Another asked whether Miller had identified an immediate physical threat.
Brooks said he had not provided a specific factual basis for the force used.
A third asked whether the officer had changed his behavior after seeing Sarah's identification.
Brooks confirmed that the recordings showed a noticeable change.
The panel then examined the earlier complaints.
They did not treat every complaint as proven misconduct.
Instead, they reviewed the evidence available in each case and evaluated the decisions made by the department.
The results were troubling.
Several earlier complaints had not been investigated thoroughly.
In at least two cases, available evidence had not been reviewed before the matter was closed.
The panel also found that the department lacked a consistent procedure for identifying repeated allegations against the same officer.
This failure had allowed separate complaints to remain disconnected.
The panel requested additional time to complete its findings.
Miller was invited to respond through the administrative process.
He maintained that he had been attempting to maintain control during the parking garage encounter.
However, he could not identify a specific action by Sarah that justified the physical force shown in the recordings.
He also struggled to explain why his report described resistance that was not visible on the footage.
The panel adjourned.
For the first time, the department had a complete picture of the incident and a clearer understanding of the earlier complaints.
The question of accountability was no longer limited to one officer.
It also involved the supervisors who had reviewed the complaints and the procedures that had allowed important evidence to go unexamined.
Two weeks after the incident, Sarah received an official letter confirming that the investigation had reached its initial conclusion.
She read it in her chambers.
The letter stated that the evidence supported findings of improper conduct and inaccurate reporting against Miller.
It also stated that the department was proceeding with formal disciplinary action.
A separate review of supervisory decisions had identified failures in complaint handling.
Sarah placed the letter on her desk.
She did not smile.
The outcome was important, but it did not erase what had happened.
Nor did it automatically restore the confidence of the people whose earlier complaints had been ignored.
She knew that real reform would take more than a disciplinary decision.
It would require the department to change how it approached ordinary citizens.
The following day, Police Chief Thomas Whitaker held a press conference.
He stood in front of the department's headquarters with Captain Brooks and representatives from the county administration.
Several reporters were present.
Whitaker began by acknowledging the incident.
"The department has completed an independent review of the parking garage encounter involving Officer Daniel Miller and Judge Sarah Vance. The review found that the officer's actions were inconsistent with departmental standards and that important statements in his written report were not supported by the available recordings."
He paused.
"The department has initiated formal disciplinary proceedings. Officer Miller will remain removed from regular patrol duties while the process is completed."
A reporter raised a hand.
"Does the department believe the officer used unnecessary force?"
Whitaker answered.
"The review found that the physical force was not adequately justified by the evidence available to investigators. The matter has been referred for further consideration by the appropriate authorities."
Another reporter asked about the earlier complaints.
Whitaker looked toward Captain Brooks.
"We also identified weaknesses in how previous complaints were reviewed. Some evidence was not properly considered, and our system did not adequately identify repeated concerns involving the same officer."
"Does that mean the department failed those people?"
Whitaker took a breath.
"Based on what we have learned, there were failures in our complaint review process. We regret that those concerns were not handled with the level of attention they deserved."
The reporter continued.
"Will anyone else be disciplined?"
"The supervisory review is ongoing. We will make decisions based on the evidence and the responsibilities of each person involved."
A final question came from the back.
"Would the department have conducted the same investigation if the woman in the parking garage had not been a federal judge?"
Whitaker paused.
"That is a fair question. Our responsibility is to investigate complaints consistently, regardless of who files them. The earlier records show that we did not always meet that responsibility. We are changing the process to make sure those failures are not repeated."
The press conference ended.
The statement was widely reported.
Some residents welcomed the acknowledgment.
Others remained skeptical.
They wanted to see whether the department would actually change.
Anthony Price watched the press conference from his apartment.
He recognized the officer's name and remembered the day he had filed his complaint.
He called Detective Chen.
"I saw the announcement."
"Yes. The department has made the findings public."
"Does that mean they're looking at my complaint again?"
"Your statement and supporting documents are part of the reopened review."
Price was quiet.
"Thank you for calling me back this time."