The investigator waited.
Finally, he answered.
“Not personally.”
The room became quiet.
Then she asked a question the veteran officer would remember for months.
“Were you supporting a lawful investigation, or were you supporting your friend?”
He looked up sharply.
“That isn't fair.”
The investigator remained still.
“I'm asking about your decision-making.”
The veteran folded his arms.
For several seconds, he said nothing.
Then he answered.
“I was backing my sergeant.”
The investigator made a note.
The officer looked away.
He didn't understand yet that his answer had revealed a serious weakness.
He had chosen a person's authority over the facts required to exercise it.
And in a profession where that distinction could determine whether someone lost property, liberty, or personal safety, the failure mattered.
The lead sergeant was far less cooperative.
He sat with his attorney and refused to answer certain questions while potential criminal exposure was being assessed.
He was entitled to seek legal advice and exercise his rights.
The investigators respected that.
But they also preserved the objective evidence.
His department-issued phone contained an assignment-related message trail.
His radio communications had been logged.
The cruiser's location data established where the unit traveled before the stop.
And records from the police department showed that the sergeant had contacted a number associated with Harborline Recovery shortly before the encounter.
The timing was suspicious.
But the investigators didn't assume every contact was improper.
Officers sometimes communicated with towing contractors for legitimate reasons.
They needed to establish the purpose of the calls.
Then a technical review found something unusual in an unfinished police report.
The sergeant had begun preparing a vehicle inventory form before the stop.
The draft included the custom supercar's identifying information.
It also included a preliminary property description.
One line was particularly revealing.
One silver encrypted storage device — pending recovery.
The document's metadata indicated that the draft existed before the officers searched the vehicle.
The investigator stared at the record.
Then checked the timestamp again.
The sergeant appeared to have expected a specific object.
Not discovered one.
Expected it.
That distinction could be significant.
A properly documented search recorded what was actually found.
This draft anticipated an item that had not been recovered.
The investigator sent the material for further technical and legal review.
Then contacted the financial investigation team.
Because the silver encrypted drive was no longer merely a detail in the CEO's statement.
It was a connection between the officers' conduct and the broader effort to obtain or interfere with the municipal audit.