Three of those five had involved allegations of unwarranted stop-and-question conduct in the downtown corridor. Two had included witness statements. One had included a photograph.
All seven had been closed at the supervisory level. None had reached Voss's desk.
She sat with that for a moment.
Then she pulled the supervisor signoffs.
Three different names, three different dates, but a consistent pattern in the language used to close each inquiry.
"Insufficient evidence to support formal review."
"Officer's account consistent with department policy."
"Complainant declined further process."
Boilerplate.
The kind of language that closes a door without quite slamming it, that creates the appearance of due diligence without the substance of it.
Voss flagged all seven for full reinvestigation.
By midmorning, her team had located two of the prior complainants.
The first, a rideshare driver named Marcus Webb, had filed his complaint 14 months ago after a stop on the same downtown corridor. He had documented the encounter himself, notes taken immediately afterward, a timestamp, and a description of Clark's conduct that tracked closely with what the videos from the previous afternoon had captured.
He had been told his complaint was under review. He had never heard back.
The second complainant, a delivery driver named Antoine Cellers, had gone further. He had retained a lawyer briefly before the complaint was closed.
His attorney had sent a follow-up letter to the department eight months ago. The letter was in the file.
The response was not.
Voss read both accounts twice.
Then she walked down the hall to her supervisor's office and closed the door behind her.
The conversation was short.
By noon, the investigation had been formally elevated, no longer a routine review, but a structured inquiry with a documented evidentiary record.
That meant it now required notification to the department's legal counsel, the police union, and the mayor's office.
The mayor's office called back within 20 minutes, and Howell didn't ask for details he wasn't entitled to.
He asked one question: whether the process would be allowed to run without interference.
He accepted the answer without elaboration.
Voss respected that.
She had worked enough of these investigations to know the difference between an official who called to protect the institution and one who called to protect the truth.
The calls felt different. They sounded different.
This one sounded like the second kind.
She returned to her desk and opened a new document. At the top, she typed Clark's name, his badge number, and the date.
Below that, she began listing the incidents in chronological order, oldest to newest, building the architecture of a pattern that seven separate supervisors had each chosen, in their own moment, not to see.