Evidence / Correspondence
The requests that help explain this case.
Selected responses through . Later processing notices are in the archive.
A request shows what was sought. The response and any produced records show what was supplied. These five topics bear directly on the investigation and its review.
Report history · Requests #2 and #10
The September 9 narrative retains the continued-contact passage; the signed complaint omits it. The produced copies do not identify who edited the wording, why, or who reviewed the change.
September 9 narrative · Exact comparison · September 17 production response
Command review · Requests #1, #3 and #9
The produced command-review and staff-directive emails document what the Sheriff wrote. The responses and later access logs leave the substance and scope of his review disputed.
Command-review email · Staff directive · Review-records response · September 17 follow-up
Recordings · July–August requests and #5
Some Benally footage and recording access logs were produced. Complete production, including the disputed G-2/G-3 streams, and case-specific preservation records remain unresolved in the correspondence.
Produced Benally recordings · Access logs · Specific production gap · Preservation response
Investigative standards · Request #6
MCSO supplied policies on investigation, reporting, language assistance, sexual-assault investigations and body cameras. Their later footer dates do not establish the versions in force on the incident date.
Relevant policy copies · Unresolved versions and procedures · Policy-production response
Corrective action · Case-specific part of #7
The September 17 response says there are no responsive records for this case. The broader historical request remains pending. That response does not, by itself, prove that no action occurred.
Detailed requests, response excerpts, older production reviews and broader records inquiries. Dates and request numbers are retained for checking the source trail.
Outstanding production · Reviewed September 17, 2026
The original 15-day periods have passed. MCSO marked these requests closed, but the requester continues to dispute missing records and unexplained “No responsive records” or “Already Provided” answers.
The gaps below reflect the requester’s September 17 review of the responses and productions. Overlapping requests are listed together; the same missing record is not counted twice.
Original 15-day date: September 16, 2026. Chief Deputy Eric Jim closed #1–3 on September 3 and #4–6 on September 15. A closure date and a complete production are separate questions.
| Request / closure | Supplied / MCSO’s answer | Still unresolved |
|---|---|---|
| IPRA #1Sheriff’s review & “sufficient” findingMCSO closed: September 3, 2026 | One command-review email. Other answered categories received “No responsive records.” | Documentation supporting the review and identification of the materials reviewed remain disputed. The later audit logs show access actions; they do not supply a substantive review finding. |
| IPRA #2Investigation history, supervision & DA referralMCSO closed: September 3, 2026 | The four-page case-detail export, supplied as “RMS Audit.pdf.” Other categories received “No responsive records” or “Already Provided.” | Report-revision history, Benally’s supervisory-review records, and additional-investigation records remain unaccounted for. The requester disputes the unidentified records relied on for the DA categories. Jim’s September 3 response · Requester’s September 6 challenge |
| IPRA #3Internal review & follow-up communicationsMCSO closed: September 3, 2026 | One internal email. Most other categories received “No responsive records”; one was marked “Already Provided.” | Substantive investigative-review, follow-up, and sufficiency communications were not separately produced. The requester disputes the no-record closure. |
| IPRA #4Processing, searches & withholdingMCSO closed: September 15, 2026 | Eight “No responsive records” answers. No processing records supplied with the closure. | The requester challenges those answers against processing communications and employee activity documented elsewhere, and seeks any omitted responsive search, redaction, or withholding records. Jim’s September 15 response · Earlier processing correspondence |
| IPRA #5Preservation, deletion & unavailable recordsMCSO closed: September 15, 2026 | Four recording audit logs and the body-camera policy. The response also says “DA Referral already provided.” | Case-specific preservation instructions or holds and requested retention actions remain inadequately accounted for. A referral record does not identify the preservation documentation requested. |
| IPRA #6Policies, procedures & guidanceMCSO closed: September 15, 2026 | Nine policy PDFs, with the body-camera policy referenced as already provided. | The July 16 operative versions, referenced interpreter procedures, retention schedule, Protected Information Policy, and requested indexes/version records remain disputed or unaccounted for. The requester also challenges no-record answers against subjects covered in the supplied policies. |
The video and referral requests overlap. Later audit logs and a DA form do not, by themselves, resolve every item requested in these earlier threads.
| Request / original period | Supplied / MCSO’s answer | Still unresolved |
|---|---|---|
| July 30, 2026Original case-records requestOriginal 15-day date: August 14. Jim declared closure August 21. | Case materials were supplied in stages. The August 21 email lists Benally’s bodycam clip, G‑1, an audit log, and the DA form/log. | The requester reports that G‑2 and G‑3 remain unproduced, along with incompletely accounted-for case records. These are the same disputed video streams also sought in the Benally request below. Original request · Exhibit A · Delivery and closure · Exhibit N |
| August 14, 2026DA-referral & transmission supplementMore than 15 days elapsed. Addressed in the August 21 closure. | The DA log and case-review form were supplied. | The dispute concerns underlying transmission/receipt records and identification of what was actually sent, rather than whether any referral document was produced. |
| August 15, 2026Unit 32 / Benally recordings & associated recordsAcknowledged August 17. Fifteen days had elapsed by September 1, even counting from that acknowledgment. | Some video arrived August 21; additional recording audit logs arrived September 15. | The requester continues to dispute complete video production. The G‑2/G‑3 gap overlaps the July 30 request and is not counted as a second set of missing videos. Benally request · Exhibit K · Acknowledgment · Exhibit L · Later audit logs |
How to read these dates: These are elapsed original response periods with disputed production or closures, not findings that every entry is a proven deadline violation. IPRA generally requires access as soon as practicable and within 15 calendar days; a qualifying broad or burdensome extension can allow additional time. New Mexico’s response-time guidance · Jim’s September 11 extension notice.
Record update · September 21, 2026
The September 17 emails must be read by request and category. A no-records response, a production, a closure and an extension are different events. None alone resolves every substantive question about the investigation.
| Request | Stated status | Scope and limits |
|---|---|---|
| #7 | Case-specific no-records response; broader portion pending | No responsive records for case 26-00010128. The historical portion dating to 2000 was placed into additional-time, rolling processing. |
| #8 | Categories 1–7: no responsive records | The reply answers categories 1–7. It does not include an express closure sentence. |
| #9 | Expressly closed by MCSO | No new responsive records; category #4 email and category #5 policy described as already provided. The reply does not provide a new substantive explanation. |
| #10 | Attachments supplied; expressly closed by MCSO | For categories #7 and #12, an email/narrative copy was attached; for #8, the criminal complaint. No new responsive records otherwise identified. |
| #11 | Vigilant/FLOCK no-records response; broader search pending | No responding records for Vigilant and FLOCK. The remaining broad request was placed into rolling processing, with readily available records, including case-specific portions, prioritized. |
There a no responsive records to your request in the matters of MCSO Case 26-00010128.
This is not a denial of your request.
There a no responsive records to your request for 1 through 7.
There a no new responsive records to your request. For #4 email has already been provided and #5 the policy has been provided.
MCSO considers this matter closed.
There a no new responsive records to your request. For #7 & #12 email attached. #8 Criminal Complaint attached.
MCSO considers this matter closed.
MCSO has no responding records for Vigilant and FLOCK.
This is not a denial of your request.
Read the #10 email/narrative transcription → · Public complaint and summons →
Record update · September 21, 2026
The September 16 notice adds requests submitted September 11–16 to the pending work. The September 18 notice adds requests submitted September 17–18 and describes additional time, rolling production and processing in order received. Neither provides a request-by-request next-production date.
We are in receipt of the additional IPRA request submitted on Friday 9/11-today 9/16, 2026. These requests will be added to the other pending request submitted and we will have a response to you within a reasonable time.
MCSO has received your additional IPRA request on 9/17 and 9/18, 2026. These requests will be added to the other pending request submitted and we will have a response to you within a reasonable time.
MCSO will process the request on a rolling basis, in the order they are recieved, and will produce responsive, nonexempt records as they are reasonably located and reviewed.
The earlier count of 56 is dated September 11. It is not a verified current balance after subsequent productions, closures and additions. A reconciled request inventory remains requested.
The separate September 16 acknowledgment concerning incident 25-3311 promises a response by September 30. That incident is distinct from case 2026-00010128 and from the numbered September request series.
Record update · September 21, 2026
On August 21, Chief Deputy Eric Jim answered the request about Deputy Bittony’s attendance at the January 19–23, 2026 BATI interview and interrogation class: he did not attend. That resolves this course-attendance question as MCSO’s stated answer. His other relevant courses, qualifications and remedial training remain separate questions.
In response to your email listed below, there are no documents responsive to your request.
Deputy Bittony did not attend the class.
Record update · September 21, 2026
Saprina Hudson said GPD had provided all available bodycam and officer notes, held no case or supplemental report, had no correspondence or records transfers to MCSO, and had not been contacted by MCSO for incident records. She also said GPD conducted no NCIC inquiry and did not know the person in the supplied photograph. These statements concern GPD’s records and actions; they do not establish what MCSO independently did.
Gallup Police Department has no correspondence or any records transfers to the McKinley County Sheriff's Department.
Gallup Police Department has no knowledge of the gentleman in the photo you provided.
Gallup Police Department cannot provide any NCIC inquiries, as they are only for Law Enforcement purposes and no inquiry was conducted by our agency for this incident.
Gallup Police Department was not contacted by the McKinley County Sheriff's Department for any records pertaining to this incident.
The request sought the complete report, all supplements, CAD and dispatch records, every responding deputy’s bodycam, photographs, recordings, witness material, notes, and related evidence. MCSO acknowledged it and promised a response no later than 15 days.
The August 14 email response falls 15 elapsed days after the July 30 written request and 29 days after the July 16 incident.
The packet records the Day-15 demand and states that Calandra Elliott’s response with the incident report arrived 13 minutes 54 seconds later. The requester also explained that CAD, the report, and dispatch audio had arrived on a compact disc that was not electronically accessible to her.
Elliott wrote that Bittony’s body and dash camera had been sent and that there were no supplemental records or photographs for the incident. The requester continued seeking all responding-deputy recordings and a written explanation for anything withheld or redacted.
After reviewing CAD, the requester identified Unit 32 as being “out with” Unit 49. Using MCSO personnel information, she independently identified Unit 32 as likely Sgt. Savannah Benally and submitted a supplemental request for Benally’s bodycam, metadata, audit information, notes, supplements, and preservation.
Chief Deputy Eric Jim wrote that MCSO would search for the additional requested information and respond.
MCSO’s later response included two Savannah Benally recordings, a WatchGuard audit log, and a DA report log / case review form. That production was followed by a written challenge to the earlier statement that no supplemental information existed.
August 21, 2026 · Command review
The Sheriff’s response and the passenger’s detailed request for direct command review appear together in the agency’s six-page printout.
Read the command-review email chainAugust 25, 2026 · Internal directive
Maiorano directs Sheriff’s Department staff not to respond to the passenger’s emails and to forward them to Chief Deputy Jim.
Read the internal emailEmail excerpts below preserve the quoted wording. Salutations, signatures, contact details, and earlier quoted thread history are omitted.
SEPTEMBER 3 · RECORDS PRODUCED
Jim sent three responses to the September 1 requests. For the Sheriff’s review, he supplied one email and reported no responsive records for the other numbered categories he answered. For investigation history, he supplied the police case-detail export, reported no responsive records for sections 2–4, and marked sections 5–6 already provided. The internal-communications response supplied one email, marked section 5 already provided, and reported no responsive records for the other numbered sections.
Each response stated that MCSO considered the request closed. A response saying no responsive records were found does not, by itself, establish that no review or investigative activity occurred.
Source: Chief Deputy Eric Jim, Thu, 3 Sep 2026 20:30:53 +0000. Subject: Re: IPRA REQUEST #1 — SHERIFF MAIORANO’S REVIEW AND “SUFFICIENT” DETERMINATION.
We have checked our records for documents and materials responsive to your request, the following information was found:
1.
There are no responsive records to this request.
2.
There are no responsive records to this request.
3.
There are no responsive records to this request.
4.
One responsive email. (attached)
5.
There are no records responsive to this request.With this explanation, we consider this request closed.
Source: Chief Deputy Eric Jim, Thu, 3 Sep 2026 20:31:34 +0000. Subject: Re: IPRA REQUEST #2 — INVESTIGATION HISTORY, SUPERVISORY REVIEW & DISTRICT ATTORNEY REFERRAL.
We have checked our records for documents and materials responsive to your request, the following information was found:
1.
One responsive record. (4 doc. attached)
2.
No responsive records.
3.
No responsive records.
4.
No responsive records.
5.
Already Provided.
6.
Already Provided.With this explanation, we consider this request closed.
Source: Chief Deputy Eric Jim, Thu, 3 Sep 2026 20:31:46 +0000. Subject: Re: IPRA REQUEST #3 — INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING CASE REVIEW, FOLLOW-UP & SUFFICIENCY.
We have checked our records for documents and materials responsive to your request, the following information was found:
1.
One responsive email. (attached)
2.
No responsive records.
3.
No responsive records.
4.
No responsive records.
5.
Already Provided.
6.
No responsive records.
7.
No responsive records.
8.
No responsive records.With this explanation, we consider this request closed.
Further requests seek identification of the grey-vested person recorded at the Gallup Police scene, County legal, risk-management, insurance, and financial records concerning the case, and communications between MCSO personnel and County Manager Anthony Dimas. Those requests remain part of the developing public-records trail.
Source: September 4 follow-up records requests
Saprina Hudson emailed Officer Jacob Keah-Tigh’s redacted on-scene notes and stated that GPD had provided all available bodycam footage and officer notes. She said GPD had no case or supplemental reports, had not transferred records to MCSO, and had not been contacted by MCSO for records about this incident. GPD considered the request closed.
Source: Saprina Hudson’s September 4 email, “Urgent IPRA & Preservation Request – GPD Incident 2026-00027723 – Body Camera Recordings.” GPD recordings.
SEPTEMBER 4 · ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Jim acknowledged further requests, including one for communications concerning public-records response strategy. He said MCSO needed more time to search, collect, and process responsive records. This acknowledgment did not include a records production.
Source: Chief Deputy Eric Jim, Fri, 4 Sep 2026 19:57:12 +0000. Subject: Re: IPRA Request – Communications Concerning Public-Records Response Strategy.
On September 4, 2026, we received your request. After reviewing your request, we need additional time to search for, collect , and process any responsive records. We will have a response for you no later than September 19, 2026
SEPTEMBER 6 · REQUESTER FOLLOW-UP
The requester said the case-detail export did not appear to contain the audit and history information sought. She also challenged the “Already Provided” answers for referral and transmission records because the response did not identify the particular records relied upon. She requested rolling production of anything still outstanding.
Source: September 6 follow-up in “IPRA REQUEST #2 — INVESTIGATION HISTORY, SUPERVISORY REVIEW & DISTRICT ATTORNEY REFERRAL.”
“For clarity, I do not agree that MCSO’s September 3 response necessarily fully satisfied the original request.”
SEPTEMBER 9 · REQUESTER CORRESPONDENCE
The female passenger wrote to Maiorano, Dimas, and Money challenging the AI-based communication condition and the characterization of her requests as a flood. The email included a selected recorded-call excerpt and call log from a conversation with Kenneth Stalter of 505 Legal about using AI drafting assistance. It asked the Sheriff to retract the condition, circulate the correction, and provide a copy.
This is the requester’s account and demand. It does not document an agency finding or a retraction.
Source: September 9 email, “Retraction Required Today: AI-Based Communication Restriction and Cease-Contact Directive.”
“Retract the AI-based communication condition in your August 21 email before close of business this afternoon. You put the restriction in writing; you can put the retraction in writing today.”
SEPTEMBER 10 · REPLY AND CORRECTION
Jim promised a response by September 25 to the policy-basis records request and to the ticket-photograph and grey-vest-camera evidence thread. The requester pointed out that the evidence thread sought investigative follow-up and preservation, not an IPRA response. Jim then apologized. These replies do not document that the photographs, recordings, or Greyhound incident file were obtained.
Source: Chief Deputy Eric Jim, Thu, 10 Sep 2026 19:20:00 +0000. Subject: Re: IPRA REQUEST — RECORDS SHOWING SOP / POLICY BASIS FOR JULY 16 ON-SCENE DECISIONS — MCSO CASE 2026-00010128.
Your request has been received. We will have a response to you no later than september 25, 2026
Source: Chief Deputy Eric Jim, Thu, 10 Sep 2026 19:34:54 +0000. Subject: Re: EVIDENCE FOLLOW-UP & PRESERVATION REQUEST — TICKET PHOTOGRAPHS / GREY-VEST CAMERA — MCSO CASE 2026-00010128.
Your request has been received. We will have a response to you no later than september 25, 2026.
Source: Chief Deputy Eric Jim, Thu, 10 Sep 2026 20:08:22 +0000. Subject: Re: EVIDENCE FOLLOW-UP & PRESERVATION REQUEST — TICKET PHOTOGRAPHS / GREY-VEST CAMERA — MCSO CASE 2026-00010128.
Apologies, simple human error.
SEPTEMBER 11 · EXTENSION NOTICE
Jim grouped the remaining 56 requests from September 1–11 into a notice describing them as excessively burdensome at that time. He cited the breadth of the requests and the number of records requiring review, and promised a response within a reasonable time. The email supplied no specific date and contained no records attachments.
Source: Chief Deputy Eric Jim, Fri, 11 Sep 2026 22:11:30 +0000. Subject: IPRA - Excessively Burdensome or Broad..
We are in receipt of the remaining 56 IPRA requests you have sent us between September 1st through September 11th.
Due to the breadth of your request and the number of records requiring review, these requests are excessively burdensome at this time, and we need more time to process your request. We will have a response to you within a reasonable time.
SEPTEMBER 15 · REQUESTS #4, #5 AND #6
Jim’s response to request #4 reports no responsive records for all eight categories concerning processing, searches, redaction, withholding, and related administrative records. His response to #5 attaches four Bittony and Benally recording audit logs and the body-camera policy. His response to #6 attaches nine policies. Each email says MCSO considers that request closed.
The produced files now permit a closer comparison of written standards and documented access. They do not supply a substantive review finding or establish which policy version governed on July 16. Open the five published policies and four audit logs · What did “sufficient” mean?
The September 11 figure of 56 describes Jim’s notice on that date. These later responses do not provide a complete reconciliation of that list or a current total of outstanding requests.
Eric Jim · September 15, 2026 · 15:58:33 UTC. Subject: IPRA REQUEST #4 — PROCESSING, SEARCH, REDACTION & WITHHOLDING RECORDS FOR PRIOR IPRA REQUESTS. Reply body excerpt.
We have checked our records for documents and materials responsive to your request, the following information was found:
- No responsive records.
- No responsive records.
- No responsive records.
- No responsive records.
- No responsive records.
- No responsive records.
- No responsive records.
- No responsive records.
With this explanation, we consider this request closed.
Eric Jim · September 15, 2026 · 15:59:05 UTC. Response to IPRA request #5. Reply body excerpt.
We have checked our records for documents and materials responsive to your request, the following information was found:
- No responsive records.
- Savannah Benally and Miguel Bittony BWC Audit Log Attached.
- Already Provided. (BWC Audit Logs.)
- No responsive records.
- Body Worn Camera Policy Attached.
- No responsive records.
- DA Referral already provided.
With this explanation, we consider this request closed.
Eric Jim · September 15, 2026 · 21:10:24 UTC. Response to IPRA request #6. Reply body excerpt.
We have checked our records for documents and materials responsive to your request, the following information was found:
- One responsive policy. (attached)
- One responsive policy. (attached)
- One responsive policy. (attached)
- No responsive records.
- No responsive records.
- One responsive policy. (attached)
- Contained in policy for #6.
- BWC policy already provided.
- One responsive policy. (attached)
- No responsive policy.
- No responsive policy.
- No responsive policy.
- Four responsive policies. (attached)
- Contained in policy for #1.
- One responsive policy. (attached)
- One responsive policy. (attached)
- Included within the policy.
With this explanation, we consider this request closed.