# Date Discrepancy Analysis — The 4/14 Problem

## The Core Question

Every official document in this case lists the **offense date as 04/14/2026** — the date of Jamie Parson's medical event. But **none of the drug charges** have any connection to 4/14 as their actual date of commission:

| Count | Charge | Actual Evidence Date | CD Offense Date |
|-------|--------|---------------------|-----------------|
| 1 | Felony Possession Sch VI | **04/15/2026** ~1:48 AM (seized during warrant) | 04/14/2026 |
| 2 | Maintaining Dwelling | **04/15/2026** (cannabis found on 4/15) | 04/14/2026 |
| 3 | PWISD Marijuana | **04/15/2026** (evidence seized 4/15) | 04/14/2026 |
| 4 | Paraphernalia | **04/15/2026** (seized 4/15) | 04/14/2026 |
| 5 | Possession >1/2 to 1 1/2 oz | **04/15/2026** (seized 4/15) | **04/14/2026 on CD** |

**Offense date 4/14 is before the cannabis was even seized (4/15 at 1:48 AM).** This is a facial error visible on every charging document and the Conditional Discharge itself.

---

## Why This Matters — Charge by Charge

### Count 1: Felony Possession Sch VI (90-95(D)(4))
- Offense date listed: 04/14/2026
- Cannabis was seized during warrant execution on 04/15/2026 at ~1:48 AM
- **The alleged possession occurred on 4/15, not 4/14**
- A person cannot possess something that hasn't yet been seized
- The only connection to 4/14 is the alleged assault — which was never charged

### Count 2: Maintaining Dwelling (90-108(A)(7))
- Offense date listed: 04/14/2026
- Requires showing the dwelling was used for keeping/selling controlled substances
- The only evidence is the cannabis found on 4/15
- **If the cannabis wasn't found until 4/15, the "maintaining" cannot be dated to 4/14**

### Count 3: PWISD Marijuana (90-95(A)(1))
- Same analysis — intent to sell/distribute inferred from quantity/paraphernalia
- All evidence seized 4/15

### Count 4: Paraphernalia (90-113.22A)
- Same — seized 4/15

### Count 5: Possession >1/2 to 1 1/2 oz (90-95(D)(4)) — The CD Charge
- Offense date on the signed Conditional Discharge: **04/14/2026**
- Actual seizure date: **04/15/2026 at ~1:48 AM**
- **The CD itself contains a verifiably wrong date**

---

## The Spoliation Argument

KPD policy requires body-worn camera footage for **felony charges to be preserved for 3 years**.

### The Bodycam Evidence at Risk
| Date | Event | Felony Charges |
|------|-------|----------------|
| 04/15/2026 ~12:45 AM | Warrant execution (Ring clip 034527) | Counts 1-3 (all felonies) |
| 04/21/2026 | Martin + Hampton follow-up/ultimatum | Counts 1-3 (all felonies) |

### The Preservation Problem
- KPD's 3-year preservation policy runs from the **offense date** listed on the charges
- The charges list offense date **04/14/2026**
- Preservation deadline based on the CD's date: **04/14/2029**
- **Correct** preservation deadline (from seizure date 4/15): **04/15/2029**
- **Correct** preservation deadline (from filing date 5/8): **05/08/2029**

### The Risk
If KPD's records management system uses the offense date from the charges (4/14) as the trigger for the 3-year retention clock, bodycam footage could be scheduled for destruction **before the §1983 statute of limitations runs** (statute of limitations is 3 years from the incident).

### Spoliation Claim
If bodycam footage is destroyed based on the wrong offense date:
- **Spoliation of evidence** — destruction of relevant evidence
- **Adverse inference** — jury can infer the destroyed evidence would have been unfavorable to KPD
- **Duty to preserve** — KPD had notice of potential litigation (the §1983 claim is foreseeable from the invalid warrant alone)

### The CD as Evidence of the Wrong Date
The Conditional Discharge — signed by Judge Adams, Coalter, and the defendant — memorializes the wrong date. If this official court document is used to justify destruction of bodycam footage, the document itself becomes the basis for a spoliation claim.

---

## Critical Observation: No Assault Was Ever Charged

The search warrant was obtained based on an alleged **assault** (04/14/2026). But **the charges filed on 5/8 have nothing to do with assault**. All 5 charges are purely drug-related:

| Charge Type | Counts | Connection to Assault |
|-------------|--------|----------------------|
| Drug possession/maintaining | 1-5 | **Zero** |

This raises fundamental questions:
1. **If the warrant was for assault evidence, why were the only charges drug-related?**
2. **If the victim exonerated before charges were filed, what probable cause remained for drug charges?**
3. **Why are the drug charges dated 4/14 when the drugs were seized on 4/15?**

---

## Unresolved Questions (Not Conspiracy — Just Unanswered)

### Document Integrity
1. **Why does every official document use 4/14 when the cannabis was indisputably seized on 4/15?**
2. **Is this a TylerTech system default, a DA office practice, or individual error?**
3. **Does KPD's evidence retention system use the offense date from the charges to determine preservation timelines?**

### Prosecution Timing
4. **Why were charges filed 23 days after the victim exonerated, with zero investigation in the final 16 days?**
5. **If the DA knew by 4/15 that the victim said no assault occurred, what basis remained for drug charges filed 5/8?**
6. **Was the GS 90-96 offer made because the DA knew the case couldn't survive a motion to suppress?**

### Attorney Conduct
7. **Why did Coalter not catch the 4/14 date error on the CD?** The cannabis was seized on 4/15 — this is verifiable from the warrant return.
8. **Did Coalter discuss the date issue with the DA before signing?**
9. **If Coalter knew the date was wrong and signed anyway, what does that mean for the effectiveness of counsel?**

### Evidence Preservation
10. **Does KPD's bodycam retention policy use offense date or seizure date as the trigger?**
11. **Has any bodycam footage been destroyed or scheduled for destruction?**
12. **What is KPD's actual retention schedule for the April 15 warrant execution and April 21 follow-up footage?**

---

## Summary

The date 4/14 appears on every document — warrant, charges, ROA, Conditional Discharge — but it is **factually incorrect** for the drug charges. The cannabis was seized at ~1:48 AM on **4/15/2026**. This error is visible on the face of the CD itself.

The unanswered questions fall into three categories:
1. **Incompetence** — TylerTech system defaults, human error in data entry
2. **Convenience** — All charges filed at once on 5/8, system used original incident date
3. **Systematic** — The date serves to obscure the timeline, whether intentionally or as a byproduct of how the court system operates

Without more information — particularly KPD's actual evidence retention policies and TylerTech's date assignment logic — it's impossible to determine which category applies. But the **risk** is real: if bodycam footage is destroyed because of the wrong date, a §1983 plaintiff can argue spoliation.

**Source documents:**
- `/records/tylertech-documents/individual/Conditional_Discharge_Index11.pdf` — CD with offense date 4/14
- `/records/tylertech-documents/ROA_snapshot_20260710.txt` — TylerTech ROA showing all charges
- `/records/ring-downloads/all-clips/034527_main_conversation.MP4` — Warrant execution (cannabis seized ~1:48 AM)