Petitioner says police records show an erroneous arrest/booking coding; seeks audit trail and native files

Petitioner Broadbent told the hearing she had never been arrested, fingerprinted or charged, yet report‑style system printouts showed an arrest number, booking number and offender identifiers. She urged the director to order records that would reveal how those identifiers were generated and attached to incident 25‑T02073.

"I'm trying to figure out how that arrest occurred and how it came about in their system," Broadbent said, listing missing records: full police report packets, body‑camera video for Feb. 19/25/26/Mar. 1, officer emails and the native source of the text messages. She asked specifically for a record‑specific accounting, system approval and audit records tied to booking number 40558 and arrest number 35933.

City and county counsel responded that Spillman and other systems can auto‑generate citation identifiers and that some records are maintained by the county rather than the city. County counsel explained that Spillman produces booking/arrest numbers for citations even if a subject is not transported to jail, and that some police reports were pulled by the city attorney's office for review.

The director did not order a full audit trail in these hearings. In the Tooele City appeal he found the city's supplemented search reasonable and ordered limited production; in the county appeal he ordered only a supplemental name‑variation search of Sheriff Wimmer's device and asked the county to check for cloud backups of an old phone. He encouraged the petitioner to file a narrowly tailored supplemental request if she can identify specific, existing records.