Neither would be permitted to answer questions they could not actually prove.
The credential fragments lay inside a clear protective enclosure on the hearing room's evidence table.
Naomi had seen photographs of them many times. Seeing the pieces themselves brought back the sound against the counter edge.
She kept her hands folded while department counsel established the exhibit.
The employment hearing officer, retired administrative judge Helen Mercer, explained the scope and standard governing the dismissal appeal. She would decide the employment issues, not the criminal charges still pending elsewhere.
Rusk sat beside her lawyer without the uniform she had worn in the lobby.
Her civilian jacket did not make her look less recognizable to Naomi.
It made the absence of the counter, the desk, and the employees waiting for her decision more obvious.
Eli testified about the appointment match and callback instruction. He described Rusk taking the insert, damaging it, directing him to enter unverified identity as the denial reason, and pressing the receiver down.
Counsel asked whether he had felt pressured by the federal agent.
“She wanted the written process completed.”
“That wasn't my question.”
“I felt pressure from both the situation and the lieutenant. Agent Reed did not ask me to enter anything false.”
He acknowledged his hesitation and the limits of his view while looking between Naomi, the monitor, and Rusk.
The lobby recording supplied the wider sequence.
One of the civilian witnesses described hearing Rusk challenge Naomi's presence before asking for a meaningful verification. Counsel tested the witness's distance, attention, and memory. She acknowledged looking down at her claim ticket during part of the argument. The hearing officer noted the limit rather than discarding the rest of her account. Naomi listened from the witness area, reminded that a person could miss something without missing everything.
It showed the effort required to split the laminate and tear the insert. It showed Naomi's hands, her position in the public lobby, and Rusk moving behind the counter to stop the call.
There was no physical attempt by Naomi to enter the secure corridor.
Rusk's account had suggested otherwise.
When Naomi took the oath, she described the scope of the visit and the difference between identity confirmation and access authority. She did not claim the appointment entitled her to disregard the station's lawful controls.
On cross-examination, Rusk's attorney asked whether credential fraud existed.
“Yes.”
“Could a supervisor question a document even if a visitor appointment appeared in a system?”
“Yes.”
“Then Lieutenant Rusk had reason to conduct additional checks.”
“She had available checks. She prevented one from being completed.”
He asked whether Naomi's tone had sounded demanding.
“I was precise. I cannot tell you how every person heard it.”
“Did you tell her she had destroyed federal identification?”
“Yes.”
“Did that escalate the exchange?”
“It described what had already happened.”
The hearing officer stopped an interruption from the gallery.
Naomi answered questions about why she did not retrieve the pieces immediately, why she remained in the lobby, and who she called. She identified each decision without presenting calmness as evidence that she had felt safe.
Rusk testified that she distrusted the insert's appearance and believed Naomi was attempting to pressure a junior officer into bypassing local control.
Department counsel asked what she did to verify that belief.
She had not called the coordinator.
She had not called the approved contact.
She had not asked the chief before damaging the document.
She had seen the appointment match and heard Eli describe the callback requirement.
Her attorney argued that an error in judgment should not erase eighteen years of service.
The employment record included commendations and difficult assignments Rusk had handled well. Department counsel did not pretend those entries were invented. The hearing officer considered them alongside the current conduct. Naomi found it harder to listen to the genuine praise than the excuses, because it required accepting that someone could perform honorable work and still choose to abuse the authority earned through it.
Counsel returned to the repeated choices after the initial doubt: the tearing, the false denial reason, the interrupted call, and the inaccurate description of attempted secure access.
Mercer took the matter under consideration rather than announce a decision to satisfy the cameras outside.
A written ruling later upheld the dismissal on the established employment grounds. It also directed attention to supervisory and system failures within the appropriate separate reviews.
Naomi read the ruling at her desk, then set it beside the criminal case calendar.
One process had reached a conclusion.