The First Interview
Callaway's formal administrative interview took place the following week.
He attended with a representative. Lieutenant Grant was present, along with an independent investigator who had been assigned to review the department's records.
The investigator began with basic questions.
“Sergeant, why did you stop Chief Daniels?”
Callaway shifted in his chair.
“I observed an unfamiliar individual running through a neighborhood where there had been concerns about property crime.”
“What specific property crime?”
“I don't recall a particular report.”
“Was there an active alert about a suspect matching her description?”
“Not that I remember.”
“Did you see her attempt to enter a home?”
“No.”
“Did you see her touch the vehicle you referred to in your report?”
“No.”
“Did you see her attempt to open a vehicle?”
“No.”
The investigator paused.
“What facts led you to believe she was involved in criminal activity?”
Callaway looked down at his hands.
“Her behavior was unusual for the area.”
“What behavior, specifically?”
“She was unfamiliar to me.”
“Was being unfamiliar to you itself a violation of department policy or law?”
“No.”
“Was she on private property?”
“No.”
“Was she blocking traffic?”
“No.”
“Was she threatening anyone?”
“No.”
The investigator turned a page.
“When she asked whether she was free to leave, what was your response?”
“I told her she was being detained.”
“What facts did you communicate to her to explain the detention?”
“I told her we were investigating suspicious activity.”
“Did you identify a specific offense?”
“No.”
“Why did you arrest her?”
“She refused to cooperate and pulled away when I attempted to control her hands.”
The investigator played the relevant portion of the body-camera recording.
The room filled with Callaway's recorded voice.
Then the woman said, “I am not resisting you.”
The investigator paused the footage.
“What did you understand her to be doing at that moment?”
“She moved her arm.”
“After you grabbed her wrist?”
“Yes.”
“Did you consider that she might have been reacting to the physical contact?”
Callaway said nothing.
The investigator continued.
“You charged her with obstruction of official business. What specific act did you believe obstructed an official function?”
“She refused to identify herself.”
“Was your underlying detention lawful?”
Callaway looked toward his representative.
The investigator waited.
“I believed it was,” Callaway said.
“Based on what facts?”
Callaway repeated that she had been unfamiliar, that she had been running near an expensive vehicle, and that she had questioned his instructions.
The investigator wrote down his answer.
“Sergeant, the question is not whether you felt suspicious. The question is what objective facts supported your decision.”
Callaway's jaw tightened.
“I was trying to keep the neighborhood safe.”
“I understand that is your stated intention. But intention does not answer whether your actions complied with law and policy.”
The interview continued for several hours.
Callaway was asked about his previous reports, his training, and the complaints recorded against him. He said he had never intended to discriminate against anyone. He maintained that he had acted out of concern for public safety.
The investigators did not treat his denial as proof that no bias existed. Nor did they assume that a troubling outcome automatically established a particular motive.
They examined the evidence.
They compared his statements with the recordings.
They asked whether the same actions would have been taken if the person had behaved differently, looked different, or responded with less confidence.
Those questions would remain central to the review.
At the end of the interview, Callaway was told that the administrative investigation would continue.
As he stood to leave, he turned toward Lieutenant Grant.
“Do you really think I'm a bad cop?”
Grant considered the question carefully.
“I think your record must be examined honestly. I think the evidence from Oakridge Drive raises serious concerns. And I think the department has a responsibility to determine whether you have repeatedly used your authority without sufficient justification.”
“That isn't what I asked.”
“I know.”
He waited.
Grant continued.
“A person's entire career cannot be reduced to one sentence. But twenty-two years of service cannot excuse conduct that violates the law or the rights of the people you're sworn to protect.”
Callaway looked away.
For the first time, he seemed to understand that no one was going to resolve the matter by deciding whether he was a good man or a bad man.
The question was what he had done, what the evidence showed, and what consequences followed.
The People Behind the Complaints
As the historical review progressed, investigators contacted several people whose complaints had previously been closed.
Some did not want to speak again.
Marcus Hill agreed to an interview.
He was now twenty-four and working as a medical technician. When the investigator explained that his old complaint was being reviewed, Marcus was quiet for several seconds.
“I thought nobody cared about that anymore,” he finally said.
“What made you file the complaint originally?”
“Because I didn't want it to happen to someone else.”