Hunter’s Fake License Lawsuit and Wrongful Arrest Claims

Two hunters have filed wrongful arrest lawsuits against state wildlife agencies after criminal charges against them collapsed. In South Carolina, Shane Huffman is suing the Department of Natural Resources over a November 2024 deer decoy sting in which officers arrested him for night hunting despite body camera footage showing he never used an artificial light. In Iowa, professional deer hunter Mark Allen Luster is suing a conservation officer in federal court over baiting and false-license charges that were dismissed after prosecutors said the agency withheld a material witness. Both cases allege false arrest, malicious prosecution, and misconduct by wildlife enforcement officers.

The South Carolina Deer Decoy Sting

On the night of November 15, 2024, SCDNR Officer Robert Thomas and Lance Corporal Zach Tatum set up an inanimate deer decoy along Cox Mill Road near Taylors in Greenville County. The operation targeted spotlighters, hunters who use artificial light at night to locate deer illegally. Thomas watched the decoy from a hidden patrol truck.

Huffman drove up in his Toyota Tacoma, stopped, and backed up to look at the decoy through binoculars. His headlights never fell on the decoy, and he used no other light source. Thomas said as much on his own body camera, noting that Huffman “didn’t fully shine it.” Moments later, Thomas recorded himself telling Tatum: “He’s not got a light out, but he’s stopped in the road looking at it and backed up. I’m going to stop him no matter what.”¹

Thomas pulled Huffman over, searched the truck, and arrested him for night hunting under South Carolina Code §50-11-705(E). Huffman had a rifle in the vehicle but had not used a light. Officers seized his truck, rifle, and gear, and he spent the night in jail.²

According to the lawsuit, the officers muted their body cameras at multiple points and checked whether the cameras were recording. On the footage, Thomas can be heard calling the arrest “a once in a career stop” while discussing the vehicle seizure with Tatum.³

The Criminal Charge Was Dismissed

To get his truck back, Huffman paid $2,500 to the SCDNR plus several hundred dollars in impound fees.⁴ The state later offered a plea to a lesser charge under S.C. Code §50-11-717, covering the use of artificial lights at night. Huffman refused.⁵

His criminal defense attorney, Columbia lawyer Lori Murray, argued the arrest lacked probable cause because Huffman never used artificial light, the element the statute requires. On March 7, 2025, a Greenville County prosecutor dismissed the night hunting charge for insufficient evidence.⁶

Huffman’s Civil Claims Against SCDNR

On October 8, 2025, Huffman filed suit against the SCDNR in Richland County Common Pleas Court (Case No. 2025-CP-40-06930). Murray joined with Florence civil attorney Patrick McLaughlin. The complaint names the SCDNR as vicariously liable for the actions of Thomas and Tatum, and brings four counts:

False arrest and imprisonment, based on the officers’ own recorded admissions that Huffman used no light.
Malicious prosecution, alleging the officers pushed the case forward despite clear evidence no violation had occurred, including through what the complaint describes as ex parte communications with the court.
Defamation, based on false statements accusing Huffman of criminal activity.
Negligence in the SCDNR’s training of officers on the elements of the night hunting statute.

The complaint alleges the officers acted with malice, misrepresented both the law and the facts, falsely told Huffman the truck seizure was mandatory, and mischaracterized his rifle scope during the stop. Huffman demands a jury trial; the specific dollar amount sought is not stated in the publicly available portions of the complaint.⁵

The SCDNR filed a response denying all of Huffman’s allegations. An agency spokesperson told reporters the SCDNR does not comment on pending litigation but said recent reporting “does not reflect the complete factual record.”³

On December 29, 2025, McLaughlin filed a motion to compel discovery, accusing the SCDNR of “improper discovery conduct.” The motion alleged the agency improperly asserted privilege, failed to submit sworn responses as required by Rule 33 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and otherwise stonewalled discovery. As of early 2026, the docket showed no response from the SCDNR and no ruling on the motion.⁴

What the Night Hunting Statute Actually Requires

Section 50-11-705 prohibits night hunting of deer, bear, and turkey. Subsection (E) treats it as prima facie evidence of night hunting when a person displays or uses artificial light at night in a manner capable of revealing those animals, while possessing a centerfire rifle larger than .22 rimfire or a shotgun with ammunition larger than number four shot. First-offense penalties on non-registered property range from a $500 to $2,500 fine and up to one year in jail.²

Huffman’s team argues artificial light use is a material element of the offense, and that binoculars and natural moonlight do not satisfy it. When Huffman asked whether it was illegal to look at a deer with binoculars, Thomas replied, “You can’t stop to look at a deer with a gun in the truck.” The dismissal suggests that characterization of the law was wrong.³

The Iowa Case: Luster v. Henderson

Mark Allen Luster, a professional deer hunter and land management consultant from Burlington, Iowa, filed a federal lawsuit against Iowa Department of Natural Resources Officer Dan Henderson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The suit alleges malicious prosecution and Fourth Amendment violations.⁷

In October 2024, Luster harvested a deer on property owned by his LLC, CWD Research, in Henry County. A confidential informant gave the DNR aerial drone photographs allegedly showing bait on the property. The lawsuit contends those photos were obtained illegally, because Iowa law prohibits flying a surveillance drone over a secure farmstead area. Henderson used the photos to obtain search warrants for Luster’s property and home, and the lawsuit claims he concealed the origin of the photos in his applications, telling the court instead that he learned of possible baiting “in passing.” Henderson collected soil samples he said contained sodium and DEET, which he interpreted as evidence of bait; Luster’s suit disputes that interpretation.⁸

In November 2024, Henderson charged Luster with three misdemeanors:

Making a false claim for a license, based on the allegation that Luster did not own the property covered by his landowner’s tag. Dismissed January 10, 2025, after the state confirmed Luster was a part-owner of the LLC that held the land.⁹
Hunting a deer in the presence of bait. Dismissed March 18, 2025.
Attempting to hunt a deer in the presence of bait. Also dismissed March 18, 2025.

Prosecutors dropped the two baiting charges after the DNR refused to disclose the identity of a material witness.⁷

Luster sued Henderson in his personal capacity, seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The lawsuit alleges Henderson pursued the charges out of personal animosity toward Luster’s success as a hunting consultant, and that the investigation caused significant reputational and financial harm, including lost speaking engagements and business opportunities.⁸

Where Both Cases Stand

Huffman’s civil lawsuit remains pending in Richland County Common Pleas Court. As of early 2026 the case was in discovery, with Huffman’s attorneys accusing the SCDNR of obstruction and the agency denying all allegations. A jury trial is possible.³

Luster’s federal lawsuit against Officer Henderson in the Southern District of Iowa was also pending as of the most recent reporting. As of May 2025, Henderson had not yet filed a response to the complaint.⁷

1
QC News. SCDNR Loses Career Hunting Case, Hunter Sues
2
Justia. South Carolina Code Section 50-11-705
3
Outdoor Life. Hunter Sues South Carolina DNR Wrongful Arrest
4
WSPA. SCDNR Loses Career Hunting Case, Hunter Sues
5
QC News. Timothy Shane Huffman v. SCDNR Complaint
6
OutdoorHub. Hunter Sues SCDNR
7
Iowa Capital Dispatch. Professional Deer Hunter Sues DNR Officer Alleging Malicious Prosecution
8
Des Moines Register. Professional Deer Hunter Sues Iowa DNR Officer Over Alleged False Claims
9
Outdoor Life. Hunting Celebrity Sues Game Warden Bait Charges