The Inter-Mountain photo by Taylor McKinnie Robert Eugene Cooper is shown during his preliminary hearing in Randolph County Magistrate Court this week.

ELKINS — Probable cause was found in the case of a Randolph County man who allegedly broke into a woman’s garage and stole more than $10,000 worth of items, moving his case forward to the grand jury.

Robert Eugene Cooper, 41, is charged with one count of burglary and one count of grand larceny, both felonies. He is currently being held at the Tygart Valley Regional Jail on a $15,000 cash-only bond.

Randolph County Magistrate Tracy Harper found probable cause during a preliminary hearing Wednesday afternoon. Cooper’s case will now go forward to be considered by the Randolph County Grand Jury.

Before the hearing began, Cooper’s attorney, Morris Davis, asked Harper to reduce Cooper’s bond from $15,000 cash-only to $10,000 cash/property/surety/10% to the court. Davis stated that Cooper was not a flight risk and was a “fixture” in the Mill Creek area. Davis added that, because Cooper is homeless, the current bond was almost like Cooper had received no bond at all.

Assistant Randolph County Prosecutor Leckta Poling said the state was not opposed to a modification in bond, but asked that there still be a cash component and, if Cooper were to make bond, that he be required to provide the state with a mailing address so he could receive information from the courts.

Harper denied the defense’s motion to reduce the bond at the hearing’s conclusion.

At the hearing’s start, Poling called Brian Lanham to testify before the court. Lanham, who is in charge of keeping up the youth softball field near Liggett’s Supply in Mill Creek, told the court that, in December, a “couple different” community members told him they believed someone was living in the softball field’s bathroom.

Lanham said when he later checked on the bathroom, he found a lot of items stored in the space, including boots, clothes, a suitcase and a vanity that Lanham said looked like the one he gave his niece three years ago. Lanham said he contacted Senior Deputy A.M. Channell with the Randolph County Sheriff’s Office, who came out to investigate.

When asked by Poling if he had given permission for anyone to store items in the bathroom, Lanham said no. He went on to explain that someone had also built a small fire on the bathroom floor.

During cross-examination, Davis asked if Lanham had ever seen anything that connected Cooper to the items found in the bathroom. Lanham said he had not until he viewed images from a trail camera belonging to his sister-in-law, whose property was stolen. When asked again, Lanham said a man who resembled Cooper cleaned up the items after Lanham had thrown them into the dugout. Though he didn’t approach the man in the dugout due to bad weather, Lanham told the court that the man looked like Cooper.

Davis then asked if, when viewing the trail camera footage, Lanham ever saw Cooper enter the residence. Lanham said he did not.

Poling then called Kayla Plumley, the alleged theft victim, to testify. Plumley said that, on Nov. 19, she came home and noticed some of the smaller items from her garage were now located in the breezeway area of the residence, and that her garage door was unlocked. Plumley said she could tell the garage had been “ransacked” and that there were several items missing.

According to the criminal complaint filed by Channell, the list of stolen items includes three full clothing racks full of name brand clothes worth $3,000, two full totes of name brand shoes and boots worth $1,600, one full tote full of new purses worth $1,000, five totes of baby and toddler clothes worth $1,500, an Ozark Trail cooler worth $150, 10 totes of household and holiday decorations worth $2,500, four construction size large trash bags of approximately 15 to 20 holiday wrapping paper rolls per bag worth $400, a vanity mirror worth $100, a pink hardback suitcase worth $200, 10 bags of wood pellets worth $100 and a chandelier worth $100. The total worth of the items stolen is approximately $10,650.

Plumley told the court she found her Ring video doorbell camera lying face down on the concrete, and it was also clear that someone had attempted to break into the actual home. When asked by Poling if she gave anyone permission to take the items out of the garage, Plumley said no.

Plumley admitted that she did not call the police because, when she had issues with her neighbors, she had been told by officers that “if it’s not on camera, it pretty much didn’t happen.” She told the court that she bought trail cameras and placed them in her breezeway as she believed the thief would come back.

On Dec. 22, Plumley looked at the trail cameras and observed footage of an individual stealing a bag of wood pellets from her porch, she said. A neighbor’s camera caught footage of the individual walking by with the bag of wood pellets on their back. Plumley said she then called Channell on Dec. 23.

During cross-examination, Davis questioned if there was any footage recovered from the Ring camera, to which Plumley said no. Davis also asked why Plumley didn’t call the police. Plumley explained that, when she had issues with her neighbors trying to break into her home, the police told her the incident had to be on camera for them to press charges. Plumley said she filmed the next incident when one of those neighbors tried to break into her car.

After hearing this, Davis asked how Plumley knew it wasn’t her neighbors that broke into her garage instead of Cooper. Plumley admitted that she did not know if her neighbors were involved, but she did know that Channell’s investigation had produced a witness who claimed to have helped Cooper with the theft. She also said that when she put the trail camera photos onto social media, “plenty of people” contacted her to say the man in the photos was Cooper.

In her re-direct examination, Poling showed Plumley a series of photos from the bathroom where the items were found. Plumley identified several of the items in the photos as things that were once in her possession and had been taken from her garage.

Poling then called Channell, who led the investigation and was the arresting officer in this case, to testify before the court. Channell said he attempted to locate Cooper, eventually finding him on Dec. 23 near the softball field. Cooper told Channell that the items in the bathroom belonged to him and his girlfriend, and that the items were from different people in town.

Channell said Cooper was wearing the exact same shoes both times they spoke. When asked by Poling as to why this was important, Channell explained that the person caught on the trail cameras stealing the wood pellets from Plumley’s porch was also wearing those same shoes. Channell said he spoke to Cooper again on Dec. 26 about the stolen wood pellets and the matching shoes. Cooper told Channell that another man, Franklin Finn, had “borrowed his shoes” and that Finn was the person seen on the video.

When asked if he found Cooper’s information to be credible, Channell said he did not because when he spoke to Finn on Dec. 27, Finn said he had been called on Nov. 18 to help Cooper move items from Plumley’s garage to a neighbor’s house. Finn also said he has never borrowed shoes from Cooper.

Finn, 21, has also been charged with one count of burglary and one count of grand larceny, both felonies. He is currently being held at the Tygart Valley Regional Jail on a $10,000 10% cash bond. Finn waived his right to a preliminary hearing in February, moving his case forward to be considered by the grand jury.

In his cross-examination, Davis repeatedly questioned whether Channell’s basis for arresting Cooper was solely based on Finn’s statement. Channell stated that, while Finn’s statement was a key part in the investigation, Cooper had previously told Channell that the items found in the bathroom, which were later identified as property stolen from Plumley’s house, belonged to him and his girlfriend.

Davis also asked if Channell could tell if the small fire in the softball field bathroom was fueled by wood pellets, to which Channell said he could not.

In closing arguments, Poling asked the court to find probable cause against Cooper as it was clear that items were removed from Plumley’s garage, put in the softball field bathroom and that Cooper took ownership of those items.

Davis argued that probable cause was not met as he posited that the entire case was based on the statement of a co-defendant. He stated that Finn’s statement should not be considered credible and that it was not enough to prove that Cooper committed the crime. He also reminded the court that Plumley had testified to previous issues with her neighbors attempting to break into her home, casting doubt on who actually entered the garage.

In rebuttal, Poling stated that, in Channell’s testimony, it was said that Finn’s statement was not the only basis for the charges and that Finn’s statement incriminates him just as much as it incriminates Cooper.