The investigators also examined the deputy's written report.
They found substantial differences between Vale's account and the recorded sequence.
His report described Marcus moving aggressively toward him.
The video showed Marcus standing near the lawnmower with his hands visible.
His report suggested Marcus initiated physical resistance.
The available footage did not support that description.
And his account omitted the open-handed strike that occurred before the takedown.
The investigators considered whether stress, imperfect memory, or other factors could explain the discrepancies.
But they also examined evidence that Vale knew the dispatch information did not establish any crime and that he had communicated with Summit's owner before the contact.
Those facts raised serious questions about intent.
The investigators submitted their findings to an independent prosecutor.
The prosecutor reviewed the evidence and considered possible charges under the applicable state laws.
Ultimately, charges were filed alleging unlawful assault and official misconduct arising from the use of force, along with a separate allegation concerning the deputy's false statements in official documentation.
Vale was entitled to contest the charges.
He retained counsel.
And he publicly maintained that he believed the encounter was lawful.
His attorney argued that the deputy had responded to a suspicious-person call, encountered a young man who questioned his instructions, and perceived the situation as potentially dangerous.
But the prosecution's position was straightforward.
Questioning an officer did not automatically justify physical force.
A vague suspicious-person report did not establish that Marcus had committed a crime.
And the video evidence did not show an immediate threat that explained the deputy's initial slap.
The case would be decided through legal proceedings, not by online opinion.
Meanwhile, the investigation into Summit Community Protection continued.
Aaron Vale and individuals associated with Cedar Crest Development Partners faced questions about financial arrangements, business communications, and the use of private security reports to pressure property owners.
The evidence suggested that some company representatives had encouraged unnecessary enforcement contacts near properties whose owners resisted acquisition offers.
Investigators also examined undisclosed payments to the deputy's outside consulting business.
Those matters were handled separately from the assault case.
Not every suspicious call constituted a crime.
Not every payment was automatically illegal.
And not every person involved in the redevelopment project had participated in wrongdoing.
But the records established enough concerns for additional legal scrutiny.
The county's redevelopment authorities began reviewing the proposed project.
Several homeowners requested independent advice concerning purchase offers they'd received.
And Cedar Crest's investors demanded explanations for the security contractor's conduct.
The developer's expansion plans slowed.
For months, executives had described the project as inevitable.