Police / ORGANIZATION IN THE RECORD
Mount Pleasant Police Department
Municipal police department
Mount Pleasant Police Department
Linked record period: Sep 15, 2025 – Sep 18, 2026
WHY THIS PROFILE IS HERE
Role in the paper trail
Included for the criminal-trespass and related RMS/text sequence, call counts, fire-watch records and environmental routing.
CHRONOLOGY
Key dates & context
- Timing comparison
September: OSHA-number matches near the inspection sequence
Five September 9 records to Building & Code Enforcement display the OSHA Dallas number. A September 15 record to the Police line lasts 2:41.
Context, limits & source references
The City’s September 16 report states that no violations were present. Exact-number matches and adjacent dates do not establish what was discussed or authenticate the incoming caller.
- vendor:30326 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1414:E1414
- vendor:30327 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1415:E1415
- vendor:30328 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1416:E1416
- vendor:30329 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1417:E1417
- vendor:30330 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1418:E1418
- vendor:32000 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A8543:E8543
- Timing comparison
October 17: internal calls around the City/DSHS meeting date
Four outgoing record groups run from the Police line to the Miller-labeled line or City Hall between 2:19:48 and 2:27:07 p.m.
Context, limits & source references
The older export covers only 21 observed City endpoints. Durations overlap; four records do not establish four separate conversations, who spoke, or a response to the directive. Exact ordering against the directive has not been established.
- vendor:41283 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A10975:E10975
- vendor:41286 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A10976:E10976
- vendor:41292 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A10977:E10977
- vendor:41298 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A10978:E10978
- Source record
Fire-watch dispatch records produced after the October 18 request
Nipp transmits fire dispatch logs on October 20 and directs fire-report and utility-report requests to the appropriate City departments. Kyle acknowledges receipt.
Context, limits & source references
The City supplied fire documents with its October 31 response. The broader response dispute concerns what remained unanswered or unproduced after that delivery.
- Request km-2025-10-18-mppd-fire-watch · October 18–20 messages
- Timing comparison
City Hall and District Attorney call-log rows document later contacts
The source review identifies 11 City Hall-number rows in September–October. The October 21 pair begins one second apart and calculates to the same end time, between the October 20 TLE revision and October 22 CT.
Context, limits & source references
The pair may be duplicate records or call legs, not two conversations. October 23 entries last 3, 0 and 0 seconds. November named-line calls are a separate set. No subject, speaker or DA involvement in the CT is established.
- Selected City Hall and District Attorney office-number call-log rows · September–November 2025
- Selected source collection
Body cameras for case 25-17553: edited copies and accompanying text
The two body-camera recordings document the October 22 criminal-trespass encounter. The linked viewing copies incorporate the approved audio omissions and matching text omissions.
Context, limits & source references
The public recordings are edited copies; the source originals are retained separately. The accompanying descriptions identify the edits to each recording. No synchronization of the camera clocks with dispatch or text-message clocks is inferred.
- Body-camera audit 16 · case 25-17553
- Source record
Texts, dispatch and the criminal-trespass warning
The displayed 8:47 a.m. text attributed to Carrie Mahon asks Buhman to call. The computer-aided dispatch record opens at 8:53:41 a.m.; the written criminal-trespass warning is timed 9:03 a.m. Later Beasley–Buhman texts discuss the warning and possible litigation.
Context, limits & source references
“He can bring it” appears after the CT in the supplied exchange, not as a prior instruction. Phone-screen clocks differ from message times; clocks have not been synchronized. No retaliation finding is made.
- Selected text messages, computer-aided dispatch pages and criminal-trespass warning · October 22, 2025
- Timing comparison
Police records-system access follows the displayed warning time
Case-system screenshots show Odom-account access at 09:52 and entries from 10:03, followed by later activity. These are shown beside the same-day CT sequence.
Context, limits & source references
The case already existed, with September 19 creation and activity before October 22. Insert/delete labels do not reveal changed field values or motive. Minor-sensitive narratives and identities are excluded from this map.
- Identifier-masked police records-system log excerpts · October 22, 2025
- Source record
EPA → TCEQ → City / MPPD routing
EPA routes the complaint to TCEQ. Hodo emails James on October 27; James forwards the quoted chain that evening to Bryan Denney and Code Enforcement, copying Buhman. On October 28 James separately asks Hodo to send the video to the Chief because she cannot forward it.
Context, limits & source references
The correspondence establishes the forwarding route and the request to send a video. It does not independently establish a later direct Hodo-to-Chief delivery, that the Chief viewed the video, or an investigation outcome.
- O008/O009 · EPA October 23; TCEQ/City October 27; follow-up October 28
- Timing comparison
September 16 and October 28: FBI-number matches are unverified leads
Incoming records display the published FBI headquarters number on two inspection dates.
Context, limits & source references
An incoming caller-ID number can be spoofed. These records do not authenticate an FBI caller, establish an investigation, or connect the calls to Kyle’s complaints.
- vendor:32522 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4010_Jun25-Nov25_262300.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A5757:E5757
- vendor:44424 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A11784:E11784
- vendor:44429 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4010_Jun25-Nov25_262300.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A7889:E7889
- Timing comparison
February 18: higher daily activity and TCOLE-number records
135 internal outgoing groups on the meeting date, compared with a median of 111 and range of 97–120 on eight nearby Wednesdays.
Context, limits & source references
The TCOLE records overlap and may be legs of one transferred call. The main number serves multiple functions; it does not identify one official. No ordering against the meeting time or subject-matter connection is established.
- city:108053 · City of Mt. Pleasant - Call Logs from Nov 5th 2025.xlsx · Inbound Calls to Group Numbers!A11661:H11661
- city:108054 · City of Mt. Pleasant - Call Logs from Nov 5th 2025.xlsx · User Phones - Inbnd,Outbnd,Miss!A89581:H89581
- Source record
Disclosure concerns repeatedly sent to the DA and OAG
The reviewed sequence includes April 28–29 OpenGov and forensic-payment notices, May 21–22 Schneider customer/payment notices to both offices, and May 28 notice to Bailey copying Richardson about an unredacted MPPD report. A later May 28 binder transmittal includes the LES-related concerns. Beck’s reply acknowledges apparent inadvertent disclosure, requests deletion and offers a redacted replacement.
Context, limits & source references
A sent notice is not proof each recipient read every attachment. The disclosed report was 25-15902, distinct from the grooming and CT cases. These entries address City disclosure handling; raw identifiers, authentication values and the unredacted report are not reproduced.
- J011/J043 and J014, April notices; J015–J016, Schneider notices; J020/J044, May 28 notices and binder; J039 page 3, Beck response
- Timing comparison
June 3: a localized increase after the noon CDR escalation
39 internal outgoing record groups in the two hours after the 12:02:29 p.m. email; 23 in the preceding two hours. The comparable-window median is 17.5.
Context, limits & source references
23 of the 39 records last under 30 seconds. Activity spans several departments. The full-day count is 121 against a comparison median of 114 and range of 74–149. This is an exploratory timing association, not proof of a response to the email.
- city:255139 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73380
- city:255162 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73357
- city:255171 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73348
- city:255244 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73275
- city:255256 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73265
- city:255267 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73254
- Author’s account
Two Council appearances and the interrupted budget remarks
The timestamped links in Kyle’s same-week media emails identify 13:55–16:49 public comment and 28:21–31:03 budget remarks. Kyle reports the cutoff, microphone switch-off and threatened police escort; he says he was not escorted out.
Context, limits & source references
The linked passages include Moring’s remarks and the officials’ responses. Lyon’s quiet remark around 14:11–14:13 remains unintelligible. The prepared speech is separate from the delivered words; overlapping speech and microphone operation are not fully established by the excerpts.
- September 15 Council-links and prepared-speech audit; KLTV/KSLA sent messages
- Source record
CRIMES records dispute reaches OAG briefing
SHSU reported submitting its brief on September 17. Kyle sent requestor comments on September 18 concerning OAG reference OR-26-051837-RR and SHSU File 25-3848. SHSU acknowledged receiving his submission.
Context, limits & source references
The acknowledgment is not a ruling on the requested records.
- SHSU September 17 brief-transmittal email
- Kyle’s September 18 comments transmittal
- SHSU September 18 acknowledgment
Source notes
Symbolic editorial illustration; imagined objects and buildings, not official insignia or documentary evidence.
This profile is drawn from the case study’s reviewed chronology and correspondence index, through September 21, 2026. Roles identify the capacity described by the linked material; the date range is not a verified employment term.
Source statements, transcript excerpts, reported concerns, historical comparisons and timing analysis retain their separate labels. An invitation does not prove attendance. A copied recipient does not establish agreement or action. A call-number match does not establish call content.
Editorial portraits are illustrations, not documentary photographs. Original documents and recordings control over the profile summary. About the method ↗