Cass County commissioners approve first phase of state’s attorney digital evidence system

The Cass County Board of Commissioners on June 2 authorized the first phase of a three‑phase digital modernization plan for the state's attorney’s office, approving purchase and implementation of Axon Justice for digital evidence management.

The board voted to authorize phase one—digital evidence management software—after a presentation explaining that current processes for handling digital evidence are inconsistent and time‑consuming. The county plans to pay initial year‑one costs from the asset‑forfeiture fund, officials said, and to return to the board for approval of later phases.

County presenter Bobby described the problem: “Having a methodology to ingest all of this data, classify it, organize it, and be able to distribute it safely, securely, and orderly is a critical function that is currently missing in our state's attorney's office.” He said digital evidence comes in many formats and that staff now manually copy and burn discs or prepare flash drives, a process he called error prone and staff intensive.

The plan the board approved covers three phases. Phase 1 is purchase and implementation of Axon Justice to centralize ingestion, indexing and secure distribution of digital footage. Phase 2 is digital case management for briefs and memos; staff said Phase 2 would follow Phase 1 and require a separate approval. Phase 3 is record‑retention policy alignment and bulk document scanning.

Officials provided cost estimates. Year‑one costs for Axon Justice were given as $47,250 (including a $20,000 initial implementation/project management fee and $27,250 prorated licensing for the remainder of the calendar year). The presenter said a 10‑year locked pricing scenario from Axon totals about $785,000; the county’s estimated 2026 annual cost for Axon was reported at $66,490 and would adjust with a built‑in inflation estimate thereafter. A separate digital case‑management vendor (identified in the packet as “Prosecutor by Carpel”) was quoted at about $140,815 total with roughly $42,000 one‑time implementation and an ongoing annual cost near $100,000; staff later cited an annual figure near $98,000 while they confirm final pricing.

Commissioner Flacco asked whether the two products could be uncoupled in future procurement; staff responded they are independent products that integrate but could be migrated with data‑migration planning. Commissioners discussed funding: staff proposed using the asset‑forfeiture fund for initial startup, noting the balance was about $425,000 and typically collects about $30,000–$60,000 annually. Presenters warned that relying solely on the forfeiture fund would not be sustainable long term and discussed shifting to a mix of funding in subsequent years.

Staff estimated operational efficiencies from the program, projecting support‑staff time savings of 25–35% as a key performance indicator and a conservative long‑term budget savings estimate of roughly $50,000 annually from reduced copier/printing/file storage and temporary employee costs, though they said growth in caseloads could offset some savings. Alyssa Hoff (legal assistant) and Jason Van Horn (assistant state attorney) participated in vendor demos and testing, staff said.

Commissioner Breitling moved to authorize phase one; Commissioner Capitan seconded. The motion passed on a recorded roll call with all commissioners voting aye.

County staff and commissioners emphasized the board approved only phase one at this time; staff will return with final quotes and a separate request for the digital case‑management purchase and for record‑retention implementation.

Votes at the meeting and next steps: the board approved the phase‑one authorization and directed staff to finalize vendor quotes and return to the board for Phase 2 approval. The county will report implementation progress and budget impacts at subsequent meetings.

The board’s approval means the county will begin contract negotiations and implementation planning. Staff said scanning of paper records and secure on‑site scanning for criminal justice information may require third‑party services and raised one‑time costs that depend on the retention policy the board later adopts.