The delivery driver's recording was reviewed alongside the other available material. Investigators examined what it showed, what it did not show, and how it fit with the statements provided by the people involved.
They also examined Miller's explanation for the encounter.
His account changed in important ways as questions became more specific. What he initially described as a routine discovery of suspected contraband became increasingly difficult to reconcile with the sequence of actions reported by Marcus.
The physical struggle also required examination. The question was not simply whether two men had fought beside a car, but how the confrontation had begun, whether the officer's actions were justified, and whether the official account accurately represented the events.
Those questions could not be answered by confidence alone.
Miller was temporarily removed from his ordinary duties while the review proceeded, consistent with the department's procedures. He was instructed to cooperate with the inquiry and refrain from interfering with potential witnesses.
For a man who had spent years directing encounters, the change was humiliating.
He now had to wait for other people to review his decisions.
He could not determine which questions would be asked, which records would be examined, or how the inconsistencies in his account would be interpreted. The same procedures he had used to control others were now being applied to his own conduct.
At first, Miller responded with anger.
He complained to colleagues that he was being treated unfairly. He insisted that the investigator had provoked him and that the department was allowing an internal dispute to become a public embarrassment.
Some people listened sympathetically.
Others were less willing to accept his explanation.
One officer who had previously worked with Miller remembered a complaint involving an aggressive stop several months earlier. Another recalled being asked to approve paperwork that had seemed incomplete at the time. A third remembered hearing Miller boast that people rarely challenged his reports because they knew the process would be too exhausting.
These recollections did not automatically establish wrongdoing. Each had to be assessed independently, and investigators had to distinguish firsthand knowledge from rumor.
But they provided leads that could be examined.
As the review continued, the inquiry expanded beyond the single encounter.
Investigators looked for patterns in Miller's reports, focusing on incidents where the circumstances appeared inconsistent or where complaints had raised similar concerns. They reviewed available documentation and sought additional information from people who had interacted with him during previous stops.
The process took time.
Some witnesses were reluctant to speak. Others worried about the consequences of making allegations against an officer who had once held authority over them. A few remembered only fragments of earlier encounters and could not provide enough detail to support firm conclusions.
Nevertheless, the inquiry began to reveal why several people had questioned Miller's conduct.
The concerns were not all identical, but certain themes appeared repeatedly: searches that were difficult to justify, reports that omitted important details, and interactions in which people felt threatened after asking ordinary questions.
The evidence had to be evaluated carefully.
A complaint was not proof of misconduct, and an allegation could not be treated as established simply because it resembled another allegation. Investigators needed corroboration, reliable records, and a clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding each incident.
Marcus insisted on that standard.
He did not want the inquiry to become a personal campaign against Miller. He wanted a process capable of distinguishing proven misconduct from unsupported claims and ensuring that any findings were based on the available evidence.
That approach sometimes frustrated people who wanted immediate results.
Some colleagues wanted Miller dismissed before the review had been completed. Others argued that the department should defend him until every allegation had been conclusively established.
Marcus rejected both extremes.
MARCUS VANCE: "The point is not to decide what we want the answer to be. The point is to establish what happened."
That principle guided the inquiry as it moved forward.
Meanwhile, Miller's confidence began to erode.
He had initially believed that the investigation would fade once the immediate attention passed. He assumed that colleagues would support him, that the witness's recording would prove inconclusive, and that the absence of a large public audience would make the incident easier to dismiss.
But the questions continued.
He was asked to explain the original reason for the stop, the circumstances in which the packet had appeared, and the sequence of movements that led to the physical confrontation.
Each time, he found himself returning to the same defensive explanations.
The man had been suspicious.
The encounter had escalated.
The situation had become confusing.
None of those statements adequately explained why Miller had chosen to create evidence rather than investigate an actual offense.
The more he attempted to avoid that question, the more central it became.
One afternoon, Miller sat alone in a small office while a supervisor reviewed the preliminary findings with him. The room was plain, with a desk, several chairs, and a narrow window overlooking the station's parking area.