On August 21, 2025, the inspector said at the door that he had received no cancellation by email or phone, though the owner’s representative had texted “Paul” at 9:48 a.m. the day before.
A city inspector came to the property to inspect the backyard. M035 The visit did not go ahead that day: at the gate the caretaker said it couldn’t happen without “Karen,” M035 and the recording backs the note that the inspection was not allowed to proceed and that the city would “move forward with getting the warrant” if not let in today. The narrower point that holds up is about contact. The inspector said out loud at the door that he had heard nothing from the owner’s side, “email or phone.” M035 The owner’s helper had in fact texted a phone labeled “Paul” at 9:48 the morning before, postponing the visit. The screenshot of that text only came into view after the owner’s representative pushed the city through repeated public-records requests; R.26-1965 R.26-2110 and the inspector’s own note shows his work line taking and making calls within half an hour of his saying he had heard nothing. M035 Govt Code §7920.000
Bottom line: the inspector’s doorstep claim that he had heard nothing “email or phone” collides with a text sent to “Paul” the prior morning and with his own note showing his work line in use minutes later.The inspector’s 08/21/2025 case note records that the caretaker “wanted to cancel the inspection” and that, because “they were not allowing the inspection to be performed,” the City “would move forward with an inspection warrant.” M035 The property’s doorstep recording corroborates the access predicate: the caretaker says “She can’t do it without Karen” (transcript line 38), says Karen “will call you in the evening” (lines 150–151), and the official voices the same warrant predicate the note states: “if she doesn’t allow us today, then we are going to move forward with getting the warrant” (line 46). M035
The narrower point is contact. In the same exchange the inspector says, “email or phone, I never heard from them” (transcript line 122). The owner’s representative, Karin Owens, had sent a text to “Paul” at 9:48 a.m. the day before, postponing the visit with “you and Doug” — more than 24 hours before the Thursday 11:30 a.m. appointment. M035 The inspector’s own note records that roughly thirty minutes after the doorstep statement he both received a call from Karin and placed a call to PBI Cosley. M035 The note does not prove the “Paul” number was the inspector’s work line, but it demonstrates that the City’s active contact channel was in use that morning. The produced record therefore contains an apparent contact-channel contradiction on the same day the warrant-and-entry dispute arose. R.26-1965 Govt Code §7920.000
The 08/21/2025 case note states the caretaker “wanted to cancel” and that, because the inspection was not being allowed, the City would move forward with an inspection warrant. The note is the City’s own contemporaneous account of the day’s events. M035
The doorstep recording (transcript lines 38 and 150–151) shows the caretaker saying the inspection cannot proceed without Karen and that Karen will call later. The official states the warrant predicate in parallel terms (line 46). These corroborate the note’s account that the inspection was not performed. M035
In the same doorstep exchange (transcript line 122) the inspector states, “email or phone, I never heard from them.” This is a specific claim about the absence of any prior notice through any channel. The prior-day text — sent the morning before to a contact labeled “Paul” — is the record that sits against it.
A text message screenshot (Karin Owens to “Paul,” Wednesday August 20, 2025, 9:48 a.m.) states: “Jackie Baritell has family coming in tomorrow from out of town and will postpone her visit with you and Doug. I told her to call you today too.” This message was sent more than 24 hours before the Thursday 11:30 a.m. appointment the case note records. R.26-2110
The 08/21/2025 case note records that roughly thirty minutes later the inspector received a call from Karin and then placed a call to PBI Cosley. M035 That does not prove the prior-day text reached the same device, but it makes the contact-channel question concrete. A work line receiving and placing calls within half an hour of a doorstep statement that no message had arrived is not a line that was unreachable for the prior twenty-four hours. Govt Code §7920.000
The City’s strongest response is that the text may have gone to a personal or non-official number, or may not have reached the work device, so the inspector’s statement was accurate to his knowledge. That remains possible. The narrower point is this: the produced record contains a prior-day text to “Paul” about this inspection, the inspector’s doorstep statement that he had heard nothing by email or phone, and the inspector’s own note showing work-line contact with Karin and PBI Cosley shortly afterward. M035 Those records do not sit comfortably together.
A City delivery or channel record could resolve the issue; absent that, the produced file leaves a contact-channel contradiction in the same August 21 event that led to the warrant-and-entry dispute. R.26-1965 R.26-2110 Govt Code §7920.000 Card 19 Card 20 Card 23 Card 47