Documents show scope of Asheville's concealed evidence-room audit

This Source Verification Page documents a supplemental news article published by Carolina Public Press that examines court records and public documents related to the Blueline Systems audit of the Asheville Police Department evidence room. The article explains the contractual authority permitting portions of the audit to be withheld from public release and provides additional context regarding the District Attorney's request to redact information that could affect criminal investigations or prosecutions. It supplements the underlying affidavit and audit materials relied upon in Statement of Facts C.

Related SMAR Citation

“District Attorney Ron Moore to "excise information that could jeopardize criminal investigations or prosecutions"”

Source Name

Documents show scope of Asheville's concealed evidence-room audit

Author(s)

Jon Elliston

Publication

Carolina Public Press

Publication Date

April 23, 2012

Verification Source

Documents show scope of Asheville's concealed evidence-room audit

Source Location

Carolina Public Press

Highlighted Pages

1 - 5

Referenced in the Supplemental Motion

Page 22, Paragraph 36

Source Status

✔ Article obtained and reviewed

✔ Relevant passages highlighted

✔ Publicly available source

✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive

Cited to Support

Lyle C. May alleges that the contract governing the Blueline Systems audit granted Buncombe County District Attorney Ron Moore authority to excise, redact, withhold, or remove information from the final audit report when disclosure could jeopardize criminal investigations or prosecutions. The Carolina Public Press article is cited to document reporting on the audit contract and related records, which described the scope of the audit and the District Attorney's authority over the release of audit findings. May relies upon this information to support his claim that portions of the audit may have been withheld from public disclosure and that the absence of publicly available findings does not necessarily establish that no additional deficiencies were identified during the audit process.

Supporting Documents

Original Article

Link to the original article.

View Website →

Highlighted Research Copy

Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.

View PDF →

Continue Your Research