His explanation of the taillight stop was difficult to reconcile with the dashcam footage. Both taillights were visible and functioning. He had not inspected them before ordering me out. His explanation for the search changed between the roadside statement and the written report. At the scene, he said he had felt something. In the report, he wrote that my behavior and the circumstances of the stop had raised a reasonable concern that I might be carrying contraband. The body-camera audio did not support the claim that he had observed a specific movement or object before searching me.
The report also described me as “verbally aggressive and noncompliant.” The recording showed me asking why I had been stopped, complying with the order to exit, keeping my hands visible, and stopping whenever Daniels told me not to move. I had challenged his explanation, but asking for a reason was not the same as resisting.
The review team also looked closely at the moment I reached for my shield. Daniels had later suggested that I had made a sudden movement toward my chest. The audio showed me announcing my movement before making it. The video showed that I stopped immediately when he ordered me to stop and resumed only after he instructed me to proceed slowly. That sequence mattered because the report had described my movement as a possible threat.
I was interviewed again about the badge. I explained that I had not shown it earlier because I did not want my position to influence the initial encounter. I had identified myself only after Daniels announced the arrest and continued to insist that the baggie was mine. I had also wanted him to understand that the incident would be reported through formal channels and that the recording needed to be preserved.
One investigator asked whether I had been trying to catch Daniels in misconduct.
“No,” I said. “I had been reviewing complaints. I did not choose this stop, and I did not know it would happen. When it did happen, I tried to keep the encounter safe and preserve an accurate record.”
“Would you have acted differently if he had recognized you sooner?”
“I hope I would have acted the same way. The rules should not depend on whether the person being stopped has a badge of their own.”
The question stayed with me after the interview. I knew that my identity had changed the encounter. Once Daniels recognized me, he became more cautious. He set the baggie on the hood rather than immediately placing me in cuffs. He stopped threatening to drag me out and began worrying about the recording. If I had been an ordinary driver with no connection to the department, would he have continued? Would I have been taken to the station? Would the baggie have become the centerpiece of a criminal case? I could not know. But the possibility was one reason the investigation mattered.
The civilian review team eventually contacted Andre Miller and Leah Brooks to tell them that their complaints were being reopened. Both agreed to participate again. Miller was cautious. He had lost time, money, and trust after his stop, and he did not want to be pulled into another process that would end with a form letter. Brooks was angry that it had taken so long for anyone to examine the gaps in her recording. Neither person was eager to trust the department.
I did not contact them directly. I had been removed from the review and wanted to avoid any suggestion that I was coordinating their statements. But I read the interview summaries when the oversight team released them to the department. Their accounts remained consistent with the original complaints, and both provided details that could be checked against the available records.
The nurse and her son also agreed to provide additional statements. The son described the search of the car and the baggie found beneath his seat. The nurse remembered Daniels's tone and the way he had dismissed her questions. They could not establish who had placed the baggie in the vehicle, but they described irregularities in the way the evidence had been documented.
The oversight team found no basis to conclude that every allegation was true exactly as reported. That was not the standard they applied. They looked at each incident separately, then assessed the combined evidence. The result was a set of sustained findings concerning improper searches, inaccurate reporting, failure to follow recording policy, and mishandling of evidence. The question of criminal intent was referred to the prosecutor's office for an independent determination.