Repository Collection 03
Original Blueline Systems Audit
Binder 1 of 15
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ENTRY
Last Revised • July 6, 2026
This Source Verification Page documents the original Blueline Systems & Services forensic inventory audit of the Asheville Police Department Property and Evidence Facility. Binder 1 contains the audit's executive summary, findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding evidence management practices. The report was independently recovered through DocumentCloud and is used throughout Statement of Facts C to verify the audit findings discussed in public reporting.
Related SMAR Citation
Blueline Systems & Services LLC, Forensic Inventory of the Asheville Police Department Property/Evidence Facility (Binder 1 of 15)
Source Name
Original Blueline Systems audit, Binder 1 of 15 (Summary Findings and Conclusions)
Author(s)
Blueline Systems & Services LLC
Publication Date
December 19, 2011
Verification Authority
Angie Newsome (Carolina Public Press)
Source Location
DocumentCloud
Highlighted Pages
1, 4, 9, 10, 17, 18, 25, 30, 51
Referenced in the Supplemental Motion
Pages 19–23, Paragraphs 26–35
Source Status
✔ Original audit obtained and reviewed
✔ Key supporting findings highlighted
✔ Publicly available source
✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive
Cited to Support
Lyle C. May alleges that the Asheville Police Department evidence room in Asheville, North Carolina suffered from systemic evidence-management failures, including significant organizational deficiencies, inaccurate recordkeeping, inventory discrepancies, missing evidence, inadequate supervisory controls, and weaknesses in accountability procedures. The Blueline Systems audit is cited to establish the underlying findings summarized in public reporting, including the inventory of 35,822 evidence items, the inability to account for numerous drugs, firearms-related items, and cash deposits, deficiencies in evidence tracking and storage practices, and concerns regarding the reliability of inventory records and chain-of-custody controls. May relies upon these findings to support his claim that evidence maintained by the Asheville Police Department was subject to conditions that could compromise evidence integrity, accountability, and public confidence in the handling of criminal evidence.
Supporting Documents
Original Document
Link to the original document.
Highlighted Research Copy
Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.
Continue Your Research
Return to Statement of Facts C
Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Statement of Facts C.
Return to Source Verification Archive
Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.