The records revealed differences between the date the van was taken, the date it entered storage, and the date the storage fees began accumulating.
Investigators were still examining the financial details, but the case was added to the wider property review.
Another affected owner was Denise Parker.
Her vehicle had been taken after a traffic stop that she believed had been improperly handled.
She had been told that the vehicle would be returned once the investigation was completed.
Months passed.
She received little information.
When she finally contacted the county, she was informed that the property record had been updated.
The new record did not clearly explain where the vehicle had gone.
Denise had kept copies of every letter and every payment request.
She provided them to investigators.
Her experience was particularly troubling because she had been unable to afford legal representation at the time.
She had contacted several offices for assistance but had been repeatedly directed to different departments.
Each office told her that another office was responsible.
Eventually, she stopped asking.
She needed to work, care for her family, and find another way to travel.
When investigators contacted her, she initially thought they were calling about an unrelated administrative review.
DENISE PARKER: "I just want someone to tell me what happened to my car."
INVESTIGATOR: "We are reviewing the records connected to your seizure."
DENISE PARKER: "I was told it was being held. Then I was told it had been transferred. Then nobody could tell me where it was."
INVESTIGATOR: "Do you still have the original paperwork?"
DENISE PARKER: "I kept everything. Every letter. Every receipt."
Her documents became another important part of the review.
As the investigation expanded, the county established a formal process for affected owners to submit complaints and request an examination of their property records.
The process was independent of the sheriff's office.
A separate team reviewed the original seizure documentation, dispatch records, transport entries, storage charges, and final disposition.
The purpose was not to assume that every seizure had been improper.
It was to determine whether the legal basis and documentation for each case had been sufficient.
The first group of cases revealed a mixture of outcomes.
Some seizures had been properly authorized and documented.
Others contained administrative errors that needed correction.
A smaller group raised more serious concerns about the timing of authorizations, the accuracy of inventory records, and the handling of property after it entered private storage.
Those cases were referred for further investigation.
The county also began reviewing the financial arrangements under the Kingsland contract.
Officials examined whether the payment structure had created incentives to maximize the number or value of vehicles collected.
They considered whether storage fees had been calculated correctly and whether the county had received the services it had paid for.
The contract was suspended pending the review.
Kingsland Recovery was required to preserve its records and cooperate with the audit.
Peter Rowe, the former transport supervisor, was interviewed.
He acknowledged that some assignments had been received through the property administration office rather than the ordinary dispatch process.
He said that the company had understood those instructions to be authorized by the county.
When asked about the priority lists, he described them as operational documents used to organize transport capacity.
He denied that the company had selected vehicles for seizure based solely on their market value.
Investigators compared his statements with the handwritten notes Marcus had preserved.
Some entries matched.
Others required further clarification.
The company also provided additional invoices and storage records.
The audit found that several invoices needed correction because the recorded storage periods did not match the available transfer and release documentation.
Kingsland Recovery disputed some of the findings but agreed to provide additional information.
Meanwhile, the investigation into Sheriff Kavalik's conduct moved forward.
The department's internal review examined the roadside stop, the use of the firearm, the handcuffing, the removal of the Ducati, the personal photographs, and the assault at the booking counter.
The body-camera footage and station surveillance recordings were central to the review.
The evidence showed that Naomi had raised her hands when ordered.
It showed that she had repeatedly requested verification of the motorcycle's registration.
It showed that Kavalik had refused to complete that check before ordering the seizure.
The recordings also showed that the sheriff had struck her while she was restrained.
The medical documentation supported the account of her injury.
Kavalik's initial explanation that the event had been a misunderstanding became increasingly difficult to defend.
He was formally notified that his conduct was under investigation.
His access to department systems remained restricted.
The county also reviewed whether his personal phone had been used to store official evidence outside the approved system.
The phone photographs were preserved through the appropriate process.
Investigators examined whether the images had been shared with anyone outside the department.
No conclusion was announced until the review was complete.
Halverson's position was also examined.
He had participated in the roadside arrest and had helped escort Naomi into the station.
Although he had raised a question about checking the VIN, he had still followed the sheriff's instruction to handcuff her.
His testimony was considered alongside the recordings.
He acknowledged that he should have done more to question the basis for the detention.
The department placed him under review for his role in the incident.