However, investigators still needed to determine whether Reeves had personally authorized the changes or whether another employee had used his account.
The digital audit history became central to that question.
The technical team examined the workstation associated with the supervisory account.
They identified the time the system had been accessed and compared it with the captain's schedule.
They also reviewed the department's internal messages.
The findings showed that the account had been used during a period when Reeves was present in the command office.
The investigation also identified a message sent from the same office to Laura Mitchell shortly before the dispatch record was modified.
The message instructed her to add the allegation about illegal materials.
Reeves was interviewed again.
This time, investigators presented the complete timeline.
Investigator: "Captain, the account associated with your office accessed the dispatch record before the additional allegation was entered."
Reeves: "Several people had access to that office."
Investigator: "The instruction to Laura Mitchell also came from the same account."
Reeves: "I don't remember sending it."
Investigator: "Did you know that the allegation about illegal materials had not been independently verified?"
Reeves: "I believed the information had come from a reliable source."
Investigator: "Who was that source?"
Reeves did not answer.
The investigator continued.
Investigator: "Did you speak with Victor Hale about the Hayes property?"
Reeves: "I speak with many local business owners."
Investigator: "Did you know Daniel Price was communicating with Officer Cross before the traffic stop?"
Reeves: "No."
The investigator placed another record on the table.
It showed a call between Reeves and Price shortly before the stop.
Reeves studied it.
Captain Thomas Reeves: "I can't explain every call on my phone."
Investigator: "We are asking you to explain this one."
Reeves requested a break.
After the interview resumed, he continued denying that he had knowingly arranged a false traffic stop.
He admitted that he had reviewed the dispatch entry but claimed that he believed the information was legitimate.
The investigators did not accept or reject his explanation immediately.
They referred the evidence for formal review.
The department announced that Reeves would remain removed from supervisory duties while the process continued.
Grant Cross faced separate disciplinary proceedings concerning his conduct during the traffic stop.
The evidence showed that he had pointed a handgun at Victoria while she was complying with his instructions.
The recording also showed that he had failed to provide a clear explanation for the stop.
The original dispatch record contradicted the later allegation he had used to justify his actions.
His own statement confirmed that he had received information from someone connected to the development company without independently verifying it.
The matter was referred to the appropriate legal authorities for consideration.
The department also began reviewing other complaints involving Cross.
Several residents came forward with accounts of aggressive traffic stops and questionable reports.
Investigators examined those complaints separately to determine whether they were supported by evidence.
The review was not limited to one officer.
The department introduced temporary restrictions on access to its reporting system and required supervisors to document the source of significant criminal allegations.
It also announced a review of its complaint-handling procedures.
Employees were instructed that official records could not be modified without a clear explanation, supporting information, and an identifiable source.
The changes were intended to prevent the type of record manipulation that had complicated the Hayes case.
But the investigation into Victor Hale's company was still developing.
The eleven-property spreadsheet had identified several other families who had refused to sell.
Investigators contacted the owners and asked whether they had experienced unusual pressure.
Some declined to participate.
Others agreed to provide documents.
One family reported receiving repeated inspections after rejecting a purchase offer.
Another had received letters suggesting that future approvals could become difficult if negotiations did not progress.
A third family said that a contractor had visited their home and made comments about their financial situation that seemed unusually personal.
The experiences were not identical.
Investigators examined each account independently.
They did not assume that every inspection or regulatory notice was improper. Some might have been legitimate. Others required closer examination.
However, the similarities justified a broader review of the development company's practices.
Rachel Morgan provided additional emails that helped explain how the company tracked owners who resisted selling.
One message described certain properties as obstacles to the next stage of the project.
Another discussed the need to coordinate with local contacts.