But the review of the dispatch system did not end the investigation into Daniel's conduct.
The video evidence remained clear.
He had approached Josephine without confirming that she was Maya Reynolds.
He had continued the confrontation after she denied being the person he sought.
He had used force without an established immediate threat.
And he had continued shouting after the first strike.
Those actions had to be considered independently.
When Rebecca presented the preliminary findings to the review panel, she made the distinction explicit.
REBECCA SHAW:
"The available evidence supports the conclusion that the dispatch information was incomplete and had not incorporated an important attendance update. We have not established that the discrepancy was deliberate."
One panel member looked through the documents.
PANEL MEMBER:
"Does the discrepancy explain why Officer Reed identified Judge Carter as Maya Reynolds?"
REBECCA SHAW:
"It helps explain the assignment he believed he was carrying out. It does not establish that Judge Carter was the correct person, and it does not explain why he failed to verify her identity when she denied being Maya."
Another member examined the video summary.
PANEL MEMBER:
"And the use of force?"
REBECCA SHAW:
"The recordings and witness statements establish that Officer Reed struck Judge Carter. His own account acknowledges the strike. The available evidence does not indicate that she struck him first or presented an immediate physical threat before the incident."
The panel reviewed the timeline.
They examined the dispatch entry, the attendance update, the witness statements, and the sequence captured by the cameras.
They did not treat the administrative error as proof that Daniel had acted appropriately.
Nor did they assume that the error had been intentional.
Instead, they identified two related but distinct matters: the failure to communicate accurate information and the officer's decisions during the confrontation.
Both required a response.
The preliminary review was then referred to the appropriate departmental process for consideration of Daniel's conduct, while the courthouse administration began implementing changes to its communication procedures.
The changes were practical rather than dramatic.
The courthouse would require clearer documentation when an attendance issue was passed to an officer.
Relevant updates would need to be checked before a person was approached on the basis of an unresolved status.
Officers would be reminded to distinguish a person's refusal to answer an unclear question from evidence that the person was the subject of an investigation.
The incident also prompted a review of how complaints involving courthouse personnel and outside officers were documented.
Elaine Porter circulated the revised procedures to the appropriate staff.
She made clear that the new requirements were intended to reduce confusion, preserve evidence, and ensure that the people involved in an incident could be identified and heard.
Meanwhile, Daniel was informed that the review of his conduct would continue through the applicable departmental process.
He was not given a promise that an apology would resolve the matter.
He was not told that the inaccurate dispatch information would automatically excuse his actions.
He was informed that the evidence would be assessed according to the relevant rules and that he would have an opportunity to respond through the established procedure.
For the first time, he began to understand that his future would be shaped not by the explanation he preferred, but by the facts that could be established.
He requested another opportunity to provide a statement.
The request was accepted, subject to the investigation's procedures.
During that interview, Daniel no longer tried to argue that Josephine had caused the confrontation.
He acknowledged that she had denied being Maya Reynolds and that he had not independently verified the identification.
He acknowledged that she had told him not to touch her.
He acknowledged that he had struck her.
And he acknowledged that he had continued shouting after the strike.
DANIEL REED:
"I made assumptions, and I acted on them before checking whether they were true."
The investigator listened.
DANIEL REED:
"I was angry because I thought she was refusing to cooperate. I let that anger determine how I treated her."
REBECCA SHAW:
"Do you accept that you were responsible for your own decisions during the encounter?"
DANIEL REED:
"Yes."
REBECCA SHAW:
"Do you accept that the incomplete assignment information did not require you to use force?"
DANIEL REED:
"Yes."
REBECCA SHAW:
"Is there anything else you wish to correct or clarify in your previous account?"
Daniel paused.
DANIEL REED:
"I said that I was sorry I didn't know she was a judge. That wasn't the right way to describe what happened. I should not have treated her that way regardless of who she was."