VIENNA — Former Maries County Sheriff Chris Heitman filed a formal complaint with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office against Sheriff Mark Morgan alleging “excessive and improper …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your member account, or purchase a new membership.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for becoming a member.
Please log in to continue |
|
VIENNA — Former Maries County Sheriff Chris Heitman filed a formal complaint with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office against Sheriff Mark Morgan alleging “excessive and improper charges” to a Missouri Sunshine Law request made on Jan. 16.
Heitman filed the Sunshine Law request with Morgan following an exchange during the Jan. 16 Maries County Commission meeting, which Heitman briefly attended to deliver a complaint against Morgan to the county clerk’s office.
Since taking office at the beginning of the year, Morgan has been attending commission meetings and sharing updates about the sheriff’s office transition. Among his concerns were inaccurate inventory lists, unaccounted-for property and uncertainty surrounding sheriff’s office phone bills. He has requested an audit though the county commission has been hesitant to pursue a sheriff’s office-specific audit when the county is due for one this year.
Morgan was discussing some of his concerns about the office’s inventory when Heitman arrived at the meeting. Morgan mentioned two ammunition invoices dated September 2024 from which he could not locate any of the ammunition. Heitman previously told The Advocate that the ammunition was for a qualification he and the deputies attended.
“It’s duty ammo,” Morgan told the commission. “We don’t train with duty ammo. It’s a lot more expensive than training ammo.”
“You never shoot duty ammo ever?” Heitman asked.
“Only times we’re transferring,” Morgan said.
“Are you aware that the standard practice is to shoot duty ammo once a year so it’s never too old?” Heitman asked.
“No,” Morgan said.
“That’s what we teach in the firearms instructor school,” Heitman said.
“In an agency like this where we can’t afford to be burning ammo like that and wasting money, it’s just not very feasible or financially wise for us.”
“Your deputies are carrying ammo for a year on their duty belts,” Heitman said. “There’s moisture. It’s getting wet. Is it better to carry it for two or three years when it may not work?”
“Why are they not carrying that ammo?” Morgan asked.
Heitman again said the firearms instructor school recommends shooting duty ammo at least once a year.
“We can’t afford it,” Morgan said. “I appreciate your guidance on that, but I have a little different opinion.”
Morgan said he did not recall shooting duty ammunition during training throughout his first tenure as a deputy from 2016 to 2022 except when the office switched the ammunition it used.
“I can remember doing it, but that’s neither here nor there,” Heitman said.
Morgan said he planned to contact the ammunition distributor to confirm the office received the shipments.
Once Morgan finished updating the commission, Presiding Commissioner Victor Stratman gave Heitman the floor to speak.
“I’m a little disappointed,” Heitman began. “Mark and I, I felt, were getting along. I told him feel free to reach out any time, and I haven’t received a phone call about any of this. The media contacts me, and I was floored.”
Heitman addressed Morgan about concerns he had mentioned at the Jan. 9 commission meeting. Morgan had told the commission that after requesting a list of sheriff’s office phone lines from AT&T, he found several lines labeled as belonging to Heitman or members of the Mid-Missouri Sheriff’s Dive Team, a tax-exempt organization that Heitman runs that was not a part of the sheriff’s office. Morgan suggested the county paid for the lines and he had disconnected them. Heitman later showed The Advocate receipts for the nine lines belonging to him and given to members of the dive team.
“You stood in here and said those lines were paid for by the county,” he said. “Did you?”
“That is correct,” Morgan said.
“You knew for a fact they were paid for by the county?” Heitman asked.
“At that time, yes,” Morgan said. “According to AT&T, that’s correct.”
“No,” Heitman said. “You said you knew, and you had proof.”
“That’s correct,” Morgan said. “I still have that proof.”
“So you verified that the county paid for it before you accused someone of a crime?” Heitman asked.
“I verified the billing invoice that AT&T sent me,” Morgan said. “I can show you exactly what they sent.”
“If you’re going to accuse someone of a crime, don’t you think you should get all the evidence before doing so?” Heitman asked.
“I have all the evidence,” Morgan said. “If I’m going to accuse you of a crime, I’m going to send a probable cause statement. Me telling the commissioners there’s a problem with this phone bill is different.”
“No,” Heitman said. “You said I was paying for personal phones out of county funds. That’s a crime, is it not?”
“The invoice I first received indicated a crime had occurred,” Morgan said.
“So you accused me of a crime in this room?” Heitman asked.
“Did I send a probable cause statement?” Morgan asked.
“I’m asking you a question,” Heitman said.
“It appears that you committed a crime,” Morgan said.
“But you did not verify with the county clerk that I committed that crime?” Heitman asked.
“I will verify it when I send a probable cause statement,” Morgan said.
“So you’re going to make accusations about criminal offenses without probable cause?” Heitman asked.
“I just presented the documents,” Morgan said.
“But you also accused me of a crime,” Heitman said.
“It looks like you committed a crime,” Morgan said.
“So AT&T showed you the canceled checks that those phone lines were paid for by the county?” Heitman asked.
“I would get that before I send a probable cause statement,” Morgan said.
“You should get that before you accuse somebody of a crime to the media,” Heitman said.
“I presented to the commissioners what AT&T presented to me,” Morgan said. “It indicated there were unauthorized people who were not associated with the sheriff’s office on your phone plan that fell underneath the sheriff’s office.”
Heitman asked the commissioners if they took Morgan’s statement that the county paid the phone line as “definitively, that he knew that for a fact.”
“Let’s just make it real clear,” Morgan said. “You started the sheriff’s dive team, and you put their phone underneath the Maries County Sheriff’s Office as a tax-exempt entity. The Maries County Sheriff’s Office is a tax-exempt entity. They’re the parent entity on that plan. That’s why all that stuff up to Dec. 26 belongs to the sheriff’s office, to include all the records. It doesn’t matter who paid for it.”
After the exchange, Heitman read from a prepared statement, which he provided to the county clerk so it could enter the meeting minutes and become public record.
“I came here to formally address the false statements made by Sheriff Mark Morgan regarding my conduct as the former sheriff,” he said. “During a recent public meeting and subsequent media reports, Sheriff Morgan accused me of a crime, claiming that I misused county funds to pay for personal and family phone bills. I have unequivocally proven these statements to be false, verified with the county clerk (and) provided proof to the media, which you lied to. Such baseless accusations not only tarnish my reputation but also undermine the public’s trust.”
“It is truly regrettable that the first investigation by our newly elected Sheriff Mark Morgan was mishandled and proven falsely to the media and this board,” Heitman continued. “The manner in which this investigation was conducted raises serious concerns, as the assertions made were not only unfounded but also misleading. This mismanagement not only reflects poorly on his judgment, his lack of knowledge about the law, but it also contributes to a broader narrative of distrust and skepticism regarding our law enforcement officials. When the highest-ranking law enforcement official in the county commits such an offense, it casts doubts on the integrity of the entire office and erodes the community’s faith in its leaders.”
Heitman went on to suggest that “the fact that Sheriff Morgan was untruthful about his very first investigation as sheriff” would create issues later on under the United States Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland (1963), which requires prosecutors to disclose any evidence that may be favorable to the defense, including information that could affect a witness or officer’s credibility.
“Sheriff Morgan’s actions raise serious concerns about his reliability and could result in the dismissal of cases or overturned convictions if his credibility is successfully challenged,” Heitman said.
Heitman alleged Morgan’s statements about him constituted slander and defamation and cited the U.S. Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), which defined “actual malice,” a requirement to prove defamation.
“He presented these claims as facts without verifying their accuracy or providing any credible evidence,” Heitman said. “The gravity of making such assertions in a public forum cannot be overstated. He did not qualify his statements as allegations; instead, he asserted them as definitive truths, thereby causing significant harm to my reputation and standing in the community, which I have served for over 20 years in elected positions. Sheriff Morgan’s failure to conduct a thorough investigation before making public accusations demonstrates this level of disregard for both facts and impact of his own words.”
Heitman said Morgan is held to a higher standard of responsibility as the county’s chief law enforcement officer.
“He should be acutely aware of the legal ramifications of his statements and the importance of conducting a proper investigation before making public assertions about an individual’s conduct,” Heitman said.”The failure to do so not only reflects poorly on his judgment but also places the county at risk for liability, potentially costing taxpayers significant resources in legal fees and settlements.”
Heitman asked Morgan if he ever had training on how to talk to the media. When Morgan said that he had received training, Heitman asked where it happened.
“Is this an inquisition?” Morgan asked. “I’m not answering this. If you want to sit down and talk about this, go ahead and finish your statement because I have some responses.”
Heitman continued reading his statement.
“Furthermore, it is evident that Sheriff Mark Morgan has not received sufficient training regarding the legal obligations of media communications and defamation laws,” he said. “This deficiency not only impairs his ability to serve the community effectively but also exposes the county to potential liability.”
Heitman referenced the U.S. Supreme Court case City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris (1989), which set the precedent that a local government may be held liable under federal law for failing to adequately train its employees if such failure demonstrates “deliberate indifference” to individuals’ rights. He also cited the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case Doe v. Taylor Independent School District (2021), in which the court found that the failure to train could lead to liability if the training inadequacies were linked to harmful actions.
“Sheriff Morgan’s lack of training regarding defamation laws and media communication directly contributes to the harm I have suffered and could lead to further complications for the county,” he said.
Heitman offered to provide a training class to the county because he is an educator in statutory law, case law and constitutional law.
As Heitman concluded his statement, he showed the commission his federal tax ID number for the dive team.
“I don’t understand how these were licensed to the county,” Stratman said. “It seems like that was misleading.”
“Those bills haven’t been sent here for years,” Heitman said. “It’s been set up in its own account. It’s always been paid for by me. No phone lines were ever shut off.”
Before leaving, Heitman said he did not want to hear from Morgan anymore.
“We got along,” he said. “I was floored that he didn’t call me. We’ve had great texts. I wished him well; he wished me well. There was no reason. I would’ve driven down here that day. I would’ve shown you every single time I paid the damn bill. I would’ve shown you that it’s completely separate.”
Heitman said he had another meeting to attend.
“You don’t want to listen to a response?” Morgan asked.
“I don’t want to listen to anything you say anymore,” Heitman said. “Don’t call me.”
After Heitman left, Morgan explained the issue with the phone bill from his perspective.
“The reason I brought these items up is because they were found during an inventory for accountability of our finances,” he said. “They were requested from AT&T so I could get an understanding of these bills and what I can cut and what I can’t cut.”
Morgan said he requested “everything that we’re paying for” from AT&T. When the company sent the list of lines, it listed all lines found under the Maries County Sheriff’s Office account. When setting up the dive team’s tax-exempt AT&T account, Heitman had opened it under the umbrella of the sheriff’s office’s foundational account number; however, the sheriff’s office lines and the dive team lines have always had separate billing accounts.
The county clerk’s office confirmed that the county never paid for the dive team lines.
“I didn’t find this until after our last meeting when I told you I was going to go dig,” Morgan said. “I have it in writing from AT&T how all this stuff works.”
Morgan said that because the dive team lines were part of the sheriff’s office’s foundational account number until Dec. 26, 2024, when Heitman removed them, he believed their records up to that date belonged to the sheriff’s office.
Another point Morgan addressed was Heitman’s statement that Morgan was investigating the phone lines.
“As far as criminal matters, I’m not investigating,” Morgan said. “I’ve already told (the commission) it’s a conflict. He says I’m investigating it; I’m investigating our budget, absolutely. As far as doing a criminal investigation, I’m going to request the highway patrol to take a look at it. It’s a big conflict for me to investigate this. He can make all the allegations of lies, and he can come in here and put on this big grandstanding speech. I’m sure it all sounds great, but the bottom line is we’re missing property. There were clear, obvious issues with our accountability.”
Morgan showed the commissioners the documentation that showed the same foundational account numbers on the sheriff’s office and dive team lines while also showing separate billing account numbers.
“His allegations that I came up here and misrepresented something to you guys is inaccurate,” Morgan said. “I presented to you guys what AT&T sent me on Dec. 16.”
The discussion of the sheriff’s office ceased until the end of the meeting when Morgan mentioned a $5,600 purchase of scuba gear from 2015 that he had not been able to locate. Multiple audits have occurred since the purchase, so no inventories from the time still exist.
In a follow-up phone call, Heitman said scuba gear does not last 10 years. He also provided an advertisement for a sheriff’s office auction that occurred on May 5, 2018. Scuba gear was among the items listed for sale.
After the meeting, Heitman filed a Sunshine request with the sheriff’s office requesting “any training records of the Maries County Sheriff Mark Morgan where he has had training in: all of his law enforcement training records since being POST certified, to include training on; Slander, defamation, or how to speak to the media, including the training you referred to having in the open meeting today.” Heitman’s request said he would “pay up to $100 or reasonable cost for such records as allowed by law.”
Later that day, Morgan returned a letter to Heitman and calculated the cost as $10.40 for 104 pages of training documents, $20 for one hour of research, $20 for one hour of copying time and $20.35 for certified mailing with signature delivery for a $70.75 total cost.
Heitman responded to Morgan’s message by urging him to “consult with your county attorney regarding the bill to ensure adherence to all relevant laws.” He said public governmental bodies are required to use the lowest-salaried employee capable of searching, researching and copying records to complete the work, which should be about $17.50 for a dispatcher to complete. He also questioned the additional hour for copying 104 files, which he estimated should only take a few minutes.
“I find the charges presented to be unreasonable and inflated,” he wrote. “While I am willing to settle the bill today, I encourage you to be prepared to justify these charges.”
In another email response, Morgan said tracking down the training records could surpass the one-hour charge. He agreed to email the files to avoid postage costs. In reference to the $20 per hour rate, he said the sheriff’s clerk, who had not yet started working within the office, would handle future records requests, and the budgeted salary for the position was $20 per hour.
Morgan said the price would be $50.40. He quoted Section 610.026 RSMo: “Fees for copying public records, except those records restricted under section 32.091, shall not exceed ten cents per page for a paper copy not larger than nine by fourteen inches, with the hourly fee for duplicating time not to exceed the average hourly rate of pay for clerical staff of the public governmental body. Research time required for fulfilling records requests may be charged at the actual cost of research time. Based on the scope of the request, the public governmental body shall produce the copies using employees of the body that result in the lowest amount of charges for search, research, and duplication time.”
After receiving Morgan’s reply, Heitman filed a complaint with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office alleging “excessive and improper charges.”
“While I appreciate Sheriff Morgan’s prompt response, I believe the fees charged violate Missouri law, specifically the provisions governing allowable costs under the Missouri Sunshine Law, RSMo 610.010 et seq.,” the complaint said.
In the complaint’s summary, Heitman acknowledges that $10.40 for the 104 pages is reasonable. However, he alleged Morgan’s $20 charge for research was unlawful because it did not reflect the hourly rate of the lowest-paid employee capable of performing the task. He alleged the same for the $20 copying charge, which he said the office’s copier could complete in less than five minutes.
Heitman’s request for the Attorney General’s Office was to review the matter and ensure compliance with Missouri Sunshine Law. He asked for a determination that the fees were excessive and did not comply with the law, a directive requiring the sheriff’s office to refund any excessive fees charged and guidance to Morgan and the office “regarding the proper application of the Missouri Sunshine Law to prevent future violations.”
On Tuesday morning, Morgan said he had not heard about the complaint, but he said that the rate for the records was “reasonable.”