The lead investigator examined the electronic log.
Then replayed the relevant body-camera footage.
Grant was standing near the Lexus when the notification sounded.
He glanced toward the patrol computer.
Then continued questioning Naomi.
The investigator watched again.
There was no discussion of the update.
No request to verify the homeowner through the monitoring company.
And no indication that Grant reconsidered his theory.
The analyst contacted Reeves.
He remembered hearing a notification but couldn't recall its contents.
The investigator then interviewed Grant about the update.
He claimed he didn't remember reading it.
That was possible.
But the system log established that the unit acknowledged receiving it.
The evidence didn't prove every thought inside Grant's mind.
It did show that another opportunity to reassess the situation had existed.
And, like the identification case and the neighbor's statements, it hadn't changed his behavior.
The review team reconstructed the encounter minute by minute.
At the beginning, officers had a legitimate reason to investigate an alarm.
Within moments, Naomi identified herself as the homeowner.
She offered a driver's license and property information.
The correct disarm code was entered.
The monitoring service transmitted its update.
Walter independently identified Naomi as the resident.
Reeves suggested verification.
Grant examined the police identification card.
And despite those facts, he continued treating Naomi as someone whose statements couldn't be believed.
The lead investigator presented the timeline to the administrative review panel.
For several seconds, nobody spoke.
Then one member asked whether there was any evidence Naomi had attempted to strike, flee, or threaten the officers.
The investigator shook her head.
"The recordings don't show that."
Another member asked whether Grant could reasonably have misunderstood the badge.
The investigator explained that the identification should have prompted verification regardless of his initial skepticism.
An officer didn't have to accept an unfamiliar badge as genuine simply because someone displayed it.
But dismissing it without checking was different.
The same principle applied to the driver's license, keys, security code, and address information.
The problem wasn't that Grant failed to recognize a celebrity or high-ranking official.
It was that he repeatedly rejected available information while escalating force.
The panel continued reviewing the evidence.
By the time the session ended, the investigators had documented substantial concerns about the detention, the use of force, the failure to verify, and the accuracy of Grant's explanations.
Naomi learned about the monitoring-company update through the independent review's established communication process.
She was sitting at home when her attorney summarized the finding.
For a moment, she stared at the table.
Then she asked for the timestamp.
The attorney gave it.
Naomi closed her eyes.
She remembered hearing the alarm stop.
Remembered offering her identification.