# Evidence Disappearance Analysis — The Missing Record Problem

## Core Question
How is it possible that the initial incident (Apr 14-15) has no TylerTech record, while everything after May 8 does? Was the record deliberately "cleaned up"?

## What TylerTech Shows (and Doesn't Show)

### CaseEvents (authenticated API, Jul 10)
| Event | Date | In CaseEvents? |
|-------|------|----------------|
| EMS response (7:44 PM) | Apr 14 | ❌ **Absent** |
| Alleged assault | Apr 14 | ❌ **Absent** |
| Search warrant signed (12:33 AM) | Apr 15 | ❌ **Absent** — EWID exists but no CaseEvent |
| Warrant execution (12:45 AM) | Apr 15 | ❌ **Absent** |
| Black box seized (1:48 AM) | Apr 15 | ❌ **Absent** |
| Victim exonerates (6:14 PM) | Apr 15 | ❌ **Absent** |
| Detectives follow-up (ultimatum) | Apr 21 | ❌ **Absent** |
| 16-day gap | Apr 22-May 7 | ❌ **Absent** |
| Arrest warrant issued | May 8 | ✅ Index #1 |
| Bond/Release | May 11 | ✅ Index #2-4 |
| First appearance | May 12 | ✅ Index #5-8 |
| Motion to Continue | May 27 | ✅ Index #9 |
| Disposition | May 29 | ✅ Index #10-12 |

**11 CaseEvents — none from before May 8.** The first 24 days of the case are invisible in the official court record.

### Cross-Reference Numbers (CaseSummariesSlim)
The case has 4 cross-references in TylerTech:
1. `3LtYfsyNDy2hxf1uHfFTW5` — Search Warrant EWID (Apr 15) — **NO CPN**
2. `WFA-26-303408` — Arrest Warrant CPN (May 8)
3. `RO-26-311095` — Release Order CPN (May 11)
4. `xya9W77BXWaj8dusW6vW4S` — Release Order EWID

The search warrant exists as an EWID but was never given a Criminal Process Number and was never entered as a CaseEvent. It's an orphan document.

## Why This Might Not Be Deliberate Cleanup

### 1. TylerTech's CaseEvent System Only Goes Back to Case Filing
The case was **filed on May 8, 2026**. TylerTech CaseEvents appear to only capture events that happen **after** the case is filed in the system. The search warrant (Apr 15) was issued 23 days before the case existed. It was never formally linked because:
- The arrest warrant created the case (May 8)
- The search warrant was electronic-only (EWID), not a separate filing
- Electronic warrants may not create CaseEvents until they're linked to a filed case

### 2. The Arrest Warrant References the Search Warrant
The arrest warrant (Index #1, created May 8) was filed by Christopher Martin based on the same investigation. The search warrant itself is incorporated by reference. The TylerTech system may treat the arrest warrant filing as the "start" of the case, with the search warrant as a pre-filing document.

### 3. This Pattern Is System-Wide, Not Case-Specific
From earlier TylerTech analysis:
- `Options.Warrants: "0"` — The warrant verification module is suppressed at the **system configuration level**
- The Warrants API endpoint returns HTTP 500 for ALL cases, not just this one
- This is a TylerTech configuration issue, not something done specifically to this case

## Why This IS Concerning (Evidence Retention)

### Bodycam Retention — The Real Problem

**KPD's own statement** (April 22, 2026): "The officers did have their body worn cameras on during the incident and per policy we will make the body worn camera available to the public within 30 days."

That 30-day window expired **May 22, 2026**. Today is **July 11, 2026** — 81 days after the policy deadline.

**GS 132-1.4A(i)** — The Law:
> "Any recording ... shall be retained for at least the period of time required by the applicable records retention and disposition schedule developed by the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and Records."

The NC Division of Archives and Records (DNCR) sets the retention schedule. The minimum retention for law enforcement records is typically:
- **Non-evidentiary recordings**: 60-180 days (per the analysis in claude_analysis_2026-07-04.md)
- **Evidentiary recordings**: Until case disposition + appeal period
- **Felony evidence**: 3 years (KPD policy, per case-files/42)

### The Critical Question: What "Triggers" Retention?

If KPD's evidence management system uses **offense date** (4/14) as the retention trigger:
- Non-evidentiary bodycam (60-180 days from 4/14) → destroyed between **Jun 13 - Oct 11, 2026**
- Felony-evidentiary bodycam (3 years from 4/14) → preserved until **Apr 14, 2029**

If it uses **seizure/arrest date** (4/15 or 5/8):
- Non-evidentiary bodycam (60-180 days from 5/8) → destroyed between **Jul 7 - Nov 4, 2026**
- Evidentiary bodycam → preserved

### The User's Theory About "No Felonies" = Shorter Retention

The user's logic is sound:

1. **The original incident** (alleged assault) created zero felony charges — no assault was ever charged
2. **All 5 charges** were drug-related — and 4 of 5 were dismissed, the 5th was GS 90-96 (not a conviction)
3. **If KPD's retention** is based on whether the incident generated actionable felonies, then:
   - No felony assault charges were ever filed → the 3-year felony retention does NOT apply
   - The 30-day or 60-180 day retention for non-felony incidents would apply instead
   - The bodycam footage would have been destroyed **well before** the §1983 statute of limitations (3 years)
   - Before any preservation letter was sent (Coalter advised against it)

### The OSA Connection

The user also notes: if the DA/KPD knew the minimum OSA classes (20) and the defendant was given 30 hours with classes a couple times a week, they would know the timeline. The 30 hours would take approximately 3-5 weeks to complete at that pace. This means:
- OS Aassessment: Jun 3
- 30 hours of classes: approximately Jun 3 - Jul 3 (if 3x/week, 2.5 hrs each)
- The 30-day retention window from Apr 22 (KPD statement) = May 22
- The 60-day window from Apr 14 = Jun 13
- The 180-day window from Apr 14 = Oct 11

**If the 30-day policy window was the real retention period, the footage was destroyed as early as May 22, 2026** — before any preservation letter could have been sent.

## What Documents from Apr 14-15 Still Exist?

| Document | Source | Status |
|----------|--------|--------|
| **Search warrant affidavit** | TylerTech (EWID only) | ✅ Exists as EWID, no CaseEvent |
| **Search warrant signed PDF** | Photographed from physical copy | ✅ Saved to records |
| **Ring doorbell clips** | Ring.com (personal account) | ✅ 16 clips preserved |
| **Bodycam footage** | KPD | ❓ **Unknown — 81 days past 30-day promise** |
| **EMS records** | Forsyth County EMS | ❓ Not requested |
| **Dispatch/CAD records** | P2C (toknc.com) | ❓ Available, not yet downloaded |
| **Krissy Koch texts (exoneration)** | Apple Messages backup | ✅ Saved |
| **Mason school interview** | Unknown | ❓ May exist only as hearsay in warrant |

## What Should Be Done

1. **Preserve the search warrant** — the EWID `3LtYfsyNDy2hxf1uHfFTW5` exists in TylerTech and can be viewed via `$s.onLaunchDocumentViewerEvent()`. Download it now via viewer + Print to PDF.

2. **Subpoena bodycam footage NOW** — if it still exists. Contact a §1983 attorney immediately. The 30-day policy window (May 22) has passed. The 60-day window (Jun 13) has passed. The 180-day window (Oct 11, 2026) is approaching.

3. **Subpoena KPD evidence retention logs** — to determine if footage was already destroyed and on what date.

4. **Preserve TylerTech audit logs** — serve preservation notice on Forsyth County Clerk of Court for all audit trail data on Case ID 127999906.

5. **Preserve P2C CAD dispatch records** — tokc.com records showing dispatch for Apr 14-15. These are separate from TylerTech and may still exist.

## Summary

| Question | Answer |
|----------|--------|
| Is the Apr 14-15 record missing from TylerTech? | **Yes.** Search warrant has EWID but no CaseEvent. No events before May 8 exist. |
| Is this deliberate cleanup? | **Likely not.** TylerTech only shows post-filing events. The search warrant is pre-filing. But the system's configuration suppresses warrant verification. |
| Is bodycam at risk? | **Yes.** KPD's 30-day policy window closed May 22. The non-felony retention (60-180 days) may have already or will soon destroy the footage. |
| Should a preservation letter have been sent? | **Yes.** Coaltor's advice not to send one is questionable given the 30-day policy window. The user's instinct was correct. |
| What can still be saved? | Search warrant (via Angular viewer), CAD records (P2C), TylerTech audit logs (subpoena), Ring clips (already saved). |