Pristine Pre-Owned Auto, Inc. v. Courrier

• Decision Date: 03 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15–0008.,15–0008.
• Citation: 783 S.E.2d 585
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: PRISTINE PRE–OWNED AUTO, INC., Plaintiff Below, Petitioner v. James W. COURRIER, Jr., Prosecuting Attorney for Mineral County, West Virginia, and Trooper M.L. Travelpiece, individually and in his Official Capacity as a West Virginia State Trooper, Defendants Below, Respondents.

783 S.E.2d 585

PRISTINE PRE–OWNED AUTO, INC., Plaintiff Below, Petitioner

v.James W. COURRIER, Jr., Prosecuting Attorney for Mineral County, West Virginia,andTrooper M.L. Travelpiece, individually and in his Official Capacity as a West Virginia State Trooper, Defendants Below, Respondents.

No. 15–0008.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Feb. 23, 2016.

Decided March 3, 2016.

James E. Smith, II, Keyser, WV, for the Petitioner.

Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Julie Marie Blake, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Charleston, WV, Virginia Grottendieck Lanham, Assistant Attorney General, John A. Hoyer, Assistant Attorney General, West Virginia State Police, South Charleston, WV, for the Respondent, Trooper M.L. Travelpiece.

F. Cody Pancake, III, Prosecuting Attorney for Mineral County, Keyser, WV, for the Respondent, James W. Courrier, Jr.

DAVIS

, Justice:

Pristine Pre–Owned Auto, Inc. ("Pristine"), petitioner herein and plaintiff below, appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Mineral County denying its complaint seeking a writ of mandamus¹ to compel the return of items seized by West Virginia State Police Trooper M.L. Travelpiece ("Trooper Travelpiece"), respondent herein and defendant below, in his execution of a search warrant at Pristine's business premises. Also named as a defendant below and appearing as a respondent herein is the former Prosecuting Attorney for Mineral County, Mr. James W. Courrier, Jr. ("Prosecutor Courrier").² Although Pristine challenges the underlying search warrant as being an improper general warrant, and further argues that the lower court erred by failing to apply the exclusionary rule to preclude the use of the seized evidence in any future criminal proceeding against Pristine's corporate officers, we do not reach these issues. Instead, we resolve this case on the issue of whether an extraordinary writ of mandamus is a proper remedy under circumstances such as those herein presented. Because we find that mandamus is not a proper remedy in this instance, we affirm the order of the circuit court denying Pristine's complaint seeking a writ of mandamus.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 23, 2014, Trooper Travelpiece sought a search warrant from Mineral County Magistrate Sue Roby. Trooper Travelpiece's affidavit accompanying his complaint for a search warrant related that, on September 8, 2014, he was contacted by Shelly Jackson ("Ms. Jackson"), a customer of Pristine who, on advice from the West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles ("the DMV"), sought to file a complaint of false pretenses against Pristine. Ms. Jackson had allegedly purchased an automobile from Pristine, and Pristine held a lien on the vehicle pending full payment of the purchase price. Pristine also purportedly financed subsequent repairs to the vehicle, although there appears to be a dispute over whether a secondary lien on the vehicle to cover the cost of the repairs was consented to by Ms. Jackson or her co-buyer, Mr. Eric Dorman ("Mr. Dorman"). Ms. Jackson reported to Trooper Travelpiece that Pristine had asked that she bring the car to the dealership to resolve a "paperwork discrepancy." Instead, Ms. Jackson contacted the DMV and, subsequently, Trooper Travelpiece.

The following day, Ms. Jackson, who resided in Maryland, reported the vehicle stolen and again contacted Trooper Travelpiece to apprise him of the missing vehicle. Trooper Travelpiece then located the vehicle on the lot at Pristine. Pristine claimed that it repossessed the vehicle due to Ms. Jackson's failure to make payments on a secondary lien on the vehicle. According to Trooper Travelpiece, however, Ms. Jackson had provided documentation to show that she had made agreed upon payments. Trooper Travelpiece further reported that he contacted the DMV and learned that, contrary to Pristine's assertions, there was no secondary lien recorded on the Certificate of Title pertaining to Ms. Jackson's automobile as of September 9, 2014.³

Trooper Travelpiece also learned from the DMV that the sale of the vehicle to Ms. Jackson was being investigated by that agency because the Certificate of Title to the vehicle on file with the DMV did not properly identify it as a salvage vehicle.⁴ The DMV related that a prior owner of the vehicle, who also had purchased the car from Pristine, had apparently been involved in an accident and, as a result, the vehicle had become a salvage vehicle. The prior owner's insurance company had tendered payment to Pristine equal to the remainder due on a lien Pristine held on the vehicle. Pristine was then to surrender the automobile's title to the insurer. Pristine purportedly failed to surrendered the title to the insurer. Instead, Pristine repaired the vehicle and sold it to Ms. Jackson and Mr. Dorman. DMV records indicate that Pristine filed an affidavit for repossession of the vehicle from the previous owner after the accident had occurred. Pristine apparently claimed that the previous owner had defaulted on a lien encumbering the vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that the insurer had paid the full balance due on the purchase lien.

The DMV further indicated to Trooper Travelpiece that its internal investigation suggested that Pristine had engaged in the practice of adding the cost of vehicle maintenance onto existing liens, and then repossessing vehicles based upon customers' defaults on the amounts Pristine had added to those existing liens. Trooper Travelpiece opined to the magistrate court that this practice put into question the legality of Pristine's past automobile repossessions from individuals who had allegedly defaulted on their automobile loan payments. Finally, Trooper Travelpiece advised the magistrate court that, subsequent to September 8, 2014, he had received several additional complaints from customers of Pristine who claimed either that they were sold a reconstructed vehicle without proper notice or that Pristine had refused to transfer title to a vehicle upon completion of all payments due.

Based upon Trooper Travelpiece's representations, Magistrate Roby issued the requested search warrant, which sought all of Pristine's financial documentation, all records of vehicles sold by Pristine, all repossession paperwork, all vehicle titles, information pertaining to vehicles present on Pristine's lot, all paperwork documenting maintenance to reconstructed vehicles, all computers, and all electronic devices capable of storing business records.

When Trooper Travelpiece executed the warrant, corporate officers of Pristine refused to cooperate or assist in the location of the documents and equipment subject to the warrant. As a result, law enforcement seized, as described by the circuit court, "a considerable volume of paperwork, records, computer equipment, and other materials during the search of the property." Thereafter, on November 12, 2014, Pristine filed in the Circuit Court of Mineral County its complaint seeking a writ of mandamus and an injunction. Following a hearing, by order entered on December 12, 2014, the circuit court denied Pristine's complaint. However, instead of addressing the issues raised in the context of mandamus, the circuit court found that Rule 41(e) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure

provided the proper analysis. Addressing the sufficiency of the search warrant on the merits, the circuit court upheld the search and seizure. Additionally, however, the circuit court ordered Trooper Travelpiece and Prosecutor Courrier to "coordinate the return [to Pristine's counsel] of any items in which the State does not have a continuing interest." This appeal followed.

Before delving into our analysis of this case, we note that no criminal actions were pending against the principal officers of Pristine at the time of the circuit court's ruling. This no longer is the case. Prosecutor Courrier and Trooper Travelpiece aver in their briefs to this Court that, upon completion of the State Police investigation of Pristine, two of Pristine's officers were indicted. Fernando Manvel Smith, Pristine's Chief Operating Officer, and Jamie Elizabeth Crabtree, have each been indicted on twenty-nine felony counts of false pretenses in violation of W. Va.Code § 61–3–24(a)(1) (1994)

(Repl. Vol. 2014), and an additional twenty-nine felony counts of conspiracy in violation of W. Va.Code § 61–10–31 (1971) (Repl. Vol. 2014). Finally, Prosecutor Courrier and Trooper Travelpiece explain that, once the items removed from Pristine were more thoroughly examined, some items that were not relevant to the investigation were returned to Pristine. Upon completion of the State Police investigation, additional items were ready for return. However, according to Prosecutor Courrier, Pristine refused to accept the items without a more detailed inventory. During oral argument, this Court was advised that the items finally were returned in mid-January 2016. Items which are evidence of the crimes committed have been retained by the State as evidence in the pending criminal prosecution.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court has previously held that "[a] de novo standard of review applies to a circuit court's decision to grant or deny a writ of mandamus." Syl. pt. 1, Harrison Cty. Comm'n v. Harrison Cty. Assessor, 222 W.Va. 25, 658 S.E.2d 555 (2008)

. Accordingly, we engage in a plenary review of this case.

III.DISCUSSION

Although Pristine sought a writ of mandamus from the circuit court, in its order resolving this matter, the trial court instead examined W. Va.Code § 62–1A–6 (1965)

(Repl. Vol. 2014), a statute providing for the return of property and the suppression of evidence, and West Virginia Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e), addressing a motion for return of property. The trial court concluded that Rule 41(e) provided the proper analysis for this matter. Therefore, the circuit court assessed the sufficiency of the search warrant on the merits under Rule 41(e) and upheld the search and seizure....