FOIA Request #25-201: First Look at ProsecutorbyKarpel Financial Records
Filed: August 18, 2025
Response: September 8, 2025
Status: Granted in Part, Denied in Part
What Was Requested
I requested copies of all contracts, purchase agreements, invoices, licensing agreements, or renewal documents related to any case management systems, records management systems, prosecutorial tracking systems, electronic discovery platforms, or digital evidence systems used by the Delta County Prosecutor’s Office from January 1, 2020 to the present.
This was a broad request designed to understand the full scope of technology systems and costs in the Prosecutor’s Office.
What Was Provided
The Prosecutor’s Office provided the following documents:
- Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan & Delta County Prosecutor’s Office Contract for ProsecutorbyKarpel
- Karpel Solutions Invoice dated 10/26/2023 — $43,662.50
- Karpel Solutions Invoice dated 06/30/2024 — $22,150.00
- Karpel Solutions Invoice dated 06/25/2025 — $32,587.50
- Watchguard Invoice dated 01/13/2020
- Watchguard Invoice dated 05/27/2021
Total Confirmed ProsecutorbyKarpel Costs: $98,400.00 (based on the three Karpel invoices provided)
This was the first time the public learned that the Prosecutor’s Office had spent nearly $100,000 on the new case management system.
What Was Denied
The Prosecutor’s Office denied requests for records related to:
- Motorola Video Manager, Axon-Evidence.com, and WatchGuard Cloudshare — Claimed these systems are maintained by outside agencies (Escanaba Public Safety, Hannahville Tribal Police, Michigan State Police) and no records exist in the Prosecutor’s Office
- NextCloud — Claimed it’s open source software, so no contracts or licensing documents exist
- Adult/Juvenile Case Tracking (ACT/JCT) — The legacy system used until approximately June 10, 2024. Claimed no contracts or invoices exist because it was administered by the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan
Analysis: What This Tells Us
The System Costs
The three ProsecutorbyKarpel invoices revealed a significant financial commitment:
- Year 1 (2023): $43,662.50
- Year 2 (2024): $22,150.00
- Year 3 (2025): $32,587.50
- Total: $98,400.00
This established that the migration to ProsecutorbyKarpel represented a substantial investment of taxpayer funds — approaching $100,000 over three years.
What’s Still Missing
Despite providing these invoices, the response left critical questions unanswered:
- No Total Cost Disclosure: The invoices provided show individual payments, but no document reflects the total amount obligated over the full contract term.
- No Funding Source Information: The invoices don’t indicate which fund(s) are paying for the system — general fund, grants, state funds, or other sources.
- No Migration/Training Costs: The invoices appear to be for base subscription and licensing fees. No documents were provided showing costs for data migration, staff training, or system implementation — which typically represent significant additional expenses.
- Incomplete Invoice History: The 10/26/2023 invoice is labeled differently in subsequent requests. It’s unclear whether this represents the first invoice of the system or if earlier invoices exist.
- Legacy System Costs: No records were provided for the ACT/JCT system that was used until June 10, 2024, making it impossible to compare costs between the old and new systems.
The “Administered by Others” Problem
The denials for Motorola Video Manager, Axon-Evidence.com, and WatchGuard Cloudshare are concerning because:
- These are digital evidence systems used by the Prosecutor’s Office
- If they’re maintained by outside agencies (police departments, MSP), those agencies likely have contracts and invoices
- The Prosecutor’s Office should at least have inter-agency agreements or memoranda of understanding
- Claiming “no records exist” when the office uses these systems daily raises transparency questions
The Open Source Defense
The denial for NextCloud on the grounds that it’s “open source” doesn’t hold up:
- Even open-source software can have support contracts, hosting fees, or maintenance agreements
- The claim that no documents exist of any kind is questionable
- The public deserves to know if taxpayer funds are being spent to support or maintain the system
What Should Be Included
A complete response to this request should have provided:
- Full Contract Terms: The complete ProsecutorbyKarpel contract showing the total term, total obligated amount, renewal terms, and all financial obligations.
- All Invoices: Every invoice related to ProsecutorbyKarpel from the start of the contract to the present, not just the three selected.
- Funding Documentation: Budget allocations, fund transfers, or other documents showing which sources are paying for the system.
- Migration and Implementation Costs: Separate invoices or contracts for data migration services, training, and system implementation.
- Inter-agency Agreements: Memoranda of understanding or agreements with outside agencies for shared systems like Axon-Evidence.
- Legacy System Records: Any contracts, invoices, or cost-sharing agreements related to the ACT/JCT system used before June 2024.
- Support and Maintenance Documents: Any agreements for software support, updates, or technical services — even for open-source software like NextCloud.
Why This Matters
The public has a right to know the full financial picture of technology investments in the Prosecutor’s Office. Nearly $100,000 represents a significant expenditure for a county office, and taxpayers deserve transparency about:
- The total contractual obligations
- Where the money is coming from
- Whether the investment includes all implementation costs
- How costs compare to previous systems
- What ongoing obligations extend into the future
Without this information, the public cannot effectively evaluate whether this investment represents good value for taxpayer dollars.
What’s Next
This request revealed substantial costs but left critical gaps in understanding. Follow-up requests have been filed to obtain:
- Additional invoices and updated cost information
- Funding source documentation
- Migration and training costs
- Total obligated amounts
- Contract terms and renewal provisions
The Prosecutor’s Office has denied those follow-up requests, claiming the information was already provided. Those denials are currently being appealed to the Delta County Board of Commissioners.
Note: As of January 2026, a fourth invoice has been confirmed ($11,075.00), bringing the confirmed total to $109,475.00. That invoice was obtained through a subsequent FOIA request and is the subject of separate appeals.
Leave a comment