Have any law‑enforcement agencies publicly acknowledged receiving records or complaints connected to the Riley audio?
Executive summary
No law‑enforcement agency has publicly confirmed receiving or investigating the audio recordings attributed to “Sasha/Sascha Riley”; multiple news outlets and specialty reporters note the publisher’s claim that copies were shared with police, but courts and official agencies have not authenticated the material or acknowledged receipt [1] [2] [3].
1. What the publisher says — claims of sharing recordings with police
The Substack author who released the Riley files, Lisa Noelle Voldeng, has said she possesses the original audio and “shared copies with police and trusted contacts,” a claim repeated in reporting about the viral tapes, but that assertion comes from the publisher and has not been independently verified by mainstream outlets or law‑enforcement spokespeople [1] [2].
2. What mainstream reporting finds — no public acknowledgements from law enforcement
Across outlets that have examined the audio and its distribution, journalists and specialist sites repeatedly emphasize that the recordings remain unverified and that “courts, law enforcement agencies, and mainstream media have not verified” or “authenticated” the claims — language used in coverage from Times Now/US News, Hindustan Times, FrontPage Detectives and multiple other pieces summarizing the situation [1] [4] [5] [2] [3].
3. Why absence of a public acknowledgement matters for verification
A public acknowledgement from a police department, state investigator, or federal prosecutor — for example an announced complaint, a case number, or a statement confirming materials were received — is a standard marker reporters and researchers rely on to move allegations into formal investigative territory; every source surveyed notes that no such public marker exists for the Riley tapes, which leaves the material in the realm of viral allegation rather than documented evidence [2] [6] [3].
4. Possible private reports and the limits of current reporting
Reporting cites the publisher’s claim that materials were given to “police and trusted contacts” [1], and it is plausible that private complaints or unpublicized inquiries could exist — but the sources make clear they found no confirmation from law‑enforcement agencies themselves, and they explicitly warn that absence of public confirmation is not the same as proof of nonexistence; none of the articles provide documentation of receipts, case numbers, or agency statements acknowledging files [1] [2] [3].
5. Local law‑enforcement procedures and why they don’t fill the gap
Public police websites and procedural pages, such as local Riley County police contact and complaint pages, show how citizens can file complaints or contact internal affairs, but these administrative resources do not amount to a public acknowledgement of receiving the Riley audio and the reporting does not link any such filings to the tapes — they simply demonstrate that mechanisms for reporting exist [7] [8].
6. Bottom line and caveats for readers
The bottom line supported by the available reporting: no law‑enforcement agency has publicly acknowledged receipt of records or complaints tied to the Riley audio; publisher claims that copies were shared with police exist but remain unverified in reporting [1] [2]. It must be noted that absence of public confirmation in the sampled coverage does not categorically rule out private communications or unpublicized filings with some agency, but those are not documented in the sources reviewed [1] [3].