“Jordan came back tonight. He said his brother found an old email from the department about a complaint he filed after the stop. He wants to know whether it might be useful to your investigation.”
“Does his brother understand that any information he provides could become part of an official record?”
“I told him you would explain everything before he agreed to anything.”
“That's good. We shouldn't obtain documents or testimony without making sure the person understands the process.”
Ethan hesitated.
“There's something else. Jordan said his brother is afraid the police will retaliate if he talks.”
Marcus closed his eyes briefly.
“Did he explain why?”
“He said the original officer knew where he worked and had mentioned it during the stop. Jordan doesn't know whether that was a threat or just something the officer said. But his brother thinks the complaint disappeared because he complained.”
“Do you know the officer's name?”
“Not yet. I didn't ask Jordan to give me details. I told him not to post anything online or start contacting people. I said the safest thing was to let your office handle it.”
“You did the right thing.”
“I don't want this to become about me,” Ethan continued. “People already think I'm trying to get Officer Brooks fired because the video went viral. That's not what I want.”
“I know.”
“I want the department to investigate what happened. I want people to be able to complain without feeling like they're putting themselves in danger. But I don't want Jordan to become another person whose life gets turned upside down because he tried to do the right thing.”
Marcus understood the concern. Ethan had become the public face of an investigation that was larger than his own encounter. Every new complaint could be interpreted as evidence of a systemic problem, but every complainant was also an individual who deserved protection, accuracy, and a fair process.
“Tell Jordan that his brother can contact us directly if he chooses,” Marcus said. “We won't ask him to take any step before explaining what it means. We'll also discuss how his information can be handled and what protections may be available. I can't promise that participation will be free of difficulty, but I can promise that we will not treat his concern casually.”
“Thank you.”
“Ethan, one more thing. Has anyone contacted you about the investigation outside the official process?”
“Not directly.”
“Has anyone approached you at work or asked you to change your account?”
“No. Why?”
“We're checking whether anyone has attempted to influence witnesses. If something happens, write down what occurred as soon as you can. Include the date, time, place, and the names of anyone who was present. Don't speculate about motives. Just preserve the facts.”
“All right.”
After the call, Marcus entered a note documenting the conversation. He did not label Jordan's brother a witness to misconduct, nor did he connect the potential complaint to Officer Brooks before learning the underlying facts. He recorded only that a potential complainant had expressed concern about retaliation and might be willing to contact the office.
Then he sent a message to the investigator handling the review of Brooks's prior complaints, asking for an update on Samuel Ortiz's case and any related complaints involving alleged failures to review evidence.
The reply arrived the next morning.
Ortiz's complaint had not been the only one closed with limited documentation. Two other complaints involved disputed stops, and both had been marked resolved without a clear record of whether available camera footage had been reviewed. In one case, the closure summary cited an officer's written account but did not identify any witness interviews. In the other, the file contained a request for video footage but no record showing whether the footage had been obtained before it was automatically deleted.
The cases were not identical, and their existence did not establish that Brooks or any other officer had acted improperly in every instance. But they raised a broader question about the department's complaint-review process.
Marcus asked the investigator to create a comparison matrix listing the complaint dates, allegations, evidence available, investigative steps recorded, and reasons for closure. He wanted the same criteria applied to every case.
If the department had followed its procedures, the documentation should show that. If it had not, the gaps should be identifiable.
By midday, the office had begun coordinating two parallel lines of inquiry: the historical investigation into David Carter's death and the contemporary review of complaints involving Officer Brooks and other officers.
They were connected by a common institutional question, but not necessarily by the same people or the same motive.
Marcus was determined not to blur that distinction.
At the center of the historical inquiry was a question that had become increasingly difficult to avoid: why had a witness statement describing an early complaint of chest pain been moved into a restricted administrative file, and why had the official timeline apparently failed to account for the discrepancy?