By Hannah Heishman
It’s hard to briefly summarize what’s happened in the last year between the Moorefield Town Council and the Moorefield Police Department, but it’s information Town voters need going into this year’s elections.
Since November 2024, most of the Council’s twice-monthly meetings have been dominated by visitors, discussions and executive sessions focused on the Moorefield Police Department.
Last summer, MPD Chief Stephen Riggleman discovered one of his officers had accessed and downloaded the body-worn camera footage from a discussion he had with Mayor and Police Commissioner Carol Zuber on July 4; the same officer accessed Riggleman’s location more than 15 times in the hour the discussion occurred. The officer also drove past Zuber’s home while they were talking.
The officer did not access any other officers’ locations, despite it being July 4, and despite supervising officers who were on duty. Riggleman, as Chief, was his supervisor; typically, in military and law enforcement, when subordinates check, they check their own subordinates, not their supervisors.
Riggleman also determined the MPD’s cloud storage was accessed from what turned out to be the officer’s home network, against department policy.
Although the officer did have access to the body-worn camera footage and the locations of all Town officers wearing the cameras, he only accessed the footage from one timeframe, and the locations of one person who was also his direct supervisor.
Riggleman filed a grievance against the officer based on these concerns.
Pendleton County Prosecutor April Mallow was tasked to investigate. The West Virginia State Police declined to investigate because they viewed the issue as an internal matter. The Hardy County Prosecutor’s Offices declined to investigate due to conflict of interest. Mallow determined no further investigation was required, per her report.
Mallow had an opportunity to answer the Examiner’s questions, but after canceling one phone call appointment, did not schedule another and did not reply in writing, despite having the questions in writing in advance. The initial interview was scheduled for May 9.
In her report, Mallow found Riggleman’s allegations to be “lacking in probable cause and without merit.”
Mallow wrote that, “upon speaking with Moorefield Mayor and Police Commissioner, Carol Zuber…and others, I have determined that no further investigation is necessary.”
Mallow said Riggleman’s third allegation involved the officer recording a private conversation between Riggleman and another officer, Jon Baniak. Mallow said the allegation is false.
Mallow writes, “It was a conversation wherein (Baniak) suggested the gangrape of an innocent young woman…”
She wrote that the investigated officer was present in the room when the recording was made: “…and, in fact, Sgt. (redacted by Examiner) was asked a question by Chief Riggleman.”
It was this recording that, in November 2024, resulted in the Council firing Baniak, then reinstating him on probation, placing Riggleman on probation, and terminating then reinstating the officer who made the recording.
This reporter has heard the recording. The term used was “gang bang,” which can be consensual. Rape is by definition non-consensual. There were no other voices on the recording, and no indication anyone else was in the room. Both Riggleman and Baniak have stated it was just the two of them, behind closed doors.
Both have acknowledged their discussion was inappropriate. Riggleman proactively found and coordinated training — for himself and Baniak, and the entire department — and worked to re-establish trust across the department and within the community.
Regardless, the recording resulted in an emergency Council meeting Nov. 18, 2024 during which Baniak was terminated. Riggleman was out for a medical procedure that day, but Zuber and the Council requested he attend the next night’s regular meeting.
The Nov. 19 meeting was almost entirely executive session. The entire Moorefield Police Department appeared to speak in support of Riggleman and Baniak. Each officer spoke to the Council alone. Their passion was evident, and their stance clear: They supported both men, and were ready to walk themselves if either or both were fired. Their wives and girlfriends waited with them, outside the Town Hall.
The information the officers provided the Council during that meeting resulted in Baniak’s reinstatement, both Riggleman and Baniak on six month’s probation and personal improvement programs, and the other officer’s termination. He was reinstated the following morning, but suspended with pay pending the outcome of a Chapter 8 disciplinary hearing.
As that meeting ended, Zuber publicly stated her intention to resign as mayor, and specifically directed the Examiner reporter to include that information in the meeting article.
There were actually two different hearings, by two different groups of people, held in December 2024 and March 2025. The first was a grievance hearing, and the Chapter 8 hearing determined whether the suspended officer would be terminated. Both hearings gave the officer time to plead his case. He could present any evidence he had, including recordings of conversations.
Both hearings found against him, and for the Town of Moorefield. The officer was terminated from the MPD; the nine-year-old K9 he handled for the Town was retired at Riggleman’s request and allowed to stay with the officer.
Throughout this period, the officer’s supporters filled the Council chambers during the public comments section of Council meetings. They often attacked Riggleman personally and professionally, but provided little evidence to support their claims. They accused Council member Mary Jo Tobin of living in Winchester, yet offered no evidence.
Zuber repeatedly let them publicly accuse her police chief and her Council of lies and corruption at best, and illegal behavior at worst.
Council member Scott Fawley stood in as mayor during a meeting when Zuber was absent. When multiple family members signed up to speak, then opted to ‘give’ their five minutes each to the officer, Fawley refused. He said he would allow the officer five minutes, total. The officer declined the offer, and chose not to address the Council at all.
At the next meeting, Zuber undermined the authority she’d given Fawley by not only granting the officer time to speak to the Council, but also allowing it to be in executive session.
This reporter initially was in frequent contact with the officer, requesting any evidence he had against Riggleman and the council as proof of his claims. Outside of what his supporters provided during meetings, which consisted of Mallow’s report and the legal definitions of terms, the officer provided nothing further.
The officer previously provided information that was at best questionable, and at worst, false. Claims that he, a female officer, and an African American officer were the only three members of the MPD who were not Masons was not true. At the time he made the statement, there were only two Masons working in the MPD.
He also said that if he left the department, that most of the other officers would follow him out the door. The second November Council meeting proved that wrong, as the officers told the Council the exact opposite.
A Council member interviewed former members of the MPD to ask about working in the department, and why they left. Most said the drama created by the officer constantly going behind Riggleman’s back to the Council, and trying to undermine Riggleman, was the deciding factor when higher salaries and work closer to home became available.
Mallow appeared in support of the officer during the first hearing. Her report was used publicly as evidence by the officer’s supporters that he was innocent and Riggleman and Baniak were the true problems. However, beyond claiming the men laughed over a term they actually didn’t say, there was little apparent reason to attack them.
Mallow made public her intent to add Riggleman to the Brady List.
The Brady List was intended for prosecutorial misconduct, and expanded to include police as they are considered part of the prosecution. Most simply, one’s name on the Brady List means one has no credibility, rendering one ineffective to the prosecution and therefore unable to work as police. As chief, Riggleman’s name on the Brady List will also affect the credibility of the officers he supervises.
Mallow followed through. She met with Hardy County’s then-Prosecutor Jeff Weatherholt and Zuber on Apr. 7. Weatherholt filed the paperwork. On Apr. 8, Riggleman learned he was added to the Brady List.
The officer who was terminated can work again as a police officer. Adding Riggleman to the Brady List damages, if not ends his career. Even if his name is removed, as it likely will be, that he was on the list at all will hang over him, professionally.
Removing his name requires a Circuit Judge ruling, and time.
In April 2025, MPD officers and civilians finally spoke during public comments, in a meeting with fewer citizens than has become common. When one officer spoke about Zuber meeting with Mallow and Weatherholt, Zuber interrupted her, although Council members have not been allowed to speak during public comments even to defend themselves.
Zuber asked Riggleman to confirm that she had not been to MPD offices in “around 18 months.” Riggleman started to answer, and Zuber interrupted again, demanding he respond with “yes” or “no.”
Riggleman finally broke.
“You haven’t talked to me at all on any of this,” Riggleman said. “I know you’ve had meetings with (the former MPD officer). Jeff Weatherholt never gave me any voice in any of this. You could have stood up for me, and could have stood up for the police department.”
The department currently has three officers who can patrol and investigate crimes. Pending his hearing and a Circuit Court judge’s ruling, Riggleman is not one of them. One officer is injured; another is activated with the National Guard. A third left for better pay and benefits in the Grant County Sheriff’s Office. A fourth requires two weeks of recertification at the State Police Academy in July.
Meanwhile, kids are out of school, streets are teeming with Pilgrims employees, and Moorefield is busier than ever.
One of the Examiner’s unanswered questions for Mallow was why, specifically, she thought Riggleman needed to be included on the Brady List. To date, she has not provided a reason.
As police commissioner, Zuber can terminate Riggleman; she told the Council she wanted to do so. The Council pushed back and wouldn’t let her. Their support is real, but forced by regulation behind closed doors.
MPD officers believe Riggleman’s addition to West Virginia’s Brady List is unjust, based on false claims, and that Riggleman had no opportunity to defend himself.
The officers worry that if their chief can be placed on the Brady List without an opportunity to respond or defend himself, then they have even less defense against the same.
In conservative, rural Moorefield, the police department does not feel the support that police departments in similar communities might enjoy. What they’ve experienced is quite the opposite, and the toll is becoming apparent.
Riggleman continues working in his office, running interference for his officers, researching training opportunities and equipment for the department, and grants to pay for both. He’s not sure where his future lies, including whether he’ll continue as a police officer. It’s been almost a year since this began in earnest, and he’s concerned about the next blow.
They keep coming.
