Marcus Vale's lawyer filed a petition challenging the administrative audit, arguing that Judge Carter's original order exceeded judicial authority and that the inspector general had improperly delegated governmental functions to a private investigator.
The legal question was real enough that nobody dismissed it as obstruction.
The city charter allowed the inspector general to retain outside specialists. The court order governed preservation of records relevant to pending cases, not general police management. Still, the challenge forced everyone to define the boundaries more carefully.
Chief Judge Benton transferred all contested legal issues to Judge Ortiz to avoid any appearance that Carter was ruling on matters connected to an incident she had witnessed.
For two days, attorneys argued over scope, privilege, separation of powers, and confidentiality.
I testified about my contract, methods, and access.
Vale's lawyer, Thomas Keene, was excellent.
He did not shout.
He did not insult me.
He attacked the work where good lawyers attack work: methodology.
"Ms. Brooks, you are not a sworn law-enforcement officer, correct?"
"Correct."
"You are not a prosecutor."
"Correct."
"You are not a judge."
"Correct."
"Yet you have reviewed police records, complaint data, body-camera archives, and evidence logs."
"Pursuant to inspector-general authority, court preservation orders, subpoenas, consent, and applicable confidentiality agreements."
"That was not my question."
"Then ask the narrower one."
Judge Ortiz looked over his glasses.
"Ms. Brooks."
"Sorry, Your Honor."
Keene continued.
"You have reviewed those materials?"
"Yes."
"And you formed opinions about patterns."
"I formed audit findings about patterns in records."
"Isn't that simply a more respectable phrase for accusation?"
"No. An accusation assigns wrongdoing to a person. An audit finding says what the data supports and what remains unexplained."
"But your report names Deputy Chief Vale."
"It names account activity, approvals, emails, meetings, and actions associated with him. Where attribution is uncertain, it says so."
Keene walked to the evidence monitor.
"You originally estimated $186,740 in unexplained seized cash. Correct?"
"Correct."
"And now that number is $128,300."
"Correct."
"So your audit was wrong."
"My preliminary total changed because we found documentation explaining some discrepancies. That's what a functioning audit is supposed to do."
"Or you accused officers before you understood the records."
I looked at him.
"The preliminary report explicitly called the amount unexplained, not stolen. If finding explanations is treated as proof the audit should never have asked the question, then no discrepancy can ever be investigated honestly."
The courtroom was silent.