Updates: General Assembly Criminal Investigation(s), Over $250,000 Invoiced in Portsmouth FOIA Case
The Virginia Capitol Police elaborated on active criminal investigation(s) in the General Assembly while new invoices were produced in the Portsmouth Commonwealth's Attorney's FOIA case.
Capitol Police Provide Details about Active Criminal Investigation(s) in General Assembly
Last week, I revealed the existence of an active criminal investigation by the Virginia Division of Capitol Police concerning members of the Virginia General Assembly. From the article:
So there are records from 2025 concerning complaints or allegations made by a member of the General Assembly against another member, and such complaints or allegations may concern potential sexual assault.
I’ve asked the Capitol Police to comply with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and provide me the volume of withheld records, and I’ve asked them to clarify that they have records responsive to both parts of my request.
Yesterday, Capitol Police Chief Col. John T. McKee provided additional information about these active criminal investigatory files. Specifically, he stated:
Pursuant to 2.2-3704(B)(1), the division is withholding two electronic files pertaining to your requests, each containing investigative information. Specifically, the two electronic investigative files include 33 electronic files and 5 electronic files, respectively.
Based on the Capitol Police’s original FOIA response, my impression was that there was one active criminal investigation concerning members of the General Assembly. But this new clarification suggests that there may be two separate active criminal investigations, just as there are two separate active criminal investigatory files, one with 33 electronic files and another with just five.
Private Law Firm Invoiced Over $250,000 in Portsmouth FOIA Case So Far
Back in April, I reported on the legal bills amassed by Portsmouth Commonwealth’s Attorney Stephanie Morales (D-Portsmouth) in my FOIA litigation against her, bills invoiced by private law firm Crenshaw, Ware & Martin, P.L.C. From that article:
For the cost of outsourcing my simple FOIA case to a private law firm, the Portsmouth Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office could’ve hired another full-time attorney at a very competitive salary to handle any number of concerns, including but not limited to FOIA litigation, for an entire year. And who knows? By the end of this case, Crenshaw, Ware & Martin may end up having billed Morales’ office over a quarter million dollars.
So while we don’t yet know which side will prevail in court, we already know that - no matter what - the private law firm wins, and the Portsmouth taxpayers lose.
As a matter of fact, I underestimated the cost of Morales’ private legal defense in what should be an open-and-shut FOIA case for any judge.
On September 14, 2025, I submitted a FOIA request to Morales’ office seeking “any bills/invoices sent to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office concerning my FOIA case in Portsmouth Circuit Court, Stanfield v. Morales (CL24-1176), including any bills/invoices from Crenshaw, Ware & Martin, from April 11, 2025 until today.”
On September 30, 2025, Morales’ office provided me with the newest batch of invoices at no cost.
These records show that private law firm Crenshaw, Ware & Martin has billed the Portsmouth Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office $110,932 in total for services rendered from April through August of this year in this case. Add that to the $140,612.78 billed for services rendered prior to April, and the sum just barely exceeds a quarter million dollars.
And the case, including potential appeals, isn’t over yet.
Read about the most recent hearing in the Morales case here:
Download the newest released invoices here:
