ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

It was a subpoena, typically an order issued by a court requiring someone to testify or hand over records in a criminal investigation or civil dispute.

But this subpoena was issued by Riverview, a hilly, square-mile city of 2,600 across the Mississippi River and the Missouri state line. Days earlier, Carroll had written an off-color joke on social media about Riverview Mayor Michael Cornell, whom Carroll had read about while following news of north St. Louis County, where he used to live.

The subpoena appeared to be in response to that post. It demanded Carroll appear at a Riverview meeting the next day to testify on allegations he threatened an official and cyberbullied residents. The subpoena warned of “severe penalties� if he didn’t attend.

Carroll is taking Riverview to court instead.

“They’re just making stuff up,� said Carroll, who is suing in St. Louis County court. “There is no reason by statute that they could subpoena me. It’s not a legal document.�

The incident appeared to be an unusual attempt by a government to compel a citizen — of another city and state — to testify about a comment he wrote on social media about an individual public official, typically an act protected by freedom of speech laws. Several local attorneys who advise governments or specialize in First Amendment issues told the Post-Dispatch they had never heard of such a case before.

Carroll, who is representing himself in his motion to quash the subpoena, argues Riverview’s subpoena is invalid.

Riverview has no jurisdiction over him, he says, because he lives in Illinois, doesn’t have any ties to Riverview and has never met Cornell.

The subpoena doesn’t meet requirements under state law and isn’t enforceable without a court order, he says. He alleges Cornell is trying to scare him off from writing about the mayor again.

“It’s harassment, intimidation, all of it,� Carroll said in an interview.

Cornell, in a statement, said the subpoena was a “legal matter� and did not answer questions about it or respond to requests for an interview. Riverview aldermen could not be reached for comment.

Carroll said the subpoena appeared to be in response to a social media comment he wrote in early April referencing allegations of sexual misconduct against Cornell, who was elected a trustee in 2022. He became chairman of the board in 2023 and was elected mayor in 2024.

A pending lawsuit, filed in August, accuses Cornell of sexually harassing an employee and firing him a week into the job for refusing Cornell’s advances.

In 2014, when Cornell was a St. Louis Police civilian employee, he was charged with felony sex assault for allegedly impersonating a city police officer to sexually abuse a man he’d met when the man was 14.

Three years later, prosecutors dropped the charges and Cornell pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of impersonating an officer. In 2021, a judge approved a petition to expunge the charges from public court records.

Carroll, in early April, saw news that a teenage boy was missing from Riverview. He wrote a post on the Nextdoor website sharing the missing notice and said, “Someone Check Riverview’s Mayor’s Basement!�

Carroll, who moved to Collinsville in 2022, had long commented on Nextdoor about goings-on in north St. Louis County. He was previously an alderman in Bellefontaine Neighbors, which borders Riverview. He said he had shared news reports about the allegations against Cornell because he didn’t think many residents of the area were aware of them.

“People should know about him,� Carroll said, in an interview. “I don’t think he has business being mayor of Riverview.�

He found a subpoena on his door April 15, demanding he appear at a Riverview meeting the next day. A copy was put on his door on April 16, too.

“You are hereby commanded: before the mayor and board of aldermen of the city,� the subpoena said.

The letter did not specify the incident Carroll was being called to testify on but listed five general charges: public safety and crime prevention; misuse of information regarding a missing juvenile; inciting violence against elected official and police officer; cyber bullying Riverview residents; and slander and defamation of character.

The subpoena Carroll received included a seal of the City of Riverview and was signed by Cornell and the city clerk. It was delivered by Darryl Brooks, a private investigator with The Whole Truth Investigative Group — where Cornell previously worked.

“I don’t ask a whole lot of questions,� Brooks said. “If they’re going to pay me, I just go ahead and do it and it’s up to them to make sure it’s right and legit.�

The subpoena cited a Missouri law that gives city governing boards the authority “to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of papers and records� that relate to “any subject under consideration in which the interest of the city is involved.�

Government attorneys queried by the Post-Dispatch said the statute could be interpreted to give cities and counties limited power to issue a subpoena. Some St. Louis-area cities have issued subpoenas for records or testimony in impeachment proceedings, for example. The St. Louis County Council has tried to subpoena records in disputes with property owners or while holding ethics hearings investigating other county officials.

But those cases are meant to be limited to policy or administrative issues being considered by lawmakers. A full board has to vote to approve the issuance of a subpoena — an executive or mayor can’t act alone. And a subpoena is unenforceable without a court order.

“It would have to be a legitimate administrative body and a legitimate public hearing on a matter related to the city as a whole, not just an individual,� said John Hessel, with Lewis and Rice, a former longtime attorney for Florissant and Kirkwood. “On the face of the subpoena, I don’t see anything remotely close to those circumstances.�

Dan Curry, an attorney who specializes in First Amendment issues, said the subpoena could be considered “retaliation� to free speech.

“It’s a citizen of a different state commenting on public figures and public news and elected officials,� he said. “That kind of speech, even if comically written or uncivil, receives the highest protection under the First Amendment.�