The security team also began checking that corridor cameras were functioning and that recordings could be preserved promptly after an incident.
None of those changes could undo what had happened to Danielle. They could, however, reduce the chance that another person would be placed in the same position.
Rebecca's final report distinguished three areas of concern.
The first was the failure to verify identity. Vanessa had acted without confirming that Danielle was the person named in the assignment.
The second was the use of restraints without a demonstrated need. The available evidence did not show that Danielle posed an immediate threat, attempted to flee, or resisted through violence.
The third was the assault itself. Vanessa had admitted that she struck Danielle because she was angry and believed the woman was disrespecting her. The video and witness statements supported that admission.
The report also recommended improvements to assignment messages, confirmation procedures, and supervisory oversight. Those recommendations were not presented as excuses for the officer's behavior. They were additional measures intended to prevent confusion from becoming a justification for force.
When the report was formally submitted, Margaret Whitcomb arranged a meeting with Danielle and Rebecca to discuss the findings and the next steps.
MARGARET WHITCOMB: "The review has found that Officer Blake failed to verify your identity, used restraints without a sufficient basis, and struck you while you were restrained. The department's assignment process also needs improvement, but that issue does not excuse her decisions."
DANIELLE BROOKS: "What happens now?"
REBECCA SHAW: "The internal disciplinary process will proceed under the department's rules. The referral to the appropriate authorities is separate, and any decision in that process will be made independently."
DANIELLE BROOKS: "And the training changes?"
MARGARET WHITCOMB: "They have begun. The full policy revision will be completed after consultation with security staff, court administration, and the relevant oversight officials."
Danielle nodded.
DANIELLE BROOKS: "I want the findings to be accurate. I don't need them to be softened because the officer is a woman, and I don't need them exaggerated because I am a judge. I want the same facts to lead to the same conclusion they would lead to for anyone else."
REBECCA SHAW: "That is how the report has been written."
DANIELLE BROOKS: "Then make sure the final decision follows the evidence."
It was a straightforward request, but it carried weight. Danielle did not ask the courthouse to punish Vanessa for embarrassing her. She did not ask for special treatment or a public spectacle. She wanted the conduct to be addressed honestly, and she wanted the procedures that had failed to be corrected.
For several days, the case remained a subject of quiet discussion among courthouse employees. Some were shocked by the footage. Others were unsettled by the fact that the officer had continued even after Danielle was handcuffed. A few wondered whether the consequences would have been different if the person in the corridor had not been a judge.
That question was precisely why Danielle had insisted that her position should not become the central issue.
The incident was serious because of what had happened, not because of who had suffered it.
A person did not need a courtroom title to deserve dignity. A person did not need a senior official to recognize them before their rights mattered. And a person did not have to prove that they were important before an officer was required to act lawfully.
Vanessa was given an opportunity to respond to the preliminary findings through the formal disciplinary process. Her representative challenged several details of the report, including whether the assignment system had made the identity sufficiently clear and whether the officer had understood the limits of the instruction.
The review panel considered those objections.
It found that the assignment could have been clearer, but the written instruction to verify the identity was present. More importantly, the officer had acknowledged that she had not checked the information before detaining Danielle. The panel also found no evidence that Danielle's questions or movements created a threat that justified the force used against her.
The panel did not conclude that every part of the encounter had been planned in advance. It did not need to. The available evidence showed that Vanessa had made a series of avoidable choices and had used physical violence when she was angry.
Her disciplinary hearing was scheduled for the following month.
In the days leading up to it, Vanessa was required to remain away from active duty. She was no longer permitted to patrol the courthouse or perform security assignments while the case was unresolved. The department also ordered additional review of her prior use-of-force reports to determine whether there were other incidents requiring examination.