"Three," Monica answered. "One on the vehicle cloud account, one on an external drive, and one on a separate secure backup." Harriet nodded approvingly and told her not to alter, crop, or annotate the original files. She could prepare viewing copies, but the raw data and the chain of possession needed to be protected. Then Harriet looked at the photograph of DX30417 on the destruction certificate and said that she wanted the prosecutor to see both the footage and the official certificate before any preliminary hearing.
"Will that be enough to dismiss the case?" Monica asked. Harriet did not promise what she could not control.
She explained that a careful prosecutor might insist on a fuller independent examination, especially if the officers continued to swear that the camera missed the critical moment. The destruction certificate, she added, was potentially more important than it first looked because it raised questions about evidence management beyond Monica's own detention. "I can make an argument tonight," she said. "I can't make a good prosecutor admit she's wrong until she's convinced the facts support it."
Before Harriet left, Monica asked why she had come in person with tea rather than requesting the documents by email. Harriet smiled and said that Thomas Underhill had described her as an officer who would rather surrender her badge than ask a supervisor to bend a rule. "People who do that sometimes forget they are allowed to hire counsel and accept help," Harriet said. Monica looked at the old wrench lying beside the legal pad and told her that her father used to say a difficult repair took two kinds of people: the one who saw the problem and the one who knew what tool to bring. Harriet lifted her leather bag and replied, "Then consider me the right tool for this particular bolt."
Harriet sent a preservation and disclosure letter that night, followed by a formal request for the prosecutor to reconsider the referral. She attached the original metadata summaries and copies of the relevant footage, but she did not circulate the files beyond the people responsible for the case. Two days later, District Attorney Valerie Quist responded in writing. Quist thanked counsel for the materials and explained that the visible front-camera footage began after the alleged initial threatening movement, while the side camera did not unmistakably show what Fowler held in his hand before he entered the car.
"At present," the letter concluded, "the dispute remains between the account of the reporting officers and the account offered by your client, supported by recordings that do not capture every material instant." Monica read the passage aloud at her kitchen table and gave a short, disbelieving laugh. "So it's a car's word against two officers." Harriet answered that the letter was frustrating but not entirely unexpected. She told Monica that prosecutors were trained to distinguish evidence that invited suspicion from evidence that conclusively established a charge could not be sustained.
Monica asked whether the prosecutor had addressed the destruction certificate. Harriet said the letter had referred that issue for an administrative check, which could be as simple as asking the police department to explain an alleged data-entry error. The county case therefore remained open, and Monica's temporary removal from command