The image was clear enough to establish that she was loading shopping bags into the trunk. No other person appeared to be involved.
Brooks entered the frame from the pedestrian walkway.
He approached Naomi and began speaking to her.
The recording showed no emergency, no pursuit, and no visible attempt by Naomi to commit an offense.
Bennett paused the video.
Detective Bennett: "Mark the time when the officer first enters the camera's view."
Evidence Technician: "Recorded."
She continued.
The physical contact was visible from the security camera's angle. Naomi's body moved backward after the strike, and she reached toward her hair after Brooks released her.
The second camera captured several witnesses approaching the area.
The third showed the location of the patrol vehicle.
Bennett requested a combined timeline using the timestamps from all available recordings.
She also asked the evidence technician to identify any gaps between the body camera and the security system.
Detective Bennett: "I want to know whether any part of the encounter is missing from the available footage."
Evidence Technician: "I'll compare the timestamps and report any gaps."
Detective Bennett: "And make sure we preserve the original files separately. The combined timeline is for analysis only."
Evidence Technician: "Understood."
Bennett returned to her office and reviewed the officer's written report.
The report stated that Brooks had approached Naomi after observing suspicious activity near a luxury vehicle. It also suggested that Naomi had become resistant when asked to comply with instructions.
But there was no clear description of what specific activity had prompted the approach.
Bennett highlighted the sentence.
She then opened the department's internal database to check whether Officer Brooks had previously been the subject of complaints.
The search returned several records.
At first, Bennett assumed they were routine administrative entries. Police officers often received complaints during their careers, and a complaint did not automatically establish wrongdoing.
She opened the first record.
It involved a traffic stop from the previous year. The driver had alleged that Brooks used aggressive language after being asked to explain the reason for the stop.
The complaint had been closed without disciplinary action.
Bennett opened the second.
A university student had reported that Brooks threatened to arrest him after he questioned whether he was free to leave during a street encounter.
The complaint had been classified as a communication dispute.
She opened a third record.
This one involved an allegation that Brooks had grabbed a woman's arm during a roadside conversation after she questioned an instruction.
The file contained a short summary but no attached witness statements.
Bennett stopped scrolling.
Detective Bennett: "Where are the original supporting documents?"
The records administrator checked the system.
Records Administrator: "Some of the older files may have been stored in the archive."
Detective Bennett: "Request the complete records. I want the original statements, recordings, supervisory notes, and closure decisions."
Records Administrator: "I'll submit the request."
Bennett continued reviewing the entries.
Another complaint involved a security guard who claimed Brooks had shoved him during a disagreement outside a public building.
Another involved a pedestrian who alleged that Brooks had threatened him for recording an encounter.
There were additional complaints involving aggressive language, unnecessary threats, and disputes over police instructions.
Bennett placed the records in chronological order.
The descriptions were not identical, and she did not assume that every allegation was true. However, several contained similar concerns.
People questioning an instruction.
An officer responding with hostility.
Threats or physical intimidation.
Reports describing the other person as uncooperative or resistant.
She opened another record and noticed that it had been closed without any documented attempt to contact a named witness.
Bennett leaned back.
Detective Bennett: "How many complaints are there in total?"
The administrator checked the database.
Records Administrator: "The initial search has identified nine entries. There may be more in the older archive."
Detective Bennett: "Request the archive search as well."
She returned to the current case file.
The incident at Westbridge was no longer simply a question of whether Brooks had used unnecessary force against Naomi.
The department now had to establish whether previous complaints had been properly examined and whether repeated warning signs had been overlooked.
Bennett knew she needed to proceed carefully.
A history of complaints could provide important context, but it could not replace evidence in the current case.
She prepared a summary for Captain Helen Brooks, the head of the Professional Standards Division.
The following morning, Captain Brooks called her into a meeting.