They requested the original county dispatch logs, the official property seizure forms, the contract with Kingsland Recovery, the company's storage inventory, and the financial records associated with the relevant transport assignments.
They also requested the original system activity logs.
The first major comparison focused on Naomi's Ducati.
The investigation established that the recovery request had been entered at 2:18 p.m.
The sheriff's recorded stop began at 2:24 p.m.
The truck arrived at approximately 2:31 p.m.
The company had received an assignment before the recorded stop.
That fact alone did not establish who had arranged the assignment or why.
Investigators therefore examined the communications associated with the request.
The original export showed that the assignment had been submitted through the property operations account.
The account had been accessed from a workstation associated with the administrative office.
The same account had been used to create several other recovery requests.
Investigators then compared those requests with the corresponding traffic stops.
In multiple cases, the recovery assignment appeared before the formal stop record.
In others, the assignment was created shortly afterward but before the seizure authorization had been completed.
The pattern required further examination.
The next step involved the company's storage inventory.
Investigators obtained records showing the vehicles received by Kingsland Recovery during the relevant period.
They compared each vehicle identification number against the county's official property records.
Several entries matched.
Others contained discrepancies.
Some vehicles had been recorded as received by the company but were missing from the county's final disposition records.
Some appeared in the county's database as released, but the storage company's records showed that they had remained in storage for weeks afterward.
A smaller number had different dates for their transfer or release.
The differences were not automatically proof of misconduct.
But the number of inconsistencies made it impossible to dismiss them as isolated clerical errors without further investigation.
Meanwhile, Margaret Ellis continued to represent Naomi in matters directly connected to the incident.
Naomi provided her written statement and cooperated with the independent process.
She did not attempt to direct investigators or use her judicial position to influence their decisions.
She also made it clear that her personal complaint should not become the only focus.
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "My motorcycle matters to me. What happened at the station matters to me. But I don't want the investigation to stop once my property is returned."
MARGARET ELLIS: "I understand."
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "If other people lost their vehicles because the same process was used, their cases need to be reviewed too."
MARGARET ELLIS: "That is exactly why the investigation is being expanded."
One of the most important pieces of evidence came from a woman named Patricia Miller.
Patricia lived near Kingsley Road and had been driving home on the afternoon Naomi was stopped.
She had noticed a recovery truck parked near a small gas station before the police SUV appeared.
At the time, she had not thought much about it.
The truck had been sitting near the entrance, and the driver appeared to be waiting for something.
When Patricia later saw a report about the incident, she recognized the red Ducati and the recovery company's logo.
She contacted the independent investigators.
Patricia had a recording from her vehicle's dashboard camera.
The footage showed the recovery truck parked near the gas station several minutes before Naomi's stop.
The camera captured the truck's logo and part of its registration number.
The recording also showed the truck leaving the gas station and driving toward Kingsley Road.
Investigators compared the footage with the dispatch records.
The timing matched.
Patricia provided the original recording and confirmed that she had not edited it.
During her interview, she explained what she had seen.
PATRICIA MILLER: "I remember the truck because it was sitting there with its engine running. The driver wasn't loading anything. He was just waiting."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you see anyone speak with the driver?"
PATRICIA MILLER: "Not at the gas station. I saw the truck leave a few minutes later."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you know that a police stop was about to happen?"
PATRICIA MILLER: "No. I didn't know anything about it until I saw the story."
INVESTIGATOR: "Can you identify the vehicle in your recording?"
PATRICIA MILLER: "Yes. That's the same truck."
Her footage became an important independent piece of evidence.
It did not identify the person who had arranged the recovery request.
It did, however, establish that the truck was already nearby before the recorded stop.
Investigators then requested the sheriff's body-camera footage.
The recording showed Kavalik approaching Naomi beside the Ducati.
It showed her raising both hands.
It captured her request to have the motorcycle's registration checked.
It also showed the sheriff ordering Halverson to handcuff her.
The footage continued as the recovery truck arrived.
Investigators examined the time stamps, the radio communications, and the sheriff's statements.
The recording showed that Naomi had not attempted to flee or physically resist.
It also showed that the sheriff had not verified the vehicle's ownership before ordering the motorcycle removed.
The station surveillance footage was examined separately.
It captured the confrontation at the booking counter.
It showed Kavalik speaking aggressively to Naomi.
It showed her standing with her hands restrained.
And it captured the moment he struck her across the face.
The medical examination records were consistent with the injury documented after the incident.