The state investigation moved quickly in its earliest stages, not because the public knew I was an Army CID agent, but because several independent pieces of evidence pointed toward possible criminal conduct.
Lieutenant Brooks had secured Ruth's recording.
Miles's body-camera footage had been preserved through an independent process.
The patrol SUV's dashboard recording was obtained.
The dispatch audio, registration inquiry, and towing communications were collected.
Photographs documented my injuries and the damage to the Phantom.
And the hospital records supported my account of what happened after Garrett forced me onto the pavement.
The evidence didn't depend on a single witness's memory.
It showed the encounter from different angles.
Ruth's phone captured Garrett smashing the windows and threatening her.
Miles's body camera recorded the argument over the registration and the deputy's refusal to accept the valid results.
The dashboard camera showed the initial stop and parts of Garrett's interaction with my driver's door.
Together, those recordings revealed something especially important.
Garrett's later written account did not match what the cameras showed.
He claimed that I had repeatedly reached toward concealed areas of the vehicle and resisted being removed.
The dashboard footage showed me reaching for my seat belt after announcing what I was doing.
He claimed that I threatened him by identifying myself as a federal agent.
The audio showed that I had offered to verify my credentials through official channels.
He claimed that the vehicle was damaged during a necessary search for evidence.
The video showed him striking the windows while shouting accusations about my race and financial circumstances.
And he claimed that Ruth had approached the roadway in a threatening manner.
Her recording showed her standing behind her own fence.
The discrepancies were not minor.
They went to the heart of everything he'd done.
But the question that concerned me most remained unanswered.
Why had he stopped me?
The official patrol log initially described the encounter as a suspicious-vehicle investigation. It didn't identify a speeding violation, broken equipment, traffic infraction, or confirmed stolen-vehicle report. The computer inquiry returned no outstanding theft alert.
When investigators asked Garrett what had attracted his attention, he changed his explanation.
First, he said the car looked unusual.
Then he claimed he had received a general warning about high-end vehicles being stolen in neighboring counties.
Finally, he stated that an unidentified informant had mentioned a similar car.
He could provide no reliable documentation for the warning.
The stop had originated from something else.
And Miles knew it.
Three days after the encounter, the younger deputy sat in an interview room at the state investigation bureau with a lawyer and two investigators.
He had been placed on administrative leave while his role was examined, and he knew that his own choices during the stop would be questioned. He had not intervened immediately when Garrett pulled me from the car. He had allowed the handcuffing to proceed before directly challenging his partner.