ETHAN WALKER: "I answered your questions. You planted evidence and attacked me."
OFFICER MICHAEL HAYES: "You fought back."
ETHAN WALKER: "I defended myself."
OFFICER MICHAEL HAYES: "You made me look like a criminal."
Ethan paused before answering.
ETHAN WALKER: "I didn't make you do anything, Michael. I didn't put the bag in my own pocket. I didn't grab my own jacket. And I didn't throw the first punch."
Michael looked away.
The words left him with no simple response.
He had wanted Ethan to feel responsible for the consequences of the encounter. He had wanted the investigator to believe that resisting intimidation had caused the problem.
But the sequence of events remained unchanged.
Michael had made the initial decision to approach.
He had made the decision to plant the bag.
He had made the decision to use force.
And he had continued to escalate the situation even after Ethan challenged his actions.
Those choices could not be transferred to the person who had been targeted.
Ethan watched as the officers finished documenting the scene.
He knew that the next stage would require patience. The allegation would need to be examined, statements would have to be compared, and the available evidence would need to be assessed independently.
He did not expect the truth to establish itself simply because he had revealed his identity.
Nor did he believe that a single confrontation could resolve every concern surrounding police misconduct.
But he knew that the incident could no longer be ignored.
And that was enough to begin.
In the days that followed, the case moved into a formal investigative process.
Michael was required to provide a detailed account of the encounter. Ethan submitted his statement and answered questions about the events beside the SUV. The bag was preserved for examination, and investigators reviewed the documentation produced by the responding officers.
The investigation also examined the circumstances surrounding the initial approach.
What had prompted Michael to stop and question Ethan?
Was there a specific report or observed behavior that justified the encounter?
Why had the officer's conduct escalated so quickly?
And what evidence supported the claim that the substance had been found in Ethan's pocket?
Michael's first statement described the encounter as a routine stop that had become violent when the civilian refused to cooperate.
He claimed that Ethan had appeared suspicious and that the discovery of the bag had prompted the arrest.
But when investigators asked him to identify the specific behavior that had created reasonable suspicion, his explanation became less precise.
OFFICER MICHAEL HAYES: "He was standing beside a vehicle and watching the street."
INVESTIGATOR: "Was there a report of a crime involving that vehicle?"
OFFICER MICHAEL HAYES: "Not that I recall."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you observe him attempting to enter a vehicle that did not belong to him?"
OFFICER MICHAEL HAYES: "No."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you observe him damaging property, threatening anyone, or engaging in an illegal act before you approached?"
Michael hesitated.
OFFICER MICHAEL HAYES: "No."
INVESTIGATOR: "Then explain why you believed the encounter required the actions you took."
Michael shifted in his chair.
He attempted to describe his experience and his general awareness of the area, but the explanation did not establish a clear reason for the escalation that followed.
The investigators continued.
They examined his account of the supposed discovery and compared it with Ethan's statement.
They asked Michael to explain how the bag had entered the jacket pocket and why the interaction had immediately become confrontational.
They examined the officer's use of force and the claim that Ethan had initiated the fight.
Michael maintained that he had acted appropriately.
But each answer created further questions.
If the bag had genuinely been discovered during a lawful search, why had the circumstances of that search not been explained clearly?
If Ethan had attacked first, what supported that sequence of events?
If Michael's actions had been necessary to control a dangerous suspect, what evidence showed that Ethan had posed such a threat before the officer used force?
The investigation did not assume that Michael was guilty simply because Ethan worked for Internal Affairs.
It required evidence.
It required consistency.
And it required the same scrutiny to be applied to every account.
That was what made the process difficult for Michael.
He had spent years relying on his authority to establish credibility. Now he had to demonstrate that his account was credible without relying on his badge as proof.