> After two visits and three calls to the Mission district station, and three calls and two emails with San Francisco Police Department public affairs (a route not open to most civilians), the police assigned someone to my case. That was well over a month after the theft. Walgreens gave them some video, which has been circulated, but Target had already junked its footage.

OK, it sounds like someone did some substantial work. They got video from one source, and queried another, and then did something with the video.

> Uber, which over its four rides obtained route information and the person’s address, was not contacted.

And yet, the investigator didn't request data from Uber, which apparently learned the suspect's address. I wonder what's up with that? Do they consider it too unreliable? Something akin to hearsay? Or maybe they don't want to violate the suspect's privacy? Very strange.