The evidence made it difficult to support the sheriff's initial description of the incident as a simple misunderstanding.
The investigators also interviewed Deputy Halverson.
At first, he was reluctant to speak.
He had worked under Kavalik for several years and understood that challenging a senior officer could affect his career.
But when investigators showed him the recordings, he acknowledged what had happened.
DEPUTY HALVERSON: "She wasn't attacking anyone. She raised her hands when the sheriff ordered her to."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you ask whether the vehicle identification number had been checked?"
DEPUTY HALVERSON: "Yes."
INVESTIGATOR: "What was the response?"
DEPUTY HALVERSON: "The sheriff told me to cuff her."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you believe the arrest was justified at that point?"
Halverson looked down.
DEPUTY HALVERSON: "I had questions."
INVESTIGATOR: "Why did you proceed?"
DEPUTY HALVERSON: "Because I followed the sheriff's instruction. I should have questioned it further."
The investigator continued.
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you witness the sheriff strike Naomi Whitlock at the station?"
Halverson paused.
DEPUTY HALVERSON: "Yes."
INVESTIGATOR: "Was she restrained?"
DEPUTY HALVERSON: "Yes."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did she pose an immediate physical threat?"
DEPUTY HALVERSON: "No."
Halverson's statement became part of the independent investigation.
He also provided information about earlier property seizures that had raised concerns among officers.
He explained that some assignments seemed to arrive unusually quickly and that the same recovery company was frequently involved.
He did not claim to know the entire system.
But he confirmed that the procedures had not always appeared consistent.
Deputy Osei provided a separate statement.
He described the property performance summaries and the informal pressure surrounding seizure targets.
He also explained that he had previously attempted to raise questions about the transfer process.
Investigators asked him whether he had ever been instructed to seize a vehicle solely because of its market value.
Osei answered carefully.
DEPUTY OSEI: "I was never given an instruction in those exact words. But I saw reports that emphasized the value of property taken, and I heard supervisors discuss the department's monthly totals."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you believe those figures influenced the way officers handled seizures?"
DEPUTY OSEI: "I believe they created pressure. Whether that pressure resulted in specific unlawful decisions is something the investigation needs to establish."
His testimony was important because it distinguished what he had personally observed from what he suspected.
Meanwhile, Marcus Bell's records were authenticated.
The original email files contained metadata that matched the dates and sender information in the company's records.
His transport schedules were compared with the county's logs.
Several entries matched the assignments identified by investigators.
Others revealed additional discrepancies.
One document contained a list of vehicles marked for priority collection.
The list had been prepared before the corresponding seizure reports were completed.
Another showed a series of storage transfers that did not match the company's final inventory.
Investigators also discovered that certain storage charges had continued to accumulate after the county records indicated that the vehicles had been released.
The financial implications were significant.
If the county had paid storage fees for vehicles that had already been released, the invoices would need to be examined.
If owners had paid fees for property that should not have been held, those transactions would also require review.
And if vehicles had been transferred or sold without proper authorization, the consequences could extend far beyond administrative mistakes.
The investigation gradually moved from the sheriff's department to the county's contract management office.
The Kingsland Recovery contract became a central document.
It described the company's responsibilities for vehicle transport, storage, inventory, and reporting.
It also required the company to maintain accurate records and provide access for authorized audits.
Investigators compared the contract's requirements with the actual practices documented by Marcus.
They found that the company had not consistently followed the expected reporting sequence.
Some transport assignments had been processed before the corresponding authorization documents were available.
Several inventory entries had been updated late.
Some final disposition records were incomplete.
Investigators then examined the payments made under the contract.
They found differences between the amounts invoiced, the storage periods recorded by the company, and the dates listed in the county's database.
The discrepancies were not all the same.
Some could be explained by delayed paperwork.
Others required further clarification.
A financial review was opened to determine whether the county had paid for services that were not properly documented.
The investigation also examined the personal phone used by Sheriff Kavalik to photograph Naomi's Ducati.
The photographs had not been uploaded through the department's normal evidence system.
The device contained images of several other vehicles involved in previous seizures.
Investigators requested the relevant data through the appropriate legal process.
The images were compared with the official property records.
Some photographs had corresponding case numbers.
Others had no clear reference in the available evidence system.
The sheriff was asked to explain why he had used his personal phone.
He stated that he had been documenting the motorcycle because the department camera was not immediately available.
Investigators examined that explanation against the department's procedures and the timing of the photographs.
They also sought to establish whether any images had been sent to the recovery company or other individuals.
The answers were not immediately clear.
Kavalik's position inside the department began to weaken.
The county administration placed him on temporary administrative leave while the investigation continued.