The department expanded the review to examine Marcus's earlier reports and complaints.
It was not assumed that every complaint was true. Each record would have to be assessed on its own evidence.
Some involved ordinary disagreements over procedure. Others described encounters in which Marcus had allegedly treated questions as defiance and escalated conversations before establishing the facts.
One complaint came from a shop owner who had said Marcus threatened to arrest him during a licensing inquiry. Another described an incident in which a visitor was ordered to leave a public office without being told why. A third involved an allegation that Marcus had written a report that omitted a witness's explanation.
The complaints had not all resulted in formal findings.
Some had been closed because there was insufficient evidence. Others had been classified as service concerns rather than misconduct allegations.
Investigators did not treat them as proof that Marcus had assaulted Natalie.
Instead, they examined whether the records suggested a pattern that required further review.
They compared the language used in the reports with available recordings and witness statements. They looked at whether supervisors had addressed the concerns and whether Marcus had received guidance about communication, de-escalation, and the use of force.
The results were mixed.
Some incidents had been resolved appropriately. Others had received only brief administrative reviews.
In one case, a supervisor had recommended additional training after noting that Marcus tended to interpret verbal disagreement as resistance.
The recommendation had never been followed by a documented assessment of whether his behavior improved.
That finding troubled Lieutenant Mitchell.
He had known Marcus as an energetic officer who wanted to prove himself. He had sometimes interpreted his intensity as confidence, particularly when Marcus was working in situations that required quick decisions.
But the courthouse incident suggested that confidence had become something more dangerous.
Marcus had treated his own assumptions as facts and then used force to make another person comply with them.
When the evidence challenged his account, he had repeatedly returned to the idea that he was following instructions.
He had not asked why the instructions were vague.
He had not verified them.
He had not considered whether the woman in front of him might have a legitimate reason to be where she was.
And when she fell, he had not immediately shifted his attention from control to her safety.
The department could not ignore those decisions.
Meanwhile, Natalie returned to the courthouse after receiving further medical advice. The bruising on her leg remained painful, and she moved more slowly than usual. She did not cancel the hearings scheduled for the following week, but she adjusted her calendar to allow time for recovery.
News of the incident had begun circulating among courthouse staff.
Some people expressed concern for her. Others wanted to know whether Marcus had been arrested or dismissed. A few asked whether the department would issue a public statement.
Natalie declined to speculate about the outcome.
Natalie Brooks: "The investigation is ongoing. I will not announce a finding before the evidence has been reviewed."
One court employee asked whether she planned to pursue the matter personally.
Natalie Brooks: "The relevant authorities will determine the appropriate process. My responsibility is to provide an accurate account and ensure that the evidence is preserved."
The employee looked surprised.
Court Employee: "But you could probably make sure he never works as an officer again."
Natalie Brooks: "That is not how a fair process should work. The evidence must establish what happened, and the consequences must follow the applicable rules."
Court Employee: "Even after what he did to you?"
Natalie Brooks: "Especially after what he did to me. If I expect the system to protect people from arbitrary decisions, I must be willing to follow the same principle when the decision concerns someone who harmed me."
The employee nodded, though it was clear that the answer had not fully satisfied her.
Natalie understood the frustration.
People wanted an immediate result. They wanted the institution to demonstrate that the incident mattered. They wanted Marcus to face consequences quickly enough that the response would feel equal to the harm.
But an outcome reached through shortcuts could weaken the very principles the court was supposed to uphold.
She would not allow the investigation to become a private contest between a judge and a police officer.
The facts had to be established.
And once they were, the consequences had to be real.
Two weeks after the incident, the investigative team completed its initial evidence review.
The report included the courthouse recordings, the witness statements, Natalie's account, Marcus's interview, the message from Peter Shaw, and the relevant dispatch and assignment records.