatally shot 63-year-old Douglas “Doug” Harless during a late-night warrant operation on Vanzant Road, the political and legal aftershocks have reached City Hall. Former London Police Department (LPD) officer Jared Hale has filed a civil suit against Mayor Randall Weddle and the City of London, alleging officials misused their authority to falsely implicate him in the shooting, leaked a confidential recording, and harassed him until he left the force. The case lands as Kentucky courts and lawmakers are actively reshaping the boundaries of government transparency and police accountability. 

A Night on Vanzant Road

The shooting occurred just before midnight on December 23, 2024. Reporting and dispatch audio obtained by regional outlets indicate officers were seeking to serve a warrant for 489 Vanzant Road but arrived at 511 Vanzant Road, Harless’s home, where the fatal encounter unfolded. Authorities later said Harless pointed a firearm; community members and Harless’s family questioned why officers were at the wrong address. State police opened the investigation, and involved officers were placed on administrative leave pending review. 

In January, additional records amplified the central question: Why did the team end up at a different house than the one on the warrant? The address discrepancy remains a focal point for civil litigators and transparency advocates who say the case illustrates longstanding weaknesses in warrant planning, verification protocols, and after-action disclosure practices. 

The Lawsuit Against City Hall

Filed in Laurel County Circuit Court, Hale’s lawsuit alleges that after the shooting, Mayor Weddle and the city attorney improperly obtained an audio recording of a call between Hale and Laurel County Judge-Executive David Westerfield, contrary to dispatch rules. The suit claims the audio was leaked to social media to create a narrative that Hale was responsible for Harless’s death—even though Hale says he was not part of the team serving the warrant that night. Hale further alleges harassment based on sex and religion, and says the city created conditions amounting to a constructive termination on March 30, 2025. He is now a deputy with the Laurel County Sheriff’s Office. 

The city has not filed a detailed public response addressing the specific allegations; the court docket will determine what evidence—if any—supports Hale’s assertions and whether the city acted within policy and law. (A Yahoo aggregation notes the broad contours of the filing.) 

Open Records, ‘False Light,’ and the Information Battlefield

Hale’s claims intersect with two legal fault lines: (1) Kentucky’s Open Records Act (KORA) and (2) privacy/defamation doctrines including “false light.”

1.      Open Records. In 2024, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the Shively Police Department improperly invoked the law-enforcement exemption to categorically withhold records tied to a criminal case requested by the Louisville Courier-Journal. The Court held agencies must show a concrete risk of harm from disclosure—not rely on broad, unsubstantiated claims. That ruling tightened standards on when police can withhold documents during investigations. 

In 2025, open-government advocates warned lawmakers were considering changes that could expand withholding of law-enforcement records—a debate playing out even as the Harless case tests how much the public can learn, and when. (The Lantern summarized the bill and flagged the 2024 high court ruling as a counterweight to over-broad secrecy claims.) 

Local skirmishes over transparency have also touched London. A recent Attorney General Open Records decision addressed whether the city could withhold the name of an officer on administrative leave under KORA’s privacy provisions—exactly the sort of disclosure question Hale’s filing spotlights. (The AG’s 2025 decisions and analyses continue to stress that exemptions must be strictly construed, consistent with KORA’s policy favoring openness.) 

2.      False Light’ and Defamation. Kentucky recognizes the privacy torts including false light, closely allied with defamation. In McCall v. Courier-Journal (1981), the state’s high court explained the contours of false light: liability may arise where publicity places a person in a highly offensive and misleading portrayal, even if the statements aren’t technically defamatory. However, plaintiffs must still show falsity and, depending on their status, the appropriate fault standard (e.g., negligence for private figures). Courts also limit duplicative recovery between defamation and false light. These principles frame Hale’s claim that city actions cast him in a false light regarding Harless’s death. 

Expert Perspectives: Accountability in Practice

Police-Accountability Scholars. Academics who study warrant operations say address-verification failures are a known risk point, particularly in multi-unit or rural settings where numbering is irregular. Best practice guidance emphasizes pre-raid verification (drive-by confirmation, GPS cross-checks, utilities data, and photographs), plus go/no-go decision trees when discrepancies arise. Experts note that after Breonna Taylor’s killing—also tied to warrant execution controversies—Kentucky agencies pledged improvements, but implementation varies widely across departments. (These themes recur across policy literature and investigative coverage of both Louisville and smaller agencies.) 

Open-Government Advocates. Transparency groups argue that the Shively decision requires agencies to document harm with specificity when withholding records—precisely the kind of documentation that could answer whether London officials followed policy on recordings, leave status disclosures, and post-incident narrative framing. As one advocacy analysis put it, the ruling is a “watershed” for law-enforcement transparency, limiting boilerplate denials. 

Media-Law Practitioners. Kentucky case law under KORA stresses that the state’s policy is open-by-default and exemptions are narrowly read—even if disclosure is inconvenient or embarrassing to public officials. For practitioners, that means cities must keep careful paper trails explaining any withholdings and maintain consistency when citing privacy to deny requests while simultaneously selectively disclosing details to shape public perception. Inconsistency can undermine both legal defenses and public trust. 

What Records Could Clarify the Harless Operation?

Attorneys and records experts point to four buckets of documents that, if released with appropriate redactions, could illuminate what happened:

1. Warrant Packet & Briefing Materials: The signed warrant, supporting affidavit, address verification steps, briefing decks, and assignment sheets showing who was tasked to serve and who actually responded.  
2. CAD/Dispatch Logs and Audio: Time-stamped dispatch entries, address fields, and recordings—central to the address discrepancy question.  
3. Body-Worn and In-Car Video: Pre-arrival approach, announcements, and the moment of contact, subject to redaction for privacy and investigation integrity under KORA.
4. After-Action Reports and Administrative Leave Records: Internal checklists, supervisory reviews, and leave notices—often contested under KORA privacy claims but critical for accountability.  

The Narrative Economy: How Leaks and Denials Shape Public Perception

Hale’s complaint alleges a selective leak of an audio call while denials of other records continued under privacy or investigation exemptions. Media-law experts warn that such asymmetry—withholding on paper while leaking in practice—can create liability exposure and erode credibility, especially after Shively, which rejected categorical denials not supported by specific harm findings. For courts and juries, the who-knew-what-when timeline around the recording could be pivotal in assessing intent, malice, or recklessness in any defamation/false-light claims. 

Wider Stakes for Kentucky

The Harless case is not occurring in a vacuum. The legislature is debating whether to expand law-enforcement discretion to withhold records, while the Supreme Court has recently nudged agencies toward greater specificity and narrower exemptions. The outcome of Hale’s suit—and any parallel civil action from the Harless family—could influence how Kentucky cities manage internal recordings, personnel privacy, and public-facing narratives after critical incidents. 

What’s Next

• Litigation: Hale’s suit will proceed to motions and potential discovery; expect fights over the recording, dispatch protocols, and open-records correspondence.  
• Transparency Requests: Newsrooms and advocates are likely to pursue CAD, BWC, and after-action records, invoking Shively to challenge blanket denials.  
• Policy Review: London officials may face calls to publish warrant-service SOPs, address-verification checklists, and clearer rules for administrative leave disclosures under KORA.  

Methodology & Sources

This investigation draws on court-filing summaries and broadcast/print reporting on the Vanzant Road shooting and the new lawsuit; Kentucky Supreme Court and Attorney General open-records decisions; and expert analyses from open-government organizations and legal treatises on false light and defamation standards.

Key references include LEX 18’s report on the Hale lawsuit; WKYT, WBIR, The Guardian, and WYMT reporting on the address discrepancy and timeline; the Kentucky Supreme Court’s Shively Police decision; the Kentucky Lantern’s open-records coverage; and foundational Kentucky privacy/defamation case law. 

This is a developing story, and we will update as soon as new additional information becomes available. 

*******