The object inside it was invisible.
Rourke’s initial suspicion was understandable in one narrow sense: the movement did resemble an exchange.
The question became whether that suspicion justified what followed.
Investigators examined every decision.
Rourke could ask questions.
He could temporarily investigate suspicious conduct under appropriate circumstances.
He could request identification in situations where law allowed.
The administrative review focused less on abstract authority and more on escalation.
Why did suspicion about a newspaper become a physical detention within minutes?
Why did he refuse Adrian’s suggestion to call a supervisor?
Why did he tell Adrian not to reach for identification, then treat failure to produce identification as resistance?
Why did he grab clothing near the neck when Adrian had not attempted to leave?
Rourke’s attorney said hindsight made every decision look simpler.
That was true.
Investigators still had video.
Rourke gave his first formal statement two days later.
He said Adrian’s surveillance behavior drew his attention because the man appeared to be watching another passenger.
He said Adrian collected property left by that passenger and became evasive.
He claimed Adrian repeatedly refused identification.
The investigator asked whether Adrian offered to retrieve identification from his coat.
Rourke paused.
“I don’t recall it exactly that way.”
Audio from a commuter’s recording played.
I can identify myself. My identification is inside my coat. I’m going to use my left hand.
Then Rourke’s voice:
Keep your hands where I can see them.
The investigator stopped the recording.
“Does that refresh your memory?”
Rourke looked at the table.
“Yes.”
The next issue involved force.
Rourke wrote that Adrian “pulled away and assumed a combative stance,” leading him to take physical control.
Video showed Adrian standing mostly still before the officer grabbed the trench coat.
Rourke argued the angle failed to show subtle movements he perceived at close range.
Investigators considered that possibility.
Then three witnesses independently described Rourke initiating physical contact.
Gloria’s statement was especially damaging because she had no connection to either man.
“He kept trying to explain something,” she said. “The officer kept getting closer.”
The investigator asked whether Adrian appeared angry.
“Eventually.”
“Before the officer touched him?”
Gloria thought.
“Annoyed.”
“Threatening?”
“No.”
The college student who filmed the throw described something similar.
“He was calmer than I would’ve been.”
That statement later went viral.
Adrian hated that too.
Calmness was not the price someone should have to pay for credibility.
The Inspector General expanded the administrative review after discovering Rourke’s prior complaints.
At first, his attorney objected.
Those cases had already been closed.
Investigators agreed.
They would not retroactively punish him for incidents already adjudicated.
They could examine them for patterns relevant to supervision, training, and whether repeated behavior had been missed.