Background
In June 2022, police officers executed a search warrant on Curtis Lynn Morgan’s residence based on information from a confidential informant that Morgan was distributing methamphetamine. According to the affidavit attached to the warrant, the informant reported to Deputy Alan Hunt of the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department that he saw Morgan possess a “large amount” of methamphetamine and that he had been distributing the drug for some time. The affidavit stated that the informant had previously provided “true and accurate” information during the previous year in a Monroe County death investigation, and that officers had “routinely received complaints” over several months about Morgan distributing methamphetamine in the Peterstown, West Virginia area. During the search, Morgan spoke to Corporal J.K. Weiss of the West Virginia State Police—apparently while the officer’s bodycam was recording—and made an inculpatory statement regarding a padlock on the door to the room where controlled substances were kept. Officers found methamphetamine and other controlled substances.
Morgan was indicted on one count of possession with intent to deliver a Schedule II controlled substance and two counts of possession with intent to deliver a Schedule I controlled substance. He moved to suppress the seized evidence, arguing the warrant was invalid because it relied on unreliable information from a confidential informant. The circuit court denied the motion in February 2023, finding the informant’s reliability was established by the 2021 death investigation information and corroborated by other complaints. On July 17, 2023, Morgan moved to produce the bodycam recording of his statement and to suppress that statement. The court denied these motions, finding the video was inadvertently deleted from a cloud storage system that “automatically purged after six months.” Although the court ruled that “the State arguably had a duty to preserve the video,” it found “no indication that the State deleted the video in bad faith” and that Morgan voluntarily made the statement.
At trial, after the State’s case-in-chief, Morgan renewed his motion to produce the video and asked to dismiss the indictment, arguing due process and the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure required disclosure because the video contained his statement and the State had watched it “multiple times” before deletion. The court denied the motion, again finding no bad faith due to the automatic deletion policy. The jury convicted Morgan of all charges, and the court imposed an effective sentence of three to twenty-five years of imprisonment.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. Reviewing the denial of the motion to suppress, the Court applied the standard from State v. Lacy, reviewing factual findings for clear error and the ultimate reasonableness determination de novo. The Court held that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause under the totality of circumstances. Citing State v. Lilly and State v. Adkins, the Court explained that the informant’s reliability was sufficiently established by his track record of providing accurate information in the 2021 death investigation and by the independent corroboration of routine complaints about Morgan’s drug distribution. The allegation that the informant personally saw Morgan possess methamphetamine established the informant’s basis of knowledge, and the routine complaints imparted reliability, satisfying State v. Hlavacek.
Regarding the bodycam footage, the Court reviewed the denial of the motion to produce under an abuse of discretion standard, with factual findings reviewed for clear error and legal questions de novo, citing State v. Schermerhorn. Applying State v. Osakalumi, the Court held that even assuming the State had a duty to preserve the video after disclosing discovery in November 2022, the inadvertent deletion did not violate due process. The circuit court found no bad faith, attributing the deletion to an automatic 180-day data retention policy. The State presented testimony from four officers present during the search, whose account Morgan did not dispute, and Morgan did not contend the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. Thus, the deletion had no impact on the trial’s outcome.
Key Takeaways
- A confidential informant’s reliability may be established by a track record of accurate information in prior investigations, even if not drug-related, and by independent police corroboration of routine complaints.
- Inadvertent deletion of bodycam footage pursuant to an automatic data retention policy, without bad faith, does not violate due process where secondary evidence (officer testimony) remains available and the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
- The totality of circumstances test for probable cause considers the informant’s basis of knowledge and credibility, including personal observation of criminal activity.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that law enforcement may rely on confidential informants with proven reliability in non-drug investigations and corroborating community complaints to establish probable cause. It also clarifies that due process violations from lost or destroyed evidence require a showing of bad faith or material prejudice; inadvertent deletion via automated retention policies, absent bad faith and with adequate substitute evidence, will not warrant suppression or dismissal.