A committee member asked whether he had been instructed to prioritize vehicles based on their market value.
MARCUS BELL: "I received lists that ranked vehicles and included estimated values. I was told certain assignments needed to be completed first. I cannot tell you who created every list, but I can provide the documents I received."
The committee reviewed several examples.
Then Deputy Osei spoke.
He described the internal pressure surrounding property seizure totals.
He explained that officers had seen monthly reports emphasizing the value of property taken.
He acknowledged that he had not challenged the system as early as he should have.
DEPUTY OSEI: "I believed the people responsible for administration knew what they were doing. I should have asked more questions when the records stopped making sense."
The committee asked whether he believed the department had encouraged unlawful seizures.
Osei answered carefully.
DEPUTY OSEI: "I believe the system created incentives that should never have existed. Whether individual officers knowingly violated the law must be determined from the evidence. But the process was not transparent, and people were not adequately protected."
His statement received serious attention.
The committee then heard from Deputy Halverson.
He described the roadside stop.
He confirmed that Naomi had raised her hands when ordered and had asked the sheriff to verify the motorcycle's registration.
He also confirmed that he had questioned the decision to handcuff her before checking the VIN.
When asked why he had followed the order, he admitted that he had been afraid to challenge the sheriff.
DEPUTY HALVERSON: "I knew the request to check the registration was reasonable. I should have insisted that we verify the information before taking the motorcycle."
A committee member asked about the incident at the station.
Halverson confirmed that Kavalik had struck Naomi while she was restrained.
He acknowledged that the action had not been justified by any immediate threat.
The hearing continued for several hours.
Finally, Naomi was invited to speak.
She stood at the table.
The room became quiet.
She looked across the audience.
There were people who had followed the story through the news.
There were residents whose property cases were still being reviewed.
There were officers who had worked at the department for years.
And there were county officials who now had to explain why the system had been allowed to operate without sufficient oversight.
Naomi placed her hands on the table.
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "I want to begin by making one thing clear. I did not deserve better treatment because I am a federal judge."
She paused.
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "I deserved lawful treatment because I am a human being. The same standard should have applied if I had been a teacher, a delivery driver, a shop owner, a student, or someone who had never entered a courtroom."
Several people in the room nodded.
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "On Kingsley Road, I asked the sheriff to check the registration of my motorcycle. It was a simple request. The information could have been verified. Instead, I was treated as though my explanation did not matter."
She looked toward the committee.
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "My motorcycle was taken before the proper questions had been answered. I was handcuffed. I was brought to the station. And while I was restrained, I was struck by the person who was supposed to protect the public."
She paused again.
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "The discovery of my identity changed the sheriff's attitude. But that should never have been the turning point."
The room remained silent.
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "The turning point should have been the moment he realized that he had no verified basis to treat me as a criminal. The absence of a theft report should have mattered. The vehicle identification number should have mattered. The evidence should have mattered."
She looked at the people seated behind the committee table.
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "And if my name had not appeared in that database, would anyone have asked the same questions? Would the motorcycle have been returned? Would the records have been examined? Would anyone have listened to the people who had been trying to recover their property for months?"
No one answered immediately.
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "That is the question this county must confront."
She continued.
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "The investigation has revealed more than one incident. It has exposed weaknesses in the way property was seized, transported, stored, and recorded. It has shown how a lack of transparency can create opportunities for misconduct. It has shown how people can be trapped between departments that refuse to take responsibility."
Naomi looked toward Robert Hayes and Denise Parker.
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "Those residents should not have needed a federal judge to make their complaints visible. They should not have needed months of searching to discover where their vehicles had gone. They should not have had to pay unexplained fees or accept incomplete answers."
She took a breath.
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "Public authority exists to serve the public. It is not a private possession. A badge does not place someone above the law. A uniform does not remove the obligation to act fairly. And the value of a person's property should never determine whether that person receives due process."
Her final words were calm.
NAOMI WHITLOCK: "The purpose of this hearing should not be to protect the reputation of an institution. It should be to make sure that the institution becomes worthy of the public's trust."