But multiple videos showed her keeping her hands visible, offering the receipt, and asking that the transaction be checked.
The recordings showed his hand striking the grocery bag.
They showed him gripping her wrist.
And they showed the forceful contact with the SUV.
They did not support his description of an aggressive suspect fighting to escape.
The third problem was the security alert itself.
Cole insisted he had relied on information supplied by the store.
That was partly true.
He had received a report.
But a report was not proof.
The officer still had a responsibility to assess the facts available to him.
The receipt.
The cashier.
The completed transaction.
And the woman's conduct.
He ignored or dismissed those facts.
The police department's review found that his actions were not justified by the circumstances established in the evidence.
Cole was placed on administrative leave pending the formal disciplinary process.
He hired an attorney.
He denied intentionally discriminating against the judge.
He claimed the retail-security system had misled him.
And he argued that the presence of an apparently valid fraud report gave him reasonable grounds to investigate.
His attorney emphasized that officers were permitted to rely on information supplied by complainants when that reliance was reasonable.
The investigators acknowledged the general principle.
But they also examined what happened after the officer arrived.
A lawful investigation did not authorize unnecessary force.
An accusation did not eliminate the need to consider contradictory evidence.
And an officer's belief that a person was disrespectful did not justify grabbing, shoving, or handcuffing that person without an appropriate legal basis.
Cole was forced to confront the difference between being misled into an encounter and choosing how to behave during it.
That distinction would define the disciplinary findings.
The department also examined his relationship with the private retail-security contractor.
Records showed that Cole had performed approved off-duty assignments through companies connected to the partnership.
Those assignments did not by themselves prove wrongdoing.
But investigators identified communications suggesting that certain officers were encouraged to treat contractor-generated alerts as high priority.
The company rewarded stores for documented interventions and promoted the volume of police contacts as evidence of effectiveness.
Officers who worked closely with the program developed informal relationships with security supervisors.
Some began trusting the system more than the evidence available at the scene.
Cole was among them.
He had received repeated alerts through the same network.
He knew several contractor employees.