By the time Alexis reached Kelly's home on September 28, Michael was already yelling. Alexis initially struggled to explain whether the scream she heard was directed at Brent, at Kelly, or simply a cry for help. Michael then gave his own account, saying he had been told Brent was missing and began checking the property. He found the backyard structure closed, forced it open after getting no response, and discovered Brent inside.
The officer asked Michael whether Brent was breathing when he found him. Michael said no and described him as cold. He said he tried his best to help before first responders took over. That testimony, combined with the family's uncertainty about when Brent had last been seen, meant investigators could not immediately determine how long he had been unresponsive before the discovery.
Michael said Brent was not breathing and felt cold. He tried to help him until police and EMS arrived. His account gave officers a clearer picture of how Brent had been discovered, but it did not answer the larger question of how a child with an alleged history of overdoses had been left in an environment where fentanyl and drug paraphernalia were still present. That question soon became the center of the case.
As officers continued interviewing Kelly, they learned something that stunned them. Kelly said this was not Brent's first overdose. She explained that he had stolen pills from Alexis the day before and had hidden them somewhere despite the family's attempts to search for them. When an officer asked how many times Brent had overdosed, Kelly said this was the fourth time.
The officer did not let the statement pass without clarification. "Fourth time he's OD'd?" he asked, making sure he had heard correctly. Kelly explained that not all of the incidents had happened at her house, but she acknowledged that more than one had occurred there. The exchange was one of the most important moments in the body-camera record because it showed that the adults were not learning about Brent's risk for the first time on September 28.
Kelly tried to distinguish her own behavior from what was happening around her, telling police that she had quit doing drugs. The officer responded that her personal sobriety did not solve the problem if drugs were still entering the home and children were still exposed to them. He pointed specifically to the presence of babies and other young children. The concern was not simply whether Kelly herself was using, but whether she had allowed the household to remain unsafe.
Police asked how many of those incidents had happened at Kelly's house. Her answer indicated that there had been more than one overdose connected to the property. One officer responded directly that there was a serious problem, especially because a baby was also living or staying in the same environment. Kelly said she had stopped using drugs herself, but the officer pointed out that dangerous substances were still coming into the house and remaining within reach of children.
That admission changed the way officers viewed the entire scene. This was no longer a case where adults could plausibly say they had never imagined a child might access fentanyl. By their own statements, the family already knew Brent had a pattern of seeking out drugs, hiding pills, running from adults when confronted, and overdosing before. The repeated history meant investigators now had to examine what steps, if any, the adults had taken to protect him.
A relative of Kelly's arrived and added another layer. She said she had contacted authorities earlier in September because she was worried about Brent and the children in the home. According to her, she had reported that Brent had overdosed previously and believed the situation was severe enough that immediate intervention was necessary. She was angry that, from her perspective, nothing effective had happened before the emergency on September 28.
The relative said she worked in the district attorney's office and had experience with the system. She complained that she had called, left messages, and tried to alert people that the children were in danger. She also referred to a prior drug case involving members of the family and expressed frustration that the children had ultimately remained in the same environment. Her comments did not by themselves establish legal responsibility, but they showed that concerns about the household had existed before Brent was found unresponsive.
The relative's frustration was intense. She said she had spoken with child welfare personnel and expected action because of the seriousness of what she had reported. She described leaving additional messages when she did not receive the follow-up she expected. In her view, the family had already experienced enough drug-related crises that the children should have been removed from the situation before another emergency could happen.
She also referred to a previous drug bust involving the family and complained that earlier charges had been reduced. The transcript captures officers listening while she vented about what she saw as repeated institutional failure. Her statements were not treated as proof of every claim she made, but they gave detectives names, dates, and prior events that could be checked later. More importantly, they reinforced the idea that Brent's risk had been visible to people outside the immediate household.
As the investigation progressed, word came back from the hospital. Brent had not survived. The news hit several officers hard, particularly those who had performed CPR in the backyard. One officer noted that a colleague had a child around Brent's age and had needed to step away for a moment after the rescue effort. Supervisors began talking about debriefing the responding officers while simultaneously converting the property into a more controlled death investigation scene.
Once Brent's death was confirmed, police restricted access to the home. Nobody was allowed to move freely in and out while detectives and crime scene personnel determined what should be preserved. Family members were told to gather what the baby needed because once everyone was moved outside, the house would remain secured. Officers tried to balance the needs of the younger child with the requirement to avoid disturbing possible evidence.
The scene itself reflected the instability officers had been hearing about. Multiple dogs were in and around the house, and one injured dog had reportedly been struck by a vehicle the previous night. Officers worked with the adults to move the animals into a room so the house could be cleared safely. They also located a diaper bag and supplies for the baby before escorting everyone outside.
Before everyone was moved out, officers asked the adults to take care of basic needs that could not wait. One person said she was diabetic and urgently needed to use the bathroom. Police allowed her to do so but explained that once the scene was cleared, nobody would be permitted back inside. They also asked whether the baby needed a bottle, diapers, or anything else before the house was locked down.