Office of the State Auditor (OSA)
3 ALPR audits across 3 agencies. Of the 3 we have read in full, 2 recorded zero findings (67%). Individual findings break down as 1 material. 1 ghost finding — problems described in a report’s narrative but never recorded. Depth: substantive.
3
Agencies audited
3
Audits filed
67%
Zero findings
1
Real findings
Flags
The pattern here is a template that clears everyone it touches.
Ghost findings
1 problem described in the report narrative but never recorded as a finding — found it, then left it off the record.
Audits by this auditor
Agreed-upon procedures engagement under AICPA attestation standards; no exceptions noted on any of the 8 procedures. OSA inspected PIPS hit data, the audit trail and data request log for 2020-2021 (four staff searches, all with documented purposes; no data shared with outside agencies; no exports observed), the log of use, user access roles, and the 2-day retention practice. GHOST FINDING: the report's own narrative notes the State Patrol's policies do not designate who may grant written access authorization as Minn. Stat. 13.824, subd. 7(b) requires (practice relies on the Director of Operations and Asset Management), yet the procedure was closed with no exception recorded. A policy-documentation gap, superficial in tier, but described and left off the record.
Read the audit (LRL 220670) →One recorded exception: the Sheriff's Office ALPR policy did not fully address two statutory requirements — (1) preservation of data on written request from an individual facing criminal charges who states the data may be exculpatory evidence, and (2) destruction of data on request from a participant in the Minn. Stat. ch. 5B (Safe at Home) address-confidentiality program. Joint agreed-upon-procedures engagement covering Olmsted County SO and Rochester PD; no exception was recorded against Rochester.
Read the audit (LRL 201206) →No exception recorded against Rochester PD. This is a joint agreed-upon-procedures engagement by the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor covering Olmsted County SO and Rochester PD together under Minn. Stat. §§ 13.824 and 626.8472; the single exception in the report is against Olmsted County's policy, not Rochester's (see the companion Olmsted row for the same doc number). The report notes Rochester PD's summarized public log "only contains data from the previous 60 days" — recorded here as an observation, not scored as a ghost finding, because a 60-day log window tracks the statutory destruction schedule rather than describing a deficiency. Worth a human read of the raw PDF before treating it either way.
Read the audit (LRL 201206) →These figures describe what the filed reports contain. They are not an allegation that any audit was improper or that any agency is out of compliance with Minn. Stat. § 13.824. If you believe a record here is wrong, tell us and we will correct it.
← All auditors