Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Sherwood v. County of Botetourt, Virginia, et al.
W.D. Virginia · May 20, 2026
VA / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycivil rights
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs repeatedly cited a non-existent opinion 'Peal v. Commonwealth' as supporting a foundational probable-cause requirement; court found the case does not exist.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in W.D. Virginia, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs repeatedly cited a non-existent opinion 'Peal v. Commonwealth' as supporting a foundational probable-cause requirement; court found the case does not exist.
Operational lesson
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in W.D. Virginia, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
VirginiaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtW.D. Virginia
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit4th Circuit
DateMay 20, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs repeatedly cited a non-existent opinion 'Peal v. Commonwealth' as supporting a foundational probable-cause requirement; court found the case does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'Ford v. City of Alexandria, 37 Va. App. 819 (2002)', which the court determined is not an existing opinion cited in that form.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs relied on 'Lafayette v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 454 (1999)'; court determined the cited authority does not exist.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiffs misquoted Virginia Code § 19.2-72 to assert a categorical requirement of a sworn, written probable-cause affidavit for misdemeanor warrants; court corrected that the statute does not impose that written-affidavit requirement when the complainant is a law-enforcement officer.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted McCary v. Commonwealth for the proposition that 'Probable cause must appear within the four corners of the written affidavit or recorded testimony presented to the magistrate,' but the court found McCary does not contain that language and was misused.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'Anderson v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 321 (2002), aff'd, 279 Va. 85 (2010)' for a legal proposition about in-camera review; court found the citation/misattribution was incorrect and the cited authority did not support the proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint cited 'Walker v. Bowen, 372 F. Supp. 2d 541 (W.D. Va. 2005)' as precedent; court found no such authority.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Sherwood v. County of Botetourt, Virginia, et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs repeatedly cited a non-existent opinion 'Peal v. Commonwealth' as supporting a foundational probable-cause requirement; court found the case does not exist.
- Why does Sherwood v. County of Botetourt, Virginia, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in W.D. Virginia, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Sherwood v. County of Botetourt, Virginia, et al.?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Sherwood v. County of Botetourt, Virginia, et al. summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.