Photo by Emma Delk| Former State Sen. Michael Maroney during Wednesday's evidence suppression and bond revocation hearing.

Marshall County Magistrate Zachary Allman on Wednesday denied the plea agreement in the case of former State Sen. Dr. Michael Maroney on charges of indecent exposure, disorderly conduct and driving under the influence. The decision came during an evidence suppression and bond revocation hearing at the Marshall County Courthouse.

The plea agreement included Maroney pleading guilty to the disorderly conduct charge and the state dismissing the indecent exposure charge. In lieu of the state dismissing the DUI charge, Maroney would have pleaded guilty to driving without car insurance and having an expired registration.

Maroney’s charges of indecent exposure and disorderly conduct stem from an Aug. 4, 2024, incident where he was allegedly seen committing an act of sexual gratification on closed-circuit cameras at the Gumby’s in Glen Gale.

A trial date has not yet been set on those charges.

Maroney’s DUI charge stems from a Sept. 23, 2024, incident where McMechen Police officers pulled over Maroney after he allegedly committed “numerous traffic infractions,” according to a news release from McMechen Police Chief Robert Shilling. After the roadside investigation, Shilling arrested Maroney on suspicion of driving under the influence.

The trial date for the DUI charge has been set for Wednesday, April 30 at 9 a.m. in Marshall County Magistrate Court.

Before Allman heard the state’s case to dismiss the defense’s evidence suppression motion, Marshall County Prosecutor Joe Canestraro informed Allman that the state and defense had reached a plea agreement they asked the court to entertain.

Canestraro laid out the agreement, including Maroney pleading guilty to disorderly conduct and paying a $100 fine for the charge. Maroney’s previous time spent in custody would count as the time served for the charge. The state would dismiss Maroney’s DUI charge from the September 2024 incident and refile the charges of no insurance and expired registration, for which Maroney would pay $500 and $100 fines, respectively.

Canestraro asked whether Allman would want the state to put on the record why the DUI charge was dismissed, which Allman responded was “not necessary at this time.” Allman then denied the plea agreement.

“There are several things that I factor in every criminal case — underlying facts, interest of the victim, interest of the general public, the conduct of the defendant throughout the process,” Allman said. “Based on all that, I’m denying the plea terms. Everyone in this court is treated equally and that [the plea agreement] is denied.”

Defense attorney Harry Moore then stood and said he believed the next motion would be a joint motion to remove the case from circuit court. Allman told Moore to sit down and that he would call on Moore when he wanted him to talk.

“Otherwise, be quiet unless you have an objection. Do you understand?” Allman asked Moore, who responded that he did.

Allman then heard the state’s argument that the video evidence from the Aug. 4, 2024, incident at Gumby’s should not be suppressed for the trial. The state called on Glen Dale Police Chief Ed Vogler as a witness, as he was the officer dispatched to Gumby’s on Aug. 4, 2024. Vogler also filed the subpoena to obtain the closed-circuit camera footage of Maroney at the gaming establishment.

Vogler said that when he first arrived at Gumby’s on the night of Aug. 4, 2024, he spoke with the clerk, an employee in training and “another girl” who was there to drop off food for the business. Vogler said the women informed him that Maroney was in one of the gaming rooms in the back of the establishment and had come to the front “a couple of times” to use the ATM machine.

“One of the times he came out, he was breathing heavily, and it kind of got their attention as to what was going on,” Vogler said. “When Maroney went back to the gaming room, the clerk spoke with her trainee and they discussed a couple of things. They then went to the closed circuit TV area and watched the video and saw what appeared to them as Mr. Maroney in the gaming room masturbating.”

Vogler proceeded to the gaming room where Maroney was and asked Maroney what was going on, to which Maroney responded he was “playing the machines.”

“I said, ‘Well, they said you were back here masturbating and they’ve got cameras everywhere,'” Vogler recounted. “He [Maroney] said, ‘Well, let me finish my game, and I’ll just leave.’ I said, ‘That’s fine.’ So, he finished his one game and left after that.”

Vogler then went to the front of Gumby’s to speak with the clerk and her assistant. He informed them he would need written statements from them and a copy of the video footage of Maroney in the gaming room.

Vogler confirmed for Canestraro that he asked one of the employees for the video footage that night. Vogler said the employee informed him they could not give him the footage as it had to be obtained from Gumby’s main headquarters in Wheeling.

Vogler said he eventually obtained a subpoena from the circuit court to obtain the video footage and served it on Gumby’s IT worker at the main headquarters in Elm Grove. Vogler confirmed for Canestraro that Gumby’s willingly gave him the footage. Vogler gave Canestraro a copy and filed the other copies in the case file.

During his cross-examination of Vogler, Moore asked whether Vogler had asked for video footage from any of the other cameras in Gumby’s, specifically the cameras that would “show the reactions of the so-called victims.” Vogler said he did not.

Caenstraro said that there was “clearly” probable cause for Vogler to obtain the video footage from Gumby’s based on the statements of the women working at the establishment the night of Aug. 4, 2024, and what Vogler saw on the video footage. Canestraro said the footage should not be suppressed since it was taped publicly and obtained through a subpoena.

Allman denied the motion to suppress the video footage evidence.

Allman then considered the bond revocation for Maroney’s DUI charge. Part of Maroney’s bond conditions for the DUI charge was to enter and undergo a drug treatment program, either inpatient or outpatient.

Canestraro said he had no witnesses to present for the bond revocation. He noted he had only received letters from Maroney’s physician stating they were “not aware of any need” for Maroney to undergo rehabilitation as the physician “saw no evidence of drug use or abuse.”

Moore then asked Allman to ask the court to conduct an in-camera session hearing regarding any discussion of Maroney’s medical records while considering whether Maroney must enter a rehabilitation program as a condition of a bond.

“I believe the court [should have] free flowing information without the media, etc. here for medical information,” Moore said.

Allman responded to Moore’s inquiry that they were not discussing the details of Maroney’s medical records.

“We’re discussing whether or not he abided by the bond conditions — whether or not he enrolled in a [rehabilitation] facility like the court ordered him or he didn’t,” Allman said.

Allman then revoked Maroney’s bond. He informed Maroney that his current bail would be released, his bail would be reset at $1,500 “cash only” and he would remain in the Division of Corrections until he paid the bond “personally.”

Allman informed Maroney that if he could not pay the bail “right now,” he would have to go to jail, and Allman would have Maroney brought back “personally” to magistrate court to post the bail. Allman said Maroney would have five days from when the bail was posted to enter a drug treatment program in an inpatient or outpatient facility and provide the court proof of this.

“The reason I’m making you pay personally is if you don’t go [to a rehabilitation facility], then that bond will be forfeited and then it [the bond] will be reset again and again every five days,” Allman said to Maroney. “That’s the only way I can think of to make you abide by the very simple order of this court, which is just simply enrollment in an inpatient or outpatient program.”

Allman said he and Maroney would go to the arraignment room to review Maroney’s new bond paperwork. Before this occurred, Moore questioned Allman “who” would pay for the inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation.

“Seriously, I mean, is the state offering to pay for his inpatient?” Moore asked Allman, who responded the state was not offering to do so.

“I mean, so what’s going on here?” Moore questioned Allman again. “You’re ordering Dr. Maroney as a condition of bond to enroll and do outpatient and pay out of his own pocket? That’s what you’re doing?”

Allman asked Moore to sit down multiple times while Moore questioned him regarding the bond conditions.

Allman then had the state and defense approach him. Following a brief discussion between the parties, Allman announced that if there was nothing further, the hearing was adjourned. Allman then took Maroney to the arraignment room to review his new bond paperwork.