Reynolds appeared uncomfortable.
Lieutenant Reynolds: "I believed the complaints had been handled individually. Some were not substantiated, and I thought the issue had been addressed through conversations."
Chief Whitaker: "Where are the records of those conversations?"
Lieutenant Reynolds: "Not all of them were documented."
Chief Whitaker: "Then we have no reliable way to establish what corrective action was taken."
Reynolds remained silent.
Captain Brooks opened the disciplinary recommendation.
Captain Brooks: "For the current incident, the evidence supports serious policy violations. Brooks used physical force against a person who was not threatening him, failed to maintain professional conduct, and submitted an account that did not accurately describe important parts of the encounter."
Chief Whitaker: "What is the recommendation?"
Captain Brooks: "Termination, subject to the required disciplinary process."
Chief Whitaker nodded.
Chief Whitaker: "And the supervisory findings?"
Daniel Mercer: "The review supports formal disciplinary action against Lieutenant Reynolds for inadequate oversight and failure to ensure that several complaints received appropriate follow-up."
Chief Whitaker: "What changes do you recommend?"
Mercer opened his report.
Daniel Mercer: "First, the department needs a centralized system that identifies repeated complaints involving the same officer. Second, supervisors must document the evidence they considered before closing a complaint. Third, allegations involving physical contact must receive a separate review. Fourth, available video evidence must be preserved and requested promptly. Finally, the department needs periodic independent audits."
Chief Whitaker listened carefully.
Chief Whitaker: "I want those recommendations turned into an implementation plan. We will not announce reforms and then leave them on paper."
The command staff agreed to proceed.
Officer Brooks was formally notified that the investigation had substantiated the central allegations.
He received the opportunity to review the findings and submit a written response.
In his response, he argued that he had been trying to maintain control of a difficult encounter. He stated that he had interpreted Naomi's questions as a challenge to his authority and had reacted under pressure.
The disciplinary panel considered his response alongside the body camera recording, the shopping center footage, the witness statements, and his interview.
The evidence showed that Naomi had not threatened him, attempted to strike him, or physically attacked him.
It also showed that Brooks had no specific report identifying her or her vehicle as connected to a crime.
The panel concluded that his actions violated department policy.
The panel also found that his written description of the encounter did not accurately reflect the sequence of events.
After the required review, the department recommended termination.
Brooks was dismissed from the police department.
The decision was not based on Naomi's judicial position. It was based on the evidence and the department's findings concerning his conduct.
Lieutenant Reynolds received a separate disciplinary notice. His failure to ensure that earlier complaints were properly documented and reviewed resulted in formal discipline and removal from supervisory responsibility.
The department also reviewed the conduct of other supervisors who had approved incomplete complaint closures.
For Chief Whitaker, however, removing two employees was not enough.
He knew that the same failures could occur again if the underlying procedures remained unchanged.
The department therefore introduced a comprehensive accountability program.
The first reform required supervisors to review complaints involving similar allegations together. A new internal system would identify repeated concerns relating to the same officer, including allegations that had not been substantiated.
The purpose was not to treat every complaint as proof of misconduct. It was to ensure that recurring issues were not overlooked simply because each report had been handled separately.
The second reform introduced mandatory evidence-preservation checks.
Whenever a complaint involved physical force, threats, or a disputed police encounter, investigators would have to identify all available recordings and document whether they had been requested.
The third reform required supervisors to provide written reasons when closing complaints without contacting identified witnesses or requesting available video evidence.
The fourth created an independent audit process for cases involving repeated allegations against the same employee.
The fifth required officers to complete additional training in communication, lawful encounters, de-escalation, and professional conduct.
The department also improved the public complaint process.
People submitting complaints would receive a reference number, written confirmation of evidence received, and information about the next stage of the investigation.
They would also be able to request updates without having to repeatedly contact different offices.
Chief Whitaker announced the changes during a public briefing.