Commonwealth’s Discovery Response — Set One

Prepared by IntelliClerk from the material as produced. It is a reading of what the opposing party sent and of what the cover response says it sent — the two are not always the same, and where they part, this summary says so.

What This Document Is

The Commonwealth’s written response to the defendant’s first request for discovery, signed by ASA Karen Whitfield and served June 16, 2026. It is the cover instrument for the first production: six pages listing what is produced, what is withheld, and on what ground. It is not evidence itself — it is the index against which the production is measured.

Summary

The Commonwealth produces the redacted incident report, four body-worn camera clips from Officer Hale, one dashcam file from Unit 118, the field sobriety checklist, and the booking record. It states that the production is made pursuant to Rule 3A:11 and reserves the right to supplement.

Two categories are withheld. The first is described as “internal work product,” without further description. The second is a witness statement withheld on the ground that the witness has not been located; no privilege log accompanies either withholding.

The response does not address three items the request asked for by name: the breath instrument’s certificate of accuracy, the calibration record, and any statement by the assisting officer. Their absence is not explained, denied, or logged — the response is silent on all three.

What Was Produced

• p. 2 Police Incident Report, redacted — 9 pages, Bates COM-000007–000015.
• p. 2 Body-worn camera, Ofc. Hale — four clips, 2 hr 51 min in total, produced as native media.
• p. 3 Dashcam, Unit 118 — one file, 38 min, beginning after the stop was already underway.
• p. 3 Field sobriety checklist and booking record — 4 pages, Bates COM-000016–000019.

What Was Withheld or Omitted

• p. 4 Flag “Internal work product” is withheld as a category, with no description of what it contains and no privilege log. The ground is asserted rather than shown.
• p. 4 Flag A witness statement is withheld because the witness “has not been located.” That is a reason the witness is unavailable, not a ground for withholding a statement already taken.
• p. 5 Flag The breath instrument certificate and calibration record were requested by name and are neither produced nor addressed anywhere in the response.
• p. 3 Flag The dashcam file begins after the stop was underway. The report gives the stop at 11:48 p.m.; this file opens at 11:53 p.m., so the five minutes that establish the basis for the stop are not in it.

Read Against the File

• p. 2 The redacted incident report here is the same report already on file as a case document, with three passages blacked out that the case-document copy shows in full.
• p. 3 The clip count matches the four clips received; their combined running time leaves no gap between them.
• p. 5 Flag The response is signed as complete as of June 16 while reserving the right to supplement. The instrument certificate and maintenance log it never addresses arrived eight days later, on June 24, with no supplemental response naming them.

Bearing on the Brief

The omissions matter more here than the contents. The certificate and calibration record go to the breath result; the missing five minutes of dashcam go to the basis for the stop. Both bear directly on the Motion to Suppress, and both are absences this response neither denies nor justifies.

A motion to compel is supported on the face of the response as to the unlogged work-product withholding and as to the two body-worn camera clips this response names but the production never included. The redacted passages are worth setting against the unredacted case-document copy before any motion is filed.