← AI Defense Attorney

Demand The Detention And Release Record — And The Arrival Order

:::caution Legal Disclaimer Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted, and is presumed innocent. Nothing on this page states as fact that any living person committed a crime, destroyed evidence, or acted improperly. Court filings in this case are subject to a gag order and sealing, so the public record is incomplete by design. :::

The One Thing We Would Do Differently

Serve one Rule 16 demand and one Rule 14 subpoena duces tecum for the detention paperwork generated during the operational period — times of initiation, times of release, the booking or non-booking determination and its author — and, in the same instrument, for the four machine-generated records that fix which agency's personnel were at each address first.

Everyone who was stopped and released in the hours after September 10, 2025 is a living private person. This page does not name them. It does not describe them. It says nothing about what any of them knew, intended, or did. Read every sentence below as a request addressed to a records custodian, because that is all any of it is.

What a defense attorney wants here is not a story. It is paperwork and timestamps. A field contact generates documents whether or not anything comes of it, and those documents carry clock times that nobody wrote from memory. The times are the evidence. The people are not the point.

Six artefact families are demanded by name, because a demand for "the reports" is answered with the reports and nothing else:

1. The field-contact and detention documentation for each stop, with the time of initiation and the time of release recorded separately. Not the narrative summary — the form with the two times on it.
2. The booking or non-booking determination, and who made it. Every stop that does not end in a booking ends in a decision by a person with a name and a rank, and that decision is normally written down somewhere.
3. Any Miranda advisement record and any recorded interview, with start and stop times, for every contact — not only the charged defendant's.
4. The property and search inventory generated during each detention. An inventory is a numbered list with a signature and a time, and it is the cheapest proof that a stop happened at all.
5. The report of investigation for each contact, and the name of its author. A report has an author, and the author is a witness. A witness who reads someone else's report on the stand is a conduit for that author, and the author is the person who should be answering.
6. The arrival-order record — which personnel, from which agency, were present at each address at each time.

The arrival-order record is the one that carries weight, and it is not one document. It is the intersection of four sources that were generated by machines rather than by people:

• The CAD unit-status log. Computer-aided dispatch stamps every unit's status change — dispatched, en route, on scene, clear — to the second, without anyone typing a narrative. This site has already recorded that no public CAD log has confirmed the field-stand-down that some commentators infer from the afternoon of September 10, and it is the dispatch and radio record that would settle it. The companion instrument Dispatch And CAD Records carries that demand in full; this page does not duplicate it.
• The scene sign-in or entry log. Where a scene is cordoned, entry is normally logged. A log has names, agencies and times on it.
• Body-worn camera activation and deactivation metadata.
• Vehicle GPS / AVL telemetry. Fleet automatic-vehicle-location data records where a marked unit was and when, with no officer involvement at all.

If all four agree, the order in which agencies reached an address is a fact, established four ways, and no witness's recollection is needed to prove it. If they disagree, the disagreement is itself discoverable and is itself a cross-examination. Either outcome is useful. Neither outcome requires an accusation against anybody.

The metadata is not the footage, and it is the half worth asking for

This deserves its own paragraph, because the two things are routinely conflated and only one of them survives.

Body-worn camera footage is a media file. Body-worn camera activation metadata is the audit trail the evidence platform writes about that file: device serial, assigned user, power-on, buffering, record start, record stop, upload time, category assignment, retention setting, every view, every share, every re-categorisation, and every deletion request with the account that made it. It is generated automatically. It is stored separately from the video. It commonly survives when the video does not, because it is a database row rather than a gigabyte of H.264.

That distinction is exactly what this case has already run into twice on the public record. The claim that an officer's recording ended as he reached the Losee Center roof is described on the Bagley body camera pages — reported testimony, Day 1, uncertified, and the site's own page notes that device logs would resolve the battery question with records instead of argument. Separately, a county's answer at a GRAMA hearing that "there was a search made for body cam footage and there was none" is recorded on the no-footage page. Utah's body-worn camera chapter, Utah Code Title 77, Chapter 7a, governs activation and use; the provisions summarised on that page require activation before a law-enforcement encounter and a written report explaining any failure to activate.

So the demand is written in three parts, and a defense attorney who asks for only the first has asked for the part most likely to be gone:

• the footage;
• the activation and deactivation metadata / device audit trail, for every device assigned to every officer at every address in the window, whether or not that device produced a file;
• the written non-activation reports the statute contemplates, and the retention-category assignment applied to each recording.

How the four sources are actually correlated

The four records do not answer the question separately. They answer it by being laid against one another on a single clock, and the correlation is mechanical:

• CAD gives every unit an "on scene" stamp and a call number. That call number is the join key for everything else.
• AVL gives every marked unit a position track. Where a unit's AVL track reaches an address before or after its CAD "on scene" stamp, the discrepancy is itself a finding about how reliable the CAD narrative is.
• The camera audit trail gives a record-start time for each device, and a device is assigned to a named officer. A camera that begins recording at an address establishes that its wearer was at that address, independently of any log.
• The entry log is the only human-generated source of the four, and it is therefore the one the other three are used to test rather than to trust.

A defense attorney does not need all four to survive. Two that agree are enough to fix a time. One that is missing, where the other three show activity, is the question to ask the custodian about.

The rider, as it would read

A subpoena that says "all records relating to the detention of any person" is answered with a shrug. This is the rider, written to be attached to the subpoena rather than described:

Definitions. "The Window" means 00:00 on 10 September 2025 through 23:59 on 12 September 2025, Mountain Time. "The Addresses" means each location at which your agency's personnel conducted a field contact, detention, or scene entry during the Window in connection with this matter. "Native format" means the file as generated and exported by the originating system, with all system-generated fields, headers and audit columns intact, and not a printed or PDF rendering of it.

1. For each field contact or detention conducted during the Window: the field-contact card, detention record, or equivalent form, showing the time the contact was initiated and the time the person was released, recorded as separate entries.

2. For each such contact, the determination whether to book or to release, the document recording that determination, and the name and rank of the person who made it.

3. Every Miranda advisement record, advisement form, and recording of any interview conducted during the Window, with start and stop times and the identity of the recording device.

4. Every property receipt, search inventory, and evidence-log entry generated during any such contact.

5. Every report of investigation, supplemental report, and officer's narrative generated in connection with any such contact, unredacted as to the identity of its author.

6. For each of The Addresses, the computer-aided dispatch incident detail and unit-status history in native format, including every status change with its timestamp, the dispatching agency, and the audit fields.

7. Any sign-in sheet, scene-entry log, perimeter log, or command-post attendance record maintained for any of The Addresses, together with the identity of the officer who maintained it.

8. For every body-worn camera assigned to any officer of your agency present at any of The Addresses during the Window: the complete device audit trail from the evidence-management platform, including power-on, buffering, record-start, record-stop, upload, category assignment, retention setting, access events, share events, re-categorisation events, and any deletion or deletion-request event with the account identifier that generated it — for every such device, including any device that produced no recording.

9. Every written report documenting a failure to activate a body-worn camera during the Window.

10. For every vehicle assigned to any officer present at any of The Addresses during the Window: the automatic-vehicle-location telemetry for the Window, in native export format.

11. The records-retention schedule and current retention settings applicable to each of items 6, 8 and 10, and the date on which each such retention period expires or expired.

12. If any item above does not exist, has been deleted, or is withheld: identify it by category, state so in a filed written response, and state the legal basis for withholding it.

Item 11 is the one that is easy to leave out and is worth as much as any other. A retention schedule tells the Court, on the agency's own paper, when a record stops being recoverable — and therefore whether a request made today is a request made too late. Item 12 is not a courtesy. It is the formula the defense in this case has already used in its own supplemental discovery requests, and it converts a silence into a filed document that a jury can be told about.

What The Defense Team Did Instead

The public record shows this ground being worked, and it should be said plainly before anything else is.

On September 30, 2025 — twenty days after the event — the defense filed its Formal Request for Discovery Pursuant to URCP 16 and Request for 404(b) Notice (docket 61). It is a serious document and it reaches several of the artefacts above by name. Item 2 requests "Unofficial transcripts of axon bodycam." Item 8 requests "All field interview cards used to identify any individual(s) involved in the above-captioned matter." Item 10 requests "Copies of all recordings and/or transcripts of any communications, including dispatch calls from law enforcement, fire department or any other civilian agency." Item 11 asks the State to "Specify the date, time and substance of any and all further contact between any investigating officer and any defendant, co-defendant, or witness." Item 14 reaches chain-of-custody documentation including handling at the time of booking.

On April 1, 2026 a Notice of Subpoena Duces Tecum to the Utah County Sheriff's Department appears on the docket at entries 468 and 495. Neither the notice nor any return is in the archive we hold. We do hold a defense Reply to a Sheriff's Response, which establishes that a Sheriff's Response exists — and that response is not in the docket list either. We therefore cannot see what that subpoena asked for. It may already cover much of this page.

On August 28, 2026 the defense filed its Discovery Status Report (docket 257). It records 45 separate productions totalling 29,237 files through August 18, 2026, transmitted through the Axon platform. Its first category expressly includes "law enforcement body camera recordings" and "evidence logs." Its third category, "Forensic Discovery," is material the State has not provided and which, in counsel's words, the FBI and ATF may not produce absent an order of this Court. The report closes by stating that at the September 1, 2026 hearing the defense will ask the Court to set a briefing schedule for a motion to compel that material.

On the certified record, the closest this line has come to a witness is Day 4. Under cross-examination by Mr. Burt, Sergeant Jennifer Faumuina was asked whether anybody was videoing the discovery and recovery of the rifle. She answered: "I believe one of the officers on scene actually had his body camera on." Asked whether she had seen it, she answered: "I have not." That exchange is in the certified Day 4 transcript and it is the single most useful fact on this page — a crime-scene sergeant, on oath, placing a body-worn camera at an evidence recovery and confirming she has not viewed the recording.

What we do not find in the material we hold is a demand naming the detention-and-release times as such, the non-booking determination and its author, the body-worn camera activation metadata as distinct from the footage, the scene entry log, or the vehicle AVL telemetry. Item 2 of the September 30 request asks for bodycam transcripts; a transcript is not an audit trail. That is a statement about the documents in our archive and nothing more. The archive holds 374 PDFs against 867 known docket entries, of which 258 ever had a public PDF, and the filings in this case are gagged and partly sealed.

Where This Belongs In The Case

Stage of the case	When that stage runs	Status of this step
Rule 16 discovery request and supplements	From arraignment onward; served 9-30-2025, supplemented 4-3-2026 and 6-19-2026	Partly reached — bodycam transcripts, field interview cards and dispatch recordings requested; metadata and arrival-order artefacts not visible
Rule 14 subpoena duces tecum to a records custodian	Available now; one was noticed to the Sheriff's Department on 4-1-2026	Scope not visible — neither the notice nor the return is in the archive we hold
Preliminary hearing cross	July 6-10, 2026 — completed	Reached once, on Day 4: a body camera placed at the rifle recovery, unviewed by the witness
Motion to compel and Rule 702 reliability litigation	Briefing schedule to be requested 9-1-2026	Not yet due — the vehicle for this demand is opening, not closed

Witness Or Discovery Target

How it would be done	Target	Took the stand?	Status on the public record
Rule 14 subpoena duces tecum for the device audit trail, not the video	Records custodian, evidence-management platform administrator for each responding agency	n/a	No such demand visible in the archive we hold
Rule 14 subpoena duces tecum for detention paperwork with initiation and release times	Records custodian, Utah County Sheriff's Department	n/a	A subpoena duces tecum was noticed 4-1-2026; its scope is not visible
Rule 16 motion to compel, folded into the forthcoming forensic-discovery motion	The State, as to material held by federal partners	n/a	Briefing schedule to be requested 9-1-2026 — not yet due
Cross-examination — witness testified, certified transcript held	Sergeant Jennifer Faumuina, SBI crime-scene sergeant	Yes — July 7 and July 9, 2026	Placed a body camera at the rifle recovery; confirmed she has not seen the recording
Cross-examination — witness testified, no cross taken that day	Agent Brian Davis, the booking officer	Yes — July 8 and July 9, 2026	Certified Day 4 transcript records the defense passing the witness without cross-examination
Cross-examination — uncertified day	Sgt. David Hull, case agent	Yes — July 7, 2026	Detentions were raised: he agreed several people were detained for questioning and were cleared. T3 — uncertified machine transcription of the pool feed
Records demand on the campus agency	Records custodian, UVU Police and the Orem municipal response	n/a	Not found in the material we hold

The Questions That Were Not Asked

Addressed to Sergeant Jennifer Faumuina, who testified on the certified Day 4 record and described the command post in the Fugal Building and the routing of evidence:

1. Sergeant, you told this Court you believe one of the officers on scene had his body camera on during the recovery of the rifle. Has anyone in your agency requested the activation log for that device?
2. Separately from the video itself, does your agency's evidence platform generate a record showing when a camera was switched on, when it stopped, and when the file was uploaded?
3. When you arrived near the south end of campus at approximately 1:30 p.m., who was already there — by agency, not by name?
4. Was there an entry log or a sign-in sheet for the cordoned area, and if so, who kept it?
5. You described a command post at the Fugal Building where evidence was compiled and, in your words, there was a discussion as to who would take custody. Was any log kept of who was present at that command post, and at what times?
6. For any person contacted and released on September 10, does a document exist in your agency's file recording the time the contact began and the time it ended?
7. Who decides whether a person contacted in the field is booked or released, and is that decision written down anywhere?

Addressed to a records custodian at a Rule 14 return, where the answer needed is a document and not an opinion:

8. Produce the CAD unit-status history for every unit assigned to each address in the window, in its native export, including the audit fields.
9. Produce the device audit trail for every body-worn camera assigned to a responding officer that day, including devices that produced no recording.
10. Produce every written non-activation report generated for that day under Utah's body-worn camera provisions.
11. Produce the automatic-vehicle-location telemetry for every marked unit assigned to those addresses, in the native format your fleet system exports.
12. If any of the above does not exist, or is not being produced, identify it, say so in a filed written response, and state the legal basis — the same formula the defense has already used in this case in its supplemental discovery requests.

Why A Defense Attorney Would Want This

This instrument serves Route 2 — the investigation itself. It does not require an alternative perpetrator, it does not require a foreign nexus, and it does not require the jury to believe anything about anybody. It requires only that the process that produced this prosecution be inspectable.

A jury is being asked to convict on the output of a multi-agency investigation. The Discovery Status Report tells the Court that some of that output sits with the FBI and ATF and may not come out without a court order. If the defense can show that the sequence of the first hours cannot be reconstructed from the State's own records — that no entry log was kept, or that the CAD export was not preserved, or that the camera audit trails were never pulled — then the jury is being asked to trust a chronology that nobody can check. A refusal is also an answer. A custodian who says "we do not have it" has told the jury something a witness never would.

There is a second reason, and it is the practical one. This is the rare demand a court finds easy to grant. It touches no classified holding. It asks no federal agency to waive anything. It requests machine-generated records from local agencies in native format, which is exactly what Rule 14 exists for. A judge who would never order an intelligence service to answer a subpoena will readily order a sheriff's records division to export a CAD log.

And it is the demand that keeps the page honest. If the four sources agree that local officers arrived first and federal personnel arrived later, that result gets published on this site with the same prominence as any other. The instrument is worth having precisely because it can come back the other way.

Day-one date: our attorney serves this on 2025-09-15, five days after the event and fifteen days before the first Rule 16 request actually filed. On that date every one of the four sources was still live. CAD records sit in an active database and are exported on request. Body-worn camera audit trails were inside every plausible retention window, and — critically — a camera whose footage had already been over-written or never uploaded would still have had an audit row showing that it was switched on. Automatic-vehicle-location telemetry is the most perishable of the four; commercial fleet-telematics retention is commonly measured in weeks or months rather than years, and no public record establishes the retention setting any agency here used, which is itself a reason to have asked in September rather than to be asking now. A scene entry log, if one was kept, was a physical sheet of paper still in somebody's clipboard on 2025-09-15. By the time the first supplemental discovery requests were served in April and June 2026, every one of those windows had been open for more than half a year with no way to prove what it had contained.

The Honest Counterargument

The strongest answer to this page is that it may already have been done, and we would have no way of knowing. A subpoena duces tecum to the Utah County Sheriff's Department was noticed on April 1, 2026. Its scope is invisible to us. It could ask for every document on this page. The Sheriff's Response exists — the defense Reply proves it — and we do not hold that either.

The second answer is procedural and it is serious. This case has already produced a Rule 14 fight that the defense lost. When the defense sought a certificate for an out-of-state witness at the preliminary hearing, the court applied Rule 14(a)(2) and the reasonableness limitation, held that a probable-cause proceeding is not the place for credibility litigation, and declined to issue the certificate — a ruling the defense took up on interlocutory appeal. A records subpoena aimed at reconstructing the arrival order of federal personnel would have met the same objection at the same stage: not reasonable for a probable-cause hearing. Timing is not neglect. The right moment for this instrument is the discovery motion whose briefing schedule the defense is asking the Court to set on September 1, 2026 — which is to say, now.

The third answer is that the arrival order may be completely ordinary. Federal task-force officers are embedded in local agencies. A federal agent living nearer an address than the responding patrol unit arrives first for no reason more sinister than geography. A page that treats "federal personnel were already there" as inherently meaningful has assumed its conclusion. The correct posture is the one this page takes: establish the times from records, publish them, and let them mean whatever they mean.

The fourth is volume. The defense has received 29,237 files across 45 productions. Detention paperwork, evidence logs and body camera recordings are inside the categories the defense itself describes. It is entirely possible that every document demanded here is already in the defense's hands under a Bates number, being processed by a paralegal, and that the only thing missing is the public's view of it.

Sources On This Site

• Dispatch And CAD Records — the companion instrument
• FBI Agents On The Stand — who made the decision, and who can be asked
• Scene Alteration And Spoliation
• Brady Enforcement And Sanctions
• Dispatch And Radio Scanner Timeline
• Distraction Events Timeline
• Officer's Body Camera Died On The Roof (Claims)
• Officer Bagley Body Camera
• Missing Bodycam And The GRAMA "No Footage" Admission
• Miranda Timing Hub
• Custody, Surrender And Mirandizing Timeline
• Suspect Manhunt
• Orem PD And Local Response
• UVU Campus Police
• Legal Documents Archive
• Preliminary Hearing Day 4
• Bind-Over Oral Argument, September 1, 2026
• FBI Discovery Delays
• Cover Up (Possible)

---

:::danger Theoretical Exercise Only This page is a theoretical exercise. It is a written simulation of how an idealised defense attorney might approach this case. We make no claim that there is any problem with the current defense attorney, with any member of the defense team, or with any decision they have made.

Real capital defense is conducted under a gag order, with sealed filings, and on the basis of full discovery that the public has never seen. Counsel of record know facts we do not. A step described here as "not on the public record" may already have been taken privately, may have been considered and rejected for good reason, or may not yet be due at this stage of the case. Silence in the public record is not evidence of a failure.

Nothing here is legal advice, a criticism of any licensed attorney, or an allegation of professional misconduct. :::

This website's author is @HolonCitizen on X and YouTube/@HolonCitizen. Follow me there.