Not every complaint could be connected to Cole or Pike. Some had occurred before either officer joined the department. Others lacked enough evidence for a firm conclusion.
The board members repeatedly emphasized that allegations had to be examined individually.
Still, the number of complaints raised questions about how the department tracked property and how it reviewed allegations against officers.
One board member asked why so many complaints had been closed without a documented interview with the person who filed them.
Another asked whether supervisors had compared complaint records across different officers and shifts.
The department's representative said procedures had existed but acknowledged that the system could be improved.
Walter listened without satisfaction.
Procedures had existed.
Yet Denise had borrowed rent money.
Harold had spent months searching for tools he believed were taken.
Walter had lost three thousand dollars and been told that perhaps he was confused.
The hearing did not end with dramatic arrests or a sudden confession.
It ended with a list of questions, a commitment to review the records, and a promise to issue recommendations.
It was not enough.
But it was more than silence.
The following week, the investigation produced its most important discovery.
A records analyst reviewing the department's property database noticed that several cash-seizure entries had been modified after the initial reports were submitted.
In some cases, the changes were minor: a corrected date, a missing signature, or a revised description.
In others, the original entry had listed cash as recovered property, while a later version described the amount as unclaimed or not received.
The modifications did not automatically prove theft. Records could be corrected for legitimate reasons, and investigators needed to determine who made each change and why.
But the pattern justified a closer examination.
The analyst compared the database with bank deposit records, evidence-room logs, and the reports associated with the complaints.
Several entries could not be reconciled.
In one case, an officer had recorded receiving $1,200 from a driver, but the evidence-room log showed no corresponding deposit.
In another, a report referred to a cash envelope that did not appear in the property inventory.
The case involving Walter was particularly troubling because Cole's report stated that no cash had been taken, even though the recording appeared to show him holding the money.
Investigators requested access to the database's audit history.
The department's system retained information about user accounts, timestamps, and revisions.
The records showed that some changes had been made from terminals assigned to the same patrol district.
Others had been made under supervisory credentials.
That raised the possibility that the problem extended beyond one officer.
It did not yet establish who was responsible.
Sarah called Walter as soon as she learned of the discovery.
“The investigation has identified inconsistencies in several property records,” she explained. “The authorities are examining them now.”
“Does that mean Cole stole from other people?”
“It means there are records that need to be explained. We cannot say more until the investigation establishes what happened.”
Walter nodded, though Sarah could not see him.
“I'm trying to be patient.”
“I know.”
“It's just hard to hear that there may be other people and still not know whether anyone will answer for it.”
“That is understandable.”
Walter looked out the kitchen window.
“What happens if they find that someone changed the records?”
“Then the investigators will determine whether the changes were authorized, whether they were made to conceal misconduct, and who was responsible. Depending on the findings, there could be disciplinary action or criminal referrals.”
Walter thanked her and ended the call.
He walked outside and sat on the porch.
The air smelled of damp leaves.
For a moment, he remembered being nineteen, sitting beside a friend who had been wounded during a patrol. The young man had been frightened, angry, and certain that no one would come for them.
Walter had promised him that help was on the way.
At the time, he had not known whether it was true.
He had said it because the other man needed something to hold on to.
Now Walter wondered whether he had made a similar promise to Denise and Harold without meaning to.
He had told them to speak.
He had told them that the truth mattered.
He hoped the system would prove him right.
The following Monday, Officer Pike requested a meeting with investigators through his attorney.
He said he wanted to clarify his role in the traffic stop.
The meeting took place behind closed doors.
Afterward, Pike's attorney issued a brief statement saying that his client had cooperated and denied participating in any theft or cover-up.
No additional details were released.