Nia gave the approximate time.
“Where were you when you read it?”
“Near the security desk.”
“Did you read the entire message?”
“Yes.”
“Did the message identify Judge Amara Williams?”
“No.”
“Did it contain a photograph that you used to identify her?”
“No.”
“Did it instruct you to arrest or physically restrain anyone?”
“No.”
Price paused before continuing.
“What did it instruct you to do?”
Nia looked at the page in front of her.
“It said to remain alert and verify information if someone matching the description appeared.”
“What did you do to verify the information?”
“I didn't contact the case desk before approaching Judge Williams.”
“Why not?”
Nia struggled to find an answer that did not sound like an excuse.
“I thought I had enough information to make the stop.”
“What information, specifically?”
“I remembered the reference to Maya Reynolds and a woman who might be connected to the case.”
“Did you have a full description?”
“No.”
“Did you know whether Maya Reynolds was expected to be in that hallway?”
“No.”
“Did you know whether the person you were looking for had an appointment that morning?”
“No.”
“Did you know whether there was an active warrant?”
“No.”
Price allowed a moment of silence.
“Then what made you believe that Judge Williams was the person described in the message?”
Nia looked down.
“She was a woman walking through the area with papers. I thought she might be connected to the matter.”
“Many people walk through this courthouse carrying papers,” Price replied. “What made her different from anyone else?”
Nia had no specific answer.
The question exposed the weakness at the center of her decision. She had not relied on a verified match. She had relied on a vague impression and then allowed that impression to determine how she treated another person.
Price continued.
“Did Judge Williams refuse a lawful instruction?”
“I told her to stop.”
“She stopped, according to the footage. What happened after that?”
“She asked why I was stopping her.”
“Was asking for an explanation the same as refusing to comply?”
Nia hesitated.
“No.”
“Did she attempt to leave after you told her to stop?”
“No.”
“Did she physically threaten you?”
“No.”
“Did she attempt to strike you?”
“No.”
“Then why did you grab her hair?”
Nia's hands tightened together on the table.
“I became frustrated. I thought she was challenging me, and I wanted to regain control of the situation.”
Price's expression remained serious.
“An officer's frustration is not a justification for using force.”
“I know that now.”
“You are expected to know it before an incident occurs.”
Nia looked up, then quickly lowered her eyes again.
The interview continued for more than an hour. The reviewers asked her to describe the encounter from beginning to end, including her tone, the words she remembered using, and the moment she reached for Amara's hair. They showed her selected portions of the camera footage and asked her to explain what she had seen.
The recording left little room for uncertainty about the physical sequence.
Amara had stopped when Nia blocked her path. She had asked a question. Nia had responded with more forceful commands. When Amara continued asking for an explanation, Nia reached toward the back of her head and pulled her backward.
The papers fell.
Amara stumbled.
The witnesses reacted.
There was no visible threat from Amara that explained the action.
“Is there anything in this recording that you believe supports your claim that you needed to use physical force?” Price asked.
Nia watched the screen.
“No.”
“Is there anything you would like to correct in your original statement?”
Nia took a long breath.
“I wrote that I was trying to gain compliance. I want to clarify that she wasn't physically resisting me. I became angry because she questioned why I was stopping her.”
Price made a note.
“That clarification will be included.”
Nia's voice became quieter.
“I should have asked for identification. I should have checked the information. I shouldn't have touched her.”
“Those are important acknowledgments,” Price said. “But the review will consider your conduct, not simply what you now recognize after the fact.”
The interview ended without a final disciplinary decision. Nia was informed that the evidence would be assessed alongside departmental rules, previous training records, and any relevant history of complaints or incidents. She was instructed to remain available for follow-up questions.