Repository Collection 03
Deep Disorder: Long-awaited Audit Reveals Details About Problems in the Old APD Evidence Room
ARTICLE SOURCE ENTRY
Last Revised • July 6, 2026
This Source Verification Page documents an investigative article published by Carolina Public Press examining the long-awaited Blueline Systems audit of the Asheville Police Department evidence room. The article details widespread evidence-management deficiencies, missing and misplaced evidence, inadequate accountability procedures, and the broader impact these problems had on criminal investigations and prosecutions. The Supplemental Motion relies upon this reporting throughout Statement of Facts C to document the condition of the evidence room and the consequences identified by the independent audit.
Related SMAR Citation
"[Carolina Public Press]"
Source Name
Deep disorder: Long-awaited audit reveals details about problems in the old APD evidence room
Author(s)
David Forbes
Publication
Carolina Public Press
Publication Date
June 19, 2014
Verification Source
Deep disorder: Long-awaited audit reveals details about problems in the old APD evidence room
Source Location
Carolina Public Press
Highlighted Pages
1 - 4
Referenced in the Supplemental Motion
Page 19 - 23, Paragraph: 26 - 35, 37
✔ Article obtained and reviewed.
✔ Relevant passages highlighted.
✔ Publicly available source
✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive
Paragraph 26:
Source Status
Cited to Support
May's allegation that significant deficiencies existed within the Asheville Police Department evidence
room and that concerns regarding evidence management prompted both internal and external
reviews. The Carolina Public Press article is cited to establish that reports of missing evidence led to
an SBI review and that the Asheville City Council subsequently funded an extensive independent audit
conducted by Blueline Systems & Services. May relies upon this source to support his claim that
concerns regarding evidence preservation, accountability, and chain-of-custody procedures were
sufficiently serious to warrant a comprehensive external investigation of the APD evidence room and
its practices.
May's allegation that the condition and organization of the Asheville Police Department evidence room
required an extensive physical inventory and independent review to determine the status and location
of stored evidence. The Carolina Public Press article is cited to establish that Blueline Systems &
Services conducted a large-scale inventory of evidence, cataloging more than 35,000 items and
utilizing photographs, video documentation, database comparisons, and manual inspections to
evaluate storage conditions, organizational practices, and inventory accuracy. May relies upon this
source to support his claim that longstanding deficiencies in evidence management necessitated a
comprehensive audit of the APD evidence room and raise concerns regarding the reliability, tracking,
and preservation of evidence maintained by the department.
May's allegation that the Asheville Police Department evidence room suffered from longstanding storage, organizational, and inventory-control deficiencies. The Carolina Public Press article is cited to establish that the Blueline audit found the evidence room to be in "deep disarray," with overflowing shelves, evidence stored on the floor, inadequate location-tracking information, and the absence of a consistent organizational system. May relies upon these findings to support his claim that evidencemanagement practices within the APD evidence room were so deficient that the location, tracking, and accountability of evidence could not be reliably determined, raising concerns regarding the preservation and integrity of evidence maintained by the department. Paragraph 29:
May's allegation that the Asheville Police Department's evidence-management systems suffered from significant recordkeeping and database deficiencies that undermined the reliability of evidence tracking and inventory controls. The Carolina Public Press article is cited to establish that auditors found omissions, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies within APD's legacy databases, including discrepancies between recorded dispositions and the physical location of evidence. The audit also identified a lack of standardized classification practices and weaknesses in APD's internal auditing procedures. May relies upon these findings to support his claim that evidence records maintained by the department could not be consistently relied upon to accurately track the status, location, or disposition of evidence, thereby raising concerns regarding evidence accountability and chain-ofcustody integrity. Paragraph 31:
May's allegation that the Asheville Police Department evidence room suffered from significant accountability, oversight, and inventory-control failures that impaired the department's ability to reliably track and safeguard evidence. The Carolina Public Press article is cited to establish that auditors identified hundreds of missing or potentially missing evidence items, including drugs, firearms-related evidence, and cash, as well as discrepancies between APD records and records maintained by other agencies. The audit further identified substantial weaknesses in supervisory oversight, evidence-room staffing, recordkeeping systems, shelving organization, and inventory verification procedures. May relies upon these findings to support his claim that longstanding deficiencies in evidence management created conditions in which evidence could be misplaced, misidentified, improperly documented, or become unaccounted for, thereby raising concerns regarding evidence integrity, chain-of-custody reliability, and the accuracy of inventory records maintained by the department. Paragraph 32:
May's allegation that the integrity of the Asheville Police Department evidence room was compromised not only by poor procedures and inadequate oversight, but also by personnel misconduct. The Carolina Public Press article is cited to establish that longtime evidence-room manager Lee Smith was later suspended and ultimately pled guilty to stealing drugs from the evidence room. May relies upon this information to support his claim that the deficiencies identified during the Blueline audit were not merely administrative or technical failures, but existed within an environment where evidence-room misconduct was possible and, in at least one documented instance, occurred. May further cites the audit's conclusion that the disorder and lack of controls within the evidence room created conditions in which misconduct was difficult to detect and accountability was undermined. Paragraph 33:
May's allegation that the deficiencies identified within the Asheville Police Department evidence room had direct consequences for the integrity of criminal prosecutions and public confidence in the criminal justice system. The Carolina Public Press article is cited to establish that missing, misplaced, or improperly tracked evidence created risks for both pending and closed cases, potentially affecting prosecutions, appeals, and case outcomes. May relies upon these findings to support his claim that evidence-management failures within the APD evidence room were not merely administrative deficiencies, but presented a substantial threat to the reliability of criminal convictions and the integrity of judicial proceedings. May further cites the article to demonstrate that the scope of the audit's findings undermined public confidence in the Asheville Police Department's ability to properly safeguard and account for evidence. Paragraph 35:
May's allegation that publicly released information regarding the Blueline Systems audit does not necessarily reflect the full scope of issues identified during the audit of the Asheville Police Department evidence room. The Carolina Public Press article is cited to establish that the audit primarily focused on high-priority categories of evidence such as drugs, firearms, and cash, rather than conducting a comprehensive review of every item maintained within the evidence room. May relies upon this information to support his claim that the absence of publicly reported findings regarding biological specimens, DNA evidence, fabric samples, or other evidentiary materials associated with homicide prosecutions should not be interpreted as proof that such evidence was properly preserved, accurately tracked, or free from chain-of-custody concerns. Rather, May cites the article to argue that the publicly released findings represent only a portion of the overall audit and may not reflect all issues identified during the underlying review. Paragraph 37:
May's allegation that the publicly released version of the Blueline Systems audit may not reflect the full scope of deficiencies identified within the Asheville Police Department evidence room. The Carolina Public Press article is cited to establish that audit findings were estimated to affect as many as 2,200 cases, despite public statements minimizing the number of impacted prosecutions. May relies upon this information, together with the audit contract's authorization permitting District Attorney Ron Moore to redact information that could affect criminal investigations or prosecutions, to support his claim that significant findings may have been withheld from public disclosure. May further cites the article to argue that evidence-management deficiencies identified during the audit may have affected a substantially greater number of criminal cases than publicly acknowledged, including serious felony and homicide prosecutions.
Supporting Documents
Original Article
Link to the original article.
Highlighted Research Copy
Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.
Continue Your Research
Return to Statement of Facts C
Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Statement of Facts C.
Return to Source Verification Archive
Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.