Prescott began talking about experience.
Instinct.
Five years in patrol.
Knowledge of the area.
People who did not belong.
The interviewer stopped him.
“What does ‘did not belong’ mean?”
“I didn’t say that.”
“You told us earlier he looked out of place.”
“That’s not the same thing.”
“How was he out of place?”
Prescott rubbed his forehead.
“It’s a high-end area.”
The interviewer said nothing.
Prescott realized the direction again.
“I mean there are offices. Professionals. Families.”
“Dr. Pierce is a physician wearing business-casual clothes reading a medical journal across from his hospital.”
“I didn’t know that.”
“Correct.”
The investigator looked directly at him.
“What did you know?”
Prescott had no good answer.
The interview lasted ninety-four minutes.
Seventeen times, investigators noted that he began explaining a perception and then retreated from his phrasing.
That did not prove racism.
But it raised concern about whether Prescott himself understood what cues were driving his decisions.
His union attorney argued strongly against overinterpreting verbal hesitation.
The investigators agreed.
That was why they looked beyond the interview.
At stop reports.
Body camera samples.
Supervisor notes.
Citizen complaints.
Dispatch data.
Five years of discretionary decisions.
A second issue appeared during body-camera review.
Prescott frequently escalated tone when people questioned the basis for his stops.
Not everyone.
Not every time.
But enough that reviewers marked it.
One man asked:
“Why did you pull me over?”
Prescott responded:
“Because I said stop asking questions and give me your license.”
A teenager asked whether she could call her mother.
Prescott answered:
“You can call whoever you want when I’m done talking.”
A warehouse employee questioned why he was being searched outside his own job site.
Prescott said:
“You people always want to argue.”
That clip stopped the reviewer.
“You people.”
Investigators went back fifteen seconds.
Then forward.
No clarification.
No explanation of whom he meant.
Not proof alone.
Another data point.
On day twelve, Malcolm received a call from Internal Affairs.
“We’re initiating a fitness-for-duty referral.”
Malcolm closed his office door.
“Who’s conducting it?”
“Dr. Eleanor Shaw.”
Malcolm knew her.
Board-certified forensic psychologist.
Independent practice.
No relationship with Prescott.
Good.
“I want written confirmation that I’m recused.”
“You’ll get it.”
“I’m serious.”
“So are we.”
Malcolm paused.
“Thank you.”
The investigator continued.
“We may request a factual statement from you about observed behavior.”
“That’s fine.”
“No diagnosis.”
“I wouldn’t provide one.”
“No fitness conclusion.”
“Correct.”