Which law‑enforcement agencies, if any, have publicly commented on receiving or reviewing the Sasha/Sascha Riley recordings?

1. What the publisher claims versus what police have said

The person who published the tapes on Substack, Lisa Noelle Voldeng, has publicly asserted she possesses the original audio and told reporters she shared copies with police and “trusted contacts,” but reporting makes clear those claims about sharing with law enforcement have not been independently validated by courts or law‑enforcement agencies ^{[6] [2]}. Major summaries of the story explicitly note that “courts, law enforcement agencies, and mainstream media have not verified” the recordings or the publisher’s assertions, undercutting any presumptions that an official probe has been opened based on the publisher’s statements ^{[6] [2] [1]}.

2. What mainstream reporting and fact‑checkers have found

Multiple outlets compiling the Riley story emphasize that none of the claims in the tapes has been authenticated and that no court dockets reference Riley’s allegations, and fact‑checkers and investigative summaries report that “no law‑enforcement agency has confirmed an investigation tied to his claims” ^{[1] [5]}. News sites that have recapped the audio explicitly state the recordings remain unverified and unauthenticated by law enforcement, and no mainstream outlet has produced documentation showing an agency received or is reviewing the files ^{[3] [4] [2]}.

3. Lack of public confirmation from agencies—what that means

The absence of a public confirmation—no press release, no statement to reporters, no court filing—means there is currently no verifiable public record that a specific federal (for example, DOJ or FBI), state, or local agency has taken possession of or is investigating the Riley material; multiple reports note that courts and law‑enforcement agencies have not authenticated the claims and have not been shown to be involved publicly ^{[1] [4] [5]}. Reporting that the publisher “shared copies with police” is not the same as an agency acknowledging receipt or launching a review; outlets uniformly distinguish the publisher’s claim from independent verification by investigators ^{[6] [2]}.

4. Alternative explanations and the disinformation concerns

Analysts and long‑form critics have flagged the Riley tapes as a potential disinformation or “manufactured credibility” phenomenon, noting narrative inconsistencies and the absence of corroborating documentation—points that factor into why law enforcement may not have publicly acknowledged involvement even if material was shared privately ^[5]. At the same time, responsible reporting repeatedly underscores that absence of public confirmation is not proof the allegations are false; rather, it reflects that no agency has publicly authenticated or taken ownership of the evidence in the public record to date ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Bottom line: what can be stated with confidence

Based on the available reporting, no law‑enforcement agency has publicly commented that it received or is reviewing the Sasha/Sascha Riley recordings; publishers’ claims of sharing with police remain uncorroborated, and fact‑checkers and news reports consistently note the lack of authenticated investigations or court records tied to the tapes ^{[6] [5] [2]}. Where reporting is silent or inconclusive—such as whether any agency has privately received material but declined to comment—this analysis notes that limitation rather than inferring agency action without public evidence ^{[1] [4]}.