He described washing the car, hearing Karen's complaint, and lowering the hose before the officers reached him. He described being asked for registration and asking why it was necessary, then the officer grabbing him and forcing him onto the wet hood. He did not speculate about what Voss had been thinking. He explained what he saw, heard, said, and felt, and allowed the recordings to carry the details that memory alone might not preserve.
When Voss's attorney asked whether Jordan had been angry about being questioned in front of his own home, Jordan answered without hesitation. "I was confused at first. I became angry when I realized he was treating a request for an explanation as resistance. But I didn't threaten him, and I didn't refuse to provide a document after he explained why he needed it. I asked him what he was investigating."
"You were aware that you would become his superior two days later?" the attorney asked.
"Yes."
"And you chose not to identify yourself?"
Jordan looked toward the panel. "I told him my name when he asked. I didn't tell him my future job because I didn't believe that job should determine whether I was treated lawfully. I still don't."
Later, the recording from Evelyn's phone played on a large screen. The angle was slightly uneven, filmed across the street from behind a porch railing, and a bird's call briefly competed with the voices. But the important details were clear: Karen pointing toward the vehicle, Jordan holding the hose loosely at his side, Voss stepping into him, and Avery approaching with restraints. The room went quiet when the video reached the moment Nia appeared on the steps and announced who Jordan was.
Voss lowered his eyes. His lawyer asked the panel to consider the pressure of answering a complaint from a resident who was upset and insistent. The panel did consider it, along with the lack of evidence that Jordan posed a threat. They also considered the fact that Voss immediately changed his approach once he learned Jordan's identity, a contrast that undercut the claim that continued restraint had been necessary for safety.
The decision arrived after another week of deliberation. Voss was terminated for serious misconduct and for violating the department's rules on use of force and truthful reporting. The findings were referred to the state agency responsible for officer certification, and the local prosecutor separately reviewed whether the available evidence supported criminal charges. Nothing about those further proceedings was predetermined by the employment decision.
The result did not produce a scene of cheering officers or a public confrontation in the station lobby. Voss cleared his locker under supervision on a Tuesday afternoon. He passed the empty desk where Avery had once sat, then walked through the rear exit carrying a cardboard box and the remains of a professional identity he had believed was secure. A reporter waiting outside asked him whether he regretted his conduct, but he said only that he disagreed with the findings and intended to defend his reputation.