They weren't supposed to believe him because of his uniform.
They were supposed to examine the evidence.
And for once, that was what happened.
Lieutenant Halden's case was different.
The review found that he had approved complaint-classification guidance that was inconsistent with the department's obligation to assess misconduct allegations properly. It also identified instances in which his supervisory reviews lacked sufficient documentation and failed to distinguish officer statements from independently established facts.
But determining why he acted that way was more complicated.
Halden argued that he was implementing an administrative efficiency initiative approved under previous leadership.
He claimed that he believed the department needed a way to handle routine service concerns without assigning a formal investigator to every unhappy citizen.
That was not an unreasonable goal in itself.
Public agencies receive complaints ranging from serious misconduct allegations to simple questions about service or communication.
A responsible system needs to distinguish them.
The problem was that Halden's guidance had allowed complaints alleging misconduct to be diverted into categories that avoided appropriate examination.
Investigators also found that he had received warnings about the risk.
Teresa had documented questions.
Another employee had requested clarification after a complaint involving an alleged improper search was closed informally.
And the county's previous legal adviser had suggested revising the guidance to ensure that specific allegations weren't screened out without sufficient review.
Those concerns had not resulted in meaningful changes.
The independent reviewers concluded that Halden bore supervisory responsibility for serious procedural failures.
He was removed from complaint oversight duties and faced disciplinary proceedings under the department's employment rules.
He eventually chose to leave the agency during the broader administrative process.
His departure didn't erase the need to examine the cases affected by his decisions.
And I didn't claim that every improper classification had been personally ordered by him.
The records supported a more complex conclusion.
A flawed system had rewarded superficial reductions in formal complaints, and several supervisors had learned to work within that system rather than question whether it was fair.
That was precisely why the reforms couldn't depend on replacing one lieutenant.
The structure had to change.
Bennett's case required a more difficult conversation.
The independent investigators recognized that he had provided truthful testimony about my stop, opposed the use of force while it was happening, and helped preserve evidence. He had also made an earlier admission that he allowed a report to be changed in a way that created a misleading description of a different encounter.
That conduct couldn't simply be ignored because he later acted courageously.