Meanwhile, the department placed Hayes on administrative leave while the investigation continued. The measure was not a finding of guilt. It was intended to prevent potential interference with witnesses and preserve the integrity of the review.
Hayes was furious.
He believed the department was treating him as guilty before he had been given a chance to defend himself. He complained to colleagues that the case had become political because the person he had arrested was the chief.
But the investigators did not change their approach. They continued to collect evidence, compare timelines, and document the reasons for every decision.
Daniel, for his part, avoided discussing the case with officers who were not directly involved in the review. He knew that his position could create pressure even when he did not intend it to. He wanted the investigators to be able to reach conclusions without worrying about whether those conclusions would please him.
At home, he read the initial summary of the incident and considered how close the situation had come to ending differently.
The two responding officers had pointed their weapons at him because they believed they were protecting a fellow officer. They had seen only a fragment of the encounter and had acted on the information available to them. Daniel did not dismiss the seriousness of that moment, but he recognized that their understanding had been shaped by the officer who had called for help.
If Hayes's account had been accepted without further review, Daniel might have faced charges based on a bag he said he had never seen before. The physical struggle might have been described as an unprovoked attack. The witnesses' partial accounts might have been considered insufficient, and the available recordings might never have been examined together.
The chief's title could help bring attention to the case, but it could not become the reason the case mattered.
There were countless people who did not have access to senior officials, independent investigators, or the resources to challenge an accusation. Some might have accepted an unfair outcome because they believed there was no point arguing. Others might have struggled for months to prove that a report was inaccurate.
Daniel could not know how many such people had encountered similar situations. But he knew that the department had a responsibility to make its procedures reliable enough that a person's innocence did not depend on status, wealth, or personal connections.
That responsibility was larger than his own case.
Several weeks after the incident, Mercer completed the main evidentiary review and submitted her findings to the appropriate authorities. The report identified substantial inconsistencies between Hayes's written account and the recorded sequence of events. It also described the evidence suggesting that the bag had been placed in Daniel's jacket before Hayes announced that he had discovered it.
The report did not rely solely on Daniel's statement. It incorporated the body-camera footage, the park security recording, the civilian video, the witness interviews, the evidence-handling records, and the laboratory analysis.
The combined evidence provided a basis for further action.
The matter was referred to prosecutors, who reviewed whether the evidence supported criminal charges involving alleged evidence fabrication and false reporting. The department also initiated its own disciplinary process, separate from the criminal investigation.
Hayes was formally notified that the allegations had advanced beyond an internal preliminary review.
He continued to deny wrongdoing.
OFFICER HAYES: "I did my job. I stopped someone I believed was carrying drugs, and he attacked me. That's all that happened."
INVESTIGATOR MERCER: "Your account has been compared with the available recordings and witness statements. You will have the opportunity to respond through the appropriate process."
OFFICER HAYES: "You are ignoring the fact that he was on top of me when the other officers arrived."
INVESTIGATOR MERCER: "We have not ignored that. The responding officers' observations are included in the report. But they did not witness the beginning of the encounter, and that distinction is important."
OFFICER HAYES: "So you're saying they were wrong to help me?"
INVESTIGATOR MERCER: "I'm saying that their observations cannot establish what happened before they arrived. The investigation must account for the entire sequence."
Hayes had no immediate answer.
For the first time, the part of the incident he had relied on most heavily—the moment the other officers saw him on the ground—was no longer being treated as proof of the entire story.
The prosecutors proceeded with the case after reviewing the evidence and determining that the allegations warranted formal charges. Hayes was accused of fabricating evidence and making false statements in connection with the encounter. He entered a plea of not guilty and retained legal representation.
The case would be decided through the legal process, not by Daniel's personal judgment.