Same-day notification to the district of the March 24 law-enforcement visit.

The Patrol Captain confirms that Special Agent Matthew Oliver is employed by USFS Law Enforcement & Investigations, assigned to the investigative branch, and states he had no obligation to coordinate with the local patrol officer.

The same day, the Department responds that a search was conducted and identified no records responsive to the request.

The Department releases CAD record SP26097765 in full, at no charge, with a cover letter stating the document was reviewed for exempt material "with none being identified." The record shows: no call type, priority low, officer initiated, no action taken, unit type Criminal, my role "Other," and the comment "FOR THE FOREST SERVICE // FOLLOWUP INTERVIEW W/ ROBERT WHITE." The primary unit is named: Jake Hyde, badge 56397.

Public statement issued on the release of CAD record SP26097765.

Petition for Public Records Order under ORS 192.411, ORS 192.324(6), and ORS 192.407, asking the Attorney General to order Oregon State Police to complete its response to PR27478. Filed with twenty-five exhibits.

The District Ranger states in writing that the Forest Service did not initiate the interview, and that its involvement was limited to unlocking the gate and guiding Oregon State Police to the work center. Filed with the Attorney General as Exhibit 26.

Five days after the petition was filed, the Department states that a thorough review has found additional records "not in our system at the time of the original request," reopens the request, and estimates production at three weeks.

The Patrol Captain states the complaint has been referred to Law Enforcement and Investigations' Office of Professional Responsibility for an administrative investigation, and that recent correspondence has been forwarded to that office.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part. The order states that the Department cited the body camera video exemption at ORS 192.345(40).

Request for any recording of the March 24, 2026 contact: the travel in both directions, the contact itself, and both vehicles.

Objection to two grounds in the order, both withdrawn the same morning. Notice of intent to file a new petition.

The April 13, 2026 fee letter, provided as the Department's exemption assertion. It lists one responsive record, the CAD, and states the statutory category without identifying a recording.

The exemption reference in the order comes from page 20 of the exhibits to my own petition. Good faith is cited because ORS 192.329(4)(a) makes it the condition for suspending the processing deadlines.

Both objections of the same morning withdrawn. The fee letter does not state that a recording exists.

The fee letter's list of responsive records contains one checked item and no unchecked entry for body camera footage. No itemized list of what the state holds has been provided in four months.

Request for the template, its versions, the instructions governing its use, and the letters issued on it. Twenty-one items, filed through the Department's electronic form as a new request. Assigned PR36445.

The Department states it holds incident reports and attachments, the CAD, officer notes, dispatch records, and electronic communications, and that body camera video is withheld under ORS 192.345(40). Processing is conditioned on $157.50 payable by check or money order before any work begins.

The Department states it holds the response letter forms, the fee schedule, approximately 27,000 letters issued since January 1, 2023, and requester communications. The estimate is $16,315.00, with the issued letters quoted at 650 hours and a release 130 weeks after payment.

Notice that the funds are secured and the cashier's check ships the next day, copied to the Director and the Governor. A statement to both records officers on what it is like to be a member of the public in front of an office built to serve one.

The tracking number for the mailed fee, copied to the Director, the Governor and the Commission, with a photo from the gate. Notice that the next dispute goes to court, not to the Attorney General.