"It doesn't change the law either," Porter replied. She closed the folder and informed him that the interviews and documentary evidence would be reviewed by prosecutors. His attorney announced that the interview was over. Hollister left without looking back, and Porter remained at the table long enough to finish her notes while the words were fresh.
The investigative phase continued for months, not days. Attorneys reviewed the grounds for warrants, analysts checked financial transfers, and supervisors examined whether witnesses could testify from personal knowledge. Several discrepancies that initially appeared significant proved to have ordinary administrative explanations and were removed from the criminal calculations. Other findings grew stronger when independent records confirmed the accounts of motorists and employees.
Prosecutors made a particular effort to distinguish Hollister's alleged offenses from the county's flawed policies. A bad policy might support administrative correction or civil relief without proving an individual officer committed a crime. In Hollister's case, however, the combination of repeated intentional searches, false documentation, racial targeting, and missing funds provided evidence of knowing misconduct. The difference mattered because the jury would be asked to judge legal elements, not the emotional force of the national news coverage.
The financial review ultimately supported the conclusion that substantial amounts of seized money had been diverted or improperly retained. Some records connected specific envelopes to unauthorized handling; others connected missing deposit periods to unusual cash activity in Hollister's accounts. The investigators did not claim to identify the original banknote of every dollar. Instead, they assembled a chain of records and testimony strong enough to support allegations involving particular transactions.
Gallagher was interviewed again, this time with a fuller understanding of his own possible exposure. His attorney negotiated the terms under which he would continue cooperating, and prosecutors retained the discretion to evaluate his conduct. Gallagher gave detailed testimony about the report language Hollister dictated, the cash-handling practices he had witnessed, and his own failure to report misconduct sooner. He did not pretend he had resisted when he had not.
During one meeting, a prosecutor asked him whether he regretted following orders. "Every day," Gallagher said. He explained that he had once believed loyalty meant protecting the man beside him, even when that man misused authority. Now he thought loyalty to the public should have been the first obligation, because it was the public that gave both men the power they carried. The prosecutor recorded the answer without promising forgiveness.
Several months after the roadside stop, a federal grand jury returned an indictment containing six counts. The allegations included two counts of willfully depriving individuals of constitutional rights under color of law, charges relating to fraudulent handling of seizure proceeds, theft involving public funds, and obstruction-related conduct supported by the records. The indictment was an accusation, not a judgment, and the Department of Justice announcement emphasized that the defendant remained presumed innocent unless and until the charges were proved.