The first comprehensive review of the recordings lasted nearly four hours.
Investigators assembled the available footage into a synchronized timeline.
They began with the security alarm.
The sensor activation.
The monitoring company's unanswered calls.
The dispatch request.
And the officers' arrival.
The initial response itself wasn't improper.
A residential alarm had activated, and the monitoring company couldn't immediately verify whether the person entering was authorized.
Officers had reason to investigate.
The problems began when Grant approached Naomi.
His body camera showed her standing beside the Lexus with shopping bags nearby.
She identified herself by name.
Stated that she lived there.
And offered multiple ways to confirm ownership.
She did not threaten the officers.
She did not attempt to flee.
She did not strike Grant.
When instructed to keep her hands visible, she raised them.
The review also showed that Grant had access to information contradicting his assumptions.
Naomi pointed toward the mailbox.
Offered her driver's license.
And identified the key fob beside the car.
Reeves suggested verification.
Walter confirmed that she lived there.
Then Grant examined the police identification case.
The footage clearly captured him opening it.
He saw the badge.
Read the card.
And dismissed it as fake without conducting a meaningful verification.
The investigators replayed that moment several times.
It became one of the central facts of the case.
The dispatch records revealed another important discrepancy.
Grant had claimed Naomi matched the description of a suspected shoplifter from an earlier call.
But the original shoplifting report was vague and did not establish a reliable connection to Oakridge Lane.
The reporting store had described a woman wearing dark casual clothing who left the premises before staff confirmed whether anything had been stolen.
No silver Lexus was identified.
No residential address was provided.
And dispatch hadn't instructed officers to connect the two incidents.
Grant created that connection himself.
During the recorded encounter, he told Naomi she was suspected of entering a residence unlawfully.
In a later preliminary report, he referred to a possible shoplifting suspect seeking refuge in the neighborhood.
The investigators examined the timing.
The theory appeared after he'd already decided to treat Naomi as suspicious.
That mattered because it suggested he was using the unrelated call to justify a detention that hadn't been supported by the facts available at the house.
One investigator asked Reeves whether Grant had discussed the shoplifting report before arriving.
The younger officer nodded.
"He said it could be connected."
"Did you believe it was?"
Reeves hesitated.
"Not based on the dispatch information."
The investigator looked toward him.
"Did you say that?"
"Yes."
"And how did he respond?"
Reeves looked down.
"He told me we'd find out when we got there."