People · Sergeant
SAVANNAH BENALLY (née Williams)
The MCSO report names Savannah Benally as its reviewer. Sheriff Maiorano later described the investigation as approved by her. The available records leave the scope and substance of that review unresolved.
What evidence did she review before approval?
Report naming the reviewer · Sheriff’s August 21 statement · Outstanding review questions
October 2, 2026 · Failed to appear · Bench warrant · NO BOND
You approved the investigation. What did you check?
The report puts your name under the review. The Sheriff puts your approval in writing. That same report records Shubham under a single-name entry, lists a Georgia address and describes his interstate travel. His connection to another state was visible in the very work you were credited with reviewing.
The locating questions remain: a ticket-name discrepancy, a reportedly disconnected phone number, an address without a unit designation, and no independent verification established in the published record. Which of those issues did your review identify, what did you require Bittony to resolve, and where is that documented? If they were not identified, explain how a review missed the practical question of finding this person again.
On October 2, Shubham did not appear when his case was called at 8:40 a.m. Mountain Time. Judge Tina Garcia granted a bench warrant with no bond. An approval should mean someone checked the work. What did yours accomplish?
Benally’s documented role is the report review; the available records do not establish every fact she personally knew or every release decision she made. They do establish a responsibility to explain the review attributed to her. What follow-up has she now required, who is locating Shubham, and what is the plan if he is outside New Mexico?
Report naming Benally as reviewer · Maiorano’s approval statement · The identity, contact and locating questions · Watch the court hearing
Last heard from
No direct email located
No direct email from Benally to the passenger was located in the reviewed correspondence. Her name on the report and the Sheriff’s statement that she approved the investigation document a review role, not a direct response explaining what she checked.
What her review still needs to explain
Direct email correspondence reviewed through October 13, 2026. This status does not establish whether any phone or in-person contact occurred.
Sergeant · McKinley County Sheriff’s Office
What the available records establish
CADThe CAD’s unit table identifies Benally as Unit 32; the 07:01:43 narrative records Unit 32 with Unit 49. CAD unit table · Dispatch guide.
ReportThe report identifies “REVIEWED BY Benally, Savannah.”
Sheriff statementMaiorano later described the investigation as “approved by Sgt. Benally.”
What remains unresolved
- Whether Benally’s report review was substantive or administrative.
- What evidence she personally reviewed before the report was approved.
- Whether she created supervisory notes, instructions, or corrections.
- The complete police record creation, edit, review, approval, and version history.
- Whether additional supervisory records exist beyond those already produced.
Core question: What did “REVIEWED BY Benally, Savannah” actually mean in this case?
PRODUCED BENALLY RECORDINGS
Vehicle/scene video · 07:13 event · about 1:16
WatchGuard audit log
September 15: later Benally audit logs
MCSO produced a six-page log for event 058740263 and a fourteen-page log for event 55104698. Page 1 of the six-page log records Harolynn Yazzie viewing the BWC recording on September 1 at 13:52:42.76. The entry supplies no timezone, viewing duration, purpose, or finding.
Open the six-page BWC audit · Open the fourteen-page vehicle audit · Production response
The earlier nineteen-page combined PDF remains available below. Its page guide describes that earlier export; the September 15 files add later access information. Compare the full produced access record and supervisory policies.
What the earlier Benally audit log records
The supplied PDF combines a five-page log for body-worn camera BWC2-006218 and a fourteen-page log for vehicle/device 27852-G. The table uses the PDF’s overall page numbers, 1–19.
| Record | What the log shows | What that establishes |
|---|---|---|
| BWC event · July 16 | Start 07:14:09; stop 07:14:43. The log identifies Savannah Benally and BWC2-006218. Creation/import/upload entries are listed separately. | A 34-second event window is documented. PDF pages 3–5. |
| Vehicle/device event · July 16 | Start 07:13:24; stop 07:14:40. The imported event lists a Front stream and two Secondary streams. | A 76-second event window with multiple streams is documented. PDF pages 9–10 and 19. |
| Viewed · August 18 | Calandra Elliott is recorded viewing the 27852-G Front stream at 10:02:49.06 and the BWC Front stream at 10:03:09.017. | The listed viewing actions belong to Elliott. The log does not show how much was watched or establish a substantive supervisory review. PDF page 8 and pages 2–3. |
| Exported / downloaded · August 18 | Elliott-associated export entries appear around 14:32:14, followed by download entries around 14:32:56. The vehicle event’s export list includes three MP4 streams plus an MTD file. | The log documents preparation and download of an export. Export is not the same event as delivery to the requester. PDF pages 1–2 and 6–8. |
| Retention / completion fields | BWC entries show 365 days. Vehicle-event entries include 365 days, 120 days, and, in the export entry, Indefinitely. Some intermediate entries say Complete: false; import/export entries also say true. | These are values attached to particular actions. Their presence alone does not prove deletion, the current retention setting, or missing footage. PDF pages 7, 9, and 19. |
Recording, review, and production are different events
The July 16 report names Benally as its reviewer. The camera log’s August 18 viewing entries name Elliott. One record does not substitute for the other, and this export does not establish which recordings Benally or Maiorano personally watched.
The public site currently links one 07:13 playback file and one 07:14 BWC file. The audit lists three exported MP4 streams for the 07:13 event; their full mapping to the supplied public playback files remains unresolved. Short clips and incomplete intermediate entries do not, by themselves, establish deletion or suppression.
Audit timestamps are reproduced as displayed, without assuming a timezone or synchronizing them to the CAD. “07:13” and “07:14” in filenames are recording-time labels, not playback lengths. The local public files play for approximately 1:16 and 0:34, respectively. Read all 19 PDF pages.
Additional information
Public employment record
- Earliest county sheriff listing located
- 2018 · Sheriff Civil · Civil Officer, under Savannah Williams
- Publicly documented county sheriff span
- 2018–2026
- 2024 position
- Deputy · Sheriff Patrol
- 2025 position
- Sergeant · Sheriff Patrol
- 2025 annual salary
- $75,828.48
The earliest located public payroll listing establishes a public-record span; it is not presented as an exact hire date or a measure of completed years of service. County reports list Benally as a deputy in 2024 and a sergeant in 2025. The salary is the listed annual salary, not overtime, benefits, take-home pay, or total compensation.
2018 PUBLIC PAYROLL LISTING →2025 COUNTY SALARY REPORT →2024 county report: original link unavailable.COUNTY TRANSPARENCY PORTAL →