MARIES COUNTY — Former Sheriff Chris Heitman formally notified Sheriff Mark Morgan and Maries County officials Sept. 23 that he is considering additional legal action after statements Morgan has made concerning him.

In the email titled “Notice of Anticipated Legal Action and Demand for Preservation of Evidence,” Heitman notified Morgan, the Maries County Commission and County Clerk Rhonda Rodgers that additional litigation is “reasonably anticipated” and demanded the preservation of communications, recordings, electronic records and other material potentially related to the dispute.

The email follows comments Morgan made during a discussion with the Maries County Commission that were reported in the Sept. 23 article in The Advocate, titled “Commissioners, sheriff discuss social media misuse in closed session.” Heitman believes that this notice is important because Morgan has targeted him and hopes this will prohibit Morgan from deleting evidence on county computers.

During the end of his tenure, Heitman said that he hired Morgan as a deputy the week after the Nov. 5, 2024, election and helped make the transition as smooth as possible. Heitman said he met with Morgan and that the sheriff’s office was financially well and had no patrol cars with over 100,000 miles.

This contrasted with when Heitman became sheriff after Doug DiNatale. Heitman said that the computers were wiped, he was locked out of his office, and some of the patrol cars were empty and had dead batteries.

But since Morgan took office, Heitman believes Morgan has attacked his reputation.

“It’s truly unbelievable the actions that man takes and the amount of discrimination that he has, not just for me but other employees as well,” Heitman said.

Heitman declined to share the damages he is seeking but he anticipates filing litigation within the next 60 days.

During the Aug. 3 commission in closed session, Morgan said that Prosecuting Attorney Anthony (Tony) Skouby wants to call him a “bad man” while also blocking a subpoena he was investigating. Morgan said it was about the former sheriff, referring to Heitman.

“The former sheriff and one of his former boyfriends or current boyfriend set up a police officer in the city of Belle,” Morgan said. “And now that same person is trying to sue the city of Belle for over $800,000.”

Heitman denied Morgan’s allegation in the notice.

“I did not participate in setting up any police officer or engage in the conduct Sheriff Morgan attributed to me,” he said.

Heitman characterized Morgan’s statement as one that purports to describe actual conduct by him and said it affects his personal and professional reputation.

The former sheriff said the potential dispute extends beyond Morgan’s most recent statement. He said this is part of an ongoing course of statements and actions involving accusations about him, references to purported investigations, comments about his personal relationships and the use of sheriff-related social-media platforms to discuss matters involving him.

Heitman said he is evaluating available legal remedies related to Morgan’s recent statement, its publication or republication, other statements and what Heitman described as a broader course of conduct.

The notice also references Heitman v. Morgan, Case No. 26MS-CC00023. Heitman states that the new notice does not amend, limit or waive any claim or right involved in that case or any other claim he may have.

In addition to notifying county officials of potential litigation, Heitman demanded that Morgan cease making what Heitman alleges are false statements accusing him of criminal, unethical, fraudulent or other wrongful conduct.

The email separately contains an extensive demand that records be preserved.

Heitman directed Morgan, the sheriff’s office, county commission, county clerk and appropriate employees, contractors, information-technology personnel and records custodians to preserve potentially relevant evidence in their possession, custody or control.

The requested material includes emails, text messages, messaging-app communications, social-media messages, call records, voicemails, photographs and videos involving Heitman.

Heitman also requested preservation of communications between Morgan and county officials, law-enforcement agencies, Belle officials, attorneys, members of the media and others concerning allegations involving Heitman.

The demand extends to documents concerning investigations, inquiries, complaints, referrals or subpoenas involving Heitman that Morgan may have referenced publicly or privately.

Heitman also requested preservation of any evidence, reports, communications, recordings, witness information or other material Morgan relied upon when alleging that Heitman participated in “setting up” a Belle police officer. Heitman also seeks records identifying the source or sources of that allegation.

Heitman additionally requested preservation of relevant audit logs, query histories and access records from law-enforcement or investigative databases, identifying MULES/NCIC, TLOxp and TransUnion records involving searches related to him or the allegations.

The preservation demand also encompasses records concerning Heitman’s Sunshine Law requests, records withheld in response to those requests and communications concerning representations that records were connected to an active investigation.

Heitman requested complete recordings, minutes, transcripts, notes and communications from the Aug. 3 and Aug. 20 commission meetings to the extent they concern Morgan, Heitman or matters described in the notice.

Sheriff-related social-media records are also included in the demand. Heitman requested preservation of posts, comments, messages, edits, deleted material, account-administration records and information showing whether content involving him was blocked, restricted, hidden or deleted.

The request applies not only to government-owned systems but also to personal devices, accounts or applications used to conduct public business or communicate about the matters identified in the email.

Heitman requested preservation of original electronically stored information and associated metadata, edit histories, recoverable deleted material, backups, cloud-stored information and previous versions that are reasonably available. He also asked that routine deletion or destruction processes affecting potentially relevant information be suspended.

The email requests written confirmation within 10 days of receipt that appropriate preservation measures have been implemented.

A preservation demand itself does not establish the truth of the allegations in the email or determine liability. It serves to notify recipients that litigation is anticipated and that potentially relevant material should be retained.

Heitman also stated that the notice is not intended to identify every possible claim, defendant, item of evidence or legal theory and that he is reserving any rights or remedies available to him under state or federal law.

Morgan said that he is unable to comment on the situation right now because he is treating the notice as pending litigation and will let the county attorneys speak with Heitman. But Morgan did say that he stands by all his Aug. 3 statements and that he doesn’t have any concerns.

“There’s nothing to be concerned with,” Morgan said.

Heitman believes that Morgan’s response reveals his true character.

“How can he not realize how unprofessional those statements are?” Heitman said. “Why is he concerned with who I’m sleeping with?”