Director Vale instructed the regional office to preserve the original records and provide the full audit trail. He also requested confirmation from the department responsible for the initial submission.
Agent Cross continued the separate review of Reed's conduct.
She watched the body-camera footage in chronological order, noting the moments when Maya provided her documents, asked why she had been stopped, and was ordered to leave the vehicle. She documented the physical contact, the movement of the conducted-energy weapon, and the statements made by both parties.
She did not assume that the recording answered every question.
Instead, she compared it with the dispatch record, the vehicle's available recording system, and the statements collected at the scene.
The review was methodical.
Each detail was recorded with its source and timestamp. Questions that remained unanswered were listed separately rather than filled with assumptions.
When Reed was interviewed again, he was asked to explain the reason for the stop and the sequence of his actions.
His account differed from Maya's in several places.
He maintained that he had perceived resistance and believed he needed to maintain control. He said that he had drawn the device because he felt threatened.
The investigators recorded his explanation and compared it with the available footage.
They also asked him about the restricted reference.
OFFICER DANIEL REED: "I don't recall seeing anything that would have told me to stop that particular vehicle."
AGENT ELENA CROSS: "The system records access to the reference shortly before the stop. Can you explain that?"
OFFICER DANIEL REED: "I would need to see the complete record before I could answer."
AGENT ELENA CROSS: "You will have the opportunity to review the relevant information through the formal process."
OFFICER DANIEL REED: "Then that's what I want to do."
Cross documented the response.
The investigators did not treat Reed's failure to remember as proof of misconduct. They also did not accept it as a complete explanation. The audit trail would need to establish what information had been accessed, when it had been accessed, and whether the access had been connected to a legitimate duty.
Meanwhile, Maya returned to her ordinary routine as much as she could.
She attended her medical follow-up, kept copies of the documents she had been given, and wrote down the details she remembered from the traffic stop. She saved the messages on her phone and searched her files for the letter from the financial services company.
When she found it, she read it carefully.
The letter described an account that had been associated with her personal information but that she did not recognize. The company had acknowledged her complaint and stated that the matter had been referred for review.
The letter did not mention the FPI or the highway patrol.
It did not prove that the earlier issue was connected to the report.
But it gave the investigators another lead they could verify.
Maya sent a copy through the official channel provided by Agent Cross, keeping the original document for herself.
Several days later, Cross called.
AGENT ELENA CROSS: "Maya, we've received your document. Thank you for preserving it."
MAYA JOHNSON: "Does it explain anything?"
AGENT ELENA CROSS: "Not yet. We're checking whether the reference in the letter has any connection to the record we found."
MAYA JOHNSON: "And the officer?"
AGENT ELENA CROSS: "The use-of-force review is continuing. I can't give you a final conclusion before that process is complete."
MAYA JOHNSON: "I understand."
AGENT ELENA CROSS: "I also want you to know that the record discrepancy is being examined separately. We don't want one issue to influence our assessment of the other."
Maya appreciated the distinction.
She did not want the investigators to decide that Reed had acted improperly merely because a record was suspicious. Nor did she want the record discrepancy to distract them from what had happened to her beside the SUV.
Both matters deserved a careful examination.
As the investigation continued, Director Vale received the full audit trail from the regional system.
The report was more detailed than the preliminary copy.
It listed the original submission, the transfer between offices, and the later access that had drawn the FPI's attention. Several actions had been completed under different accounts, and one entry had been marked as verified without a corresponding authorization in the accessible record.
The information was not yet sufficient to identify a single responsible person.
But it narrowed the investigation.
Vale called Cross into his office.
DIRECTOR THOMAS VALE: "We have the complete timeline now."
AGENT ELENA CROSS: "Does it establish who created the second entry?"