But several amendments introduced administrative consulting charges that were difficult to justify.
The charges were tied to categories of enforcement activity rather than identifiable work.
One amendment allowed payments to a private consulting entity for compliance administration.
Another permitted the county to refer certain disputed vehicle accounts for outside processing.
The language was broad.
And the financial controls were weak.
Investigators traced a portion of the resulting payments to a business associated with the county's senior finance administrator.
They also identified a financial relationship involving the sheriff's family.
The connections didn't automatically establish that every recipient knowingly participated in unlawful seizures.
But the records demonstrated undisclosed interests that should have been examined when the contracts were approved.
The state team requested communications concerning the amendments.
Those records changed the case.
An email from the finance administrator discussed how increased towing referrals would improve the financial performance of the compliance program.
A later message from a sheriff's office supervisor referred to targeting vehicles likely to produce substantial recovery charges.
Then investigators found something more direct.
A communication from the senior deputy to a private business contact mentioned the need to maintain "four-thousand-dollar resolutions" on certain highway stops.
The message didn't identify a lawful county fee.
It described the payments as a way to keep the program profitable.
The investigator read the communication several times.
Then turned toward the financial analyst.
"Can we establish what happened to those payments?"
He nodded.
"Some of them."
The team had records linking several disputed collections to the consulting network.
Other funds remained difficult to trace.
But the pattern was no longer speculative.
There was evidence of intentional financial benefit connected to the threatened seizures.
The sheriff's role became clearer when investigators examined his private correspondence with the finance administrator.
He had attended meetings concerning the towing contract amendments.
He'd received complaints about the senior deputy.
And he'd been notified that several reports lacked adequate support for the vehicle seizures.
Those facts showed knowledge of concerns.
But the investigators needed to establish whether he had simply failed to supervise properly or knowingly protected unlawful conduct.
A series of messages supplied part of the answer.
In one, the finance administrator warned that complaints from motorists could create legal exposure for the county.