There was no corresponding approved off-duty shift.
When investigators confronted the operations manager with the records, he initially claimed the payment was an administrative mistake.
Then they showed him the communication log.
The manager asked for an attorney.
Several days later, through counsel, he agreed to provide information about the instructions he had received.
His account was devastating.
The businessman had wanted pressure placed on Marcus before the municipal contract hearing.
The manager arranged for a noise complaint to be made while the birthday party was underway.
Cole was expected to respond aggressively enough to create an incident that could be used against Marcus.
The manager claimed he never specifically ordered the officer to strike the homeowner.
Investigators examined that distinction carefully.
But the available messages showed that the company anticipated confrontation and hoped it would discredit Marcus.
The chief was furious when she reviewed the verified evidence.
She had known public institutions could become vulnerable to private influence.
But discovering evidence that an officer may have allowed a company to shape his official conduct while receiving money from that company's network was deeply disturbing.
She requested an independent review of the department's outside-employment practices and its relationships with private security contractors.
The internal affairs investigation proceeded separately from the outside inquiry.
Cole was placed on administrative leave.
His body-camera records were examined.
The equipment had not malfunctioned.
The system logs showed manual deactivation before the backyard contact.
And the officer had not reported a technical problem through the normal procedure.
When questioned about the discrepancy, he offered conflicting explanations.
At first, he claimed he'd forgotten to activate the camera.
Then he said it had stopped working.
Then he suggested he believed the call was routine and didn't require recording.
Each explanation raised further questions.
His written report also differed materially from the video.
He had portrayed Marcus as aggressive from the beginning.
He described the shove without accurately documenting the force he used immediately beforehand.
And he omitted the slap.
The evidence did not support his version.
Eventually, Cole admitted that he had been told the homeowner might be difficult.
He claimed he believed the man was dangerous.