The review panel examined the original records, watched the full footage, and compared the witness statements with Victor's account.
It also examined the communication chain to determine whether any employee had deliberately supplied false information.
The evidence did not establish that Paul Mercer had intentionally misled Victor. The message was incomplete, but it had directed him to verify the information. There was no evidence that anyone had instructed Victor to strike Claire or that anyone had knowingly identified her as Maya Reynolds.
The investigation therefore focused on two distinct failures.
The first was the process by which uncertain case information had been communicated and checked.
The second was Victor's decision to act on an unverified identification and escalate the encounter into physical violence.
The panel concluded that the communication process required improvement. It recommended clearer wording in case coordination messages, more reliable confirmation of attendance information, and a procedure requiring officers to establish the basis for an identification before taking enforcement action.
The panel's findings concerning Victor were more serious.
The footage and witness statements supported Claire's account. His own interview confirmed that he had not verified her identity before stopping her. He had been unable to identify a specific instruction authorizing him to detain her, and the message he relied upon did not provide such authorization.
The review also found that his use of force was not supported by the evidence available from the encounter.
The conclusion was not based on Claire's judicial title.
It was based on what Victor had done, what he knew at the time, what he had failed to verify, and what the recordings showed.
When the preliminary findings were presented to the department's command staff, Lieutenant Walker emphasized that the case required a response that addressed both the immediate misconduct and the weaknesses in the communication process.
LIEUTENANT SUSAN WALKER: "The officer's mistaken identification explains how the encounter began. It does not justify how it ended. The evidence shows that he had opportunities to clarify the situation and chose to escalate instead."
A senior official asked whether Victor's lack of intent to injure Claire should affect the decision.
LIEUTENANT SUSAN WALKER: "His stated intention has been considered. But the decision must also account for the use of force, the absence of a verified basis for the stop, and his failure to respond appropriately when the person he confronted asked for an explanation."
The department began its formal disciplinary process.
Victor was notified of the findings and given the opportunity to respond under the established procedures. He submitted a statement acknowledging that he had failed to verify Claire's identity and that his conduct had escalated beyond what the situation warranted.
He continued to argue that he had not intended to cause harm.
But his statement also acknowledged that he should have paused, asked for identification, and confirmed the case information before taking further action.
The department considered his response alongside the evidence.
The final determination was that Victor had violated policy governing professional conduct and the use of force. The department removed him from his courthouse assignment and imposed formal disciplinary action following the required review.
Additional conditions were placed on his return to duties, including a requirement to complete further training and demonstrate compliance with identification and use-of-force procedures before being considered for an assignment involving similar responsibilities.
The decision did not erase the incident, nor did it mean that every question about Victor's judgment had been resolved. It established the department's response to the conduct supported by the evidence.
The communication process was also revised.
Case coordination messages that involved uncertain attendance or identity information would need to state clearly whether the information had been verified. Officers receiving incomplete information would be expected to confirm the relevant details before taking enforcement action.
The courthouse administration and the department agreed to improve the way attendance records were shared with authorized personnel. They also established a clearer process for escalating unresolved identification questions without treating uncertainty as proof of wrongdoing.
The changes were practical rather than dramatic.
They did not promise that mistakes would never happen again.
They were intended to make it more difficult for an uncertain assumption to become the basis for an unjustified confrontation.
Several weeks after the incident, Claire was asked to attend a meeting with courthouse administrators and representatives from the department. The purpose was to review the changes and consider whether further safeguards were needed.
She arrived carrying a thin folder of her own notes.
The scratch on her cheek had healed, leaving no visible mark. The physical injury had been minor, but she had not forgotten the suddenness of the slap or the way Victor had responded when she asked him to explain his actions.