Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Digital Evidence topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Harvey County attorney proposes Gardify evidence-management purchase to handle growing digital case data

Harvey County Board of Commissioners · December 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County Attorney Heather Figger recommended buying Gardify, an evidence-management and AI-assisted search system, at an annual discounted price of $10,423.67 to address rising storage and workflow costs; commissioners asked for paperwork and noted purchasing thresholds before approving any county-funded ongoing commitment.

Harvey County n attorney told commissioners Dec. 23 the county is approaching unsustainable volumes of digital evidence in the prosecutor n case-management system (PBK) and proposed buying Gardify, a cloud-based evidence-management system with AI tools to speed transcript creation and visual/audio searches.

County Attorney Heather Figger said PBK showed about 3 terabytes of evidence in June, about 5 terabytes now and an estimate of 7.5 terabytes by next summer, and that anticipated PBK storage fees could exceed $7,000 in coming months. She told the board Gardify offered a first-year discounted price of $10,423.67 and that the office could use 2025 salary savings to pay the initial fee while building the cost into future budgets.

Figger addressed security questions: she said Gardify is CJIS-compliant and does not "train their AI based on anything that we submit at all," and that evidence remains the county's property while Gardify stores and offers AI-assisted search and transcription features.

Commissioners sought time to review the contract paperwork. Staff noted that under county purchasing policy purchases below $15,000 can proceed without a formal competitive process, but several commissioners said they preferred to see written agreements and budget implications before approving a new recurring expense.

The county did not make a formal vote on the purchase at the Dec. 23 meeting; staff said they would provide paperwork and return with a recommendation.