She wanted a clear answer. She wanted the officer held responsible if the evidence established wrongdoing.
But she understood why the investigation could not simply move from a painful video to a predetermined outcome.
Maya deserved something more lasting than a decision made under public pressure.
She deserved a process capable of showing how it reached its conclusions.
Three weeks after the encounter, the Maryland Public Integrity Committee convened a public hearing on police complaint procedures and independent oversight.
The hearing was not a criminal trial, and it was not intended to determine Rourke's individual guilt. The county investigation remained separate.
Instead, the committee examined whether the existing safeguards were adequate to identify misconduct, preserve evidence, and ensure that complaints were reviewed fairly.
Lena appeared in her official capacity to discuss general principles of independent oversight.
Before testifying, she consulted the ethics officer to confirm that her remarks would not disclose confidential information about her daughter's case.
She entered the hearing room carrying a slim folder.
Reporters filled the seats along the back wall. Members of the public stood near the entrance, and a court reporter sat beside the committee clerk.
The chair opened the hearing by explaining that the committee would not prejudge any individual officer or agency.
Then Lena was invited to speak.
She began without mentioning Maya by name.
"Public trust depends not only on whether officials follow the law, but on whether the systems around them can identify failures and respond honestly."
She explained that an effective complaint process required several elements.
First, evidence had to be preserved before it could be lost through routine deletion or incomplete documentation.
Second, investigators needed sufficient independence to examine allegations without pressure from the people whose conduct was under review.
Third, findings had to distinguish between allegations that were substantiated, allegations that were not substantiated, and cases in which the available evidence was insufficient to reach a conclusion.
Finally, oversight bodies needed access to the information required to assess those findings.
A committee member asked whether an officer's previous complaints should automatically influence the outcome of a new investigation.
"No," Lena replied. "A previous allegation is not proof of a new allegation. But documented prior findings, relevant patterns, and the way earlier complaints were handled may raise legitimate questions that investigators should examine under the applicable rules."
Another member asked how officials could prevent political pressure from influencing an investigation.
"By establishing procedures before a controversy begins, applying them consistently, documenting decisions, and separating personal interests from official authority."
The answer drew several nods around the room.
A council representative then asked whether public outrage should affect disciplinary decisions.
"Public concern can identify issues that deserve attention," Lena said. "It cannot substitute for evidence. The same is true of an officer's reputation, a department's public standing, or a complainant's personal connections."
For a moment, the room became silent.
The statement addressed the central criticism that had followed Maya's case: whether the investigation was receiving attention because of Lena's position rather than the evidence.
Lena did not deny that her professional role had made the incident more visible.
She also did not claim that the visibility proved the investigation was fair.
Instead, she explained that independence required safeguards precisely because public attention could create pressure in either direction.
When her testimony ended, she returned to her seat.
The committee heard from other witnesses, including representatives of the civilian review board, community organizations, and former internal affairs personnel.
Several recommendations emerged.
The committee considered requiring departments to maintain standardized records of complaints and their dispositions, expanding civilian reviewers' access to supporting documentation, and establishing clearer deadlines for preserving relevant recordings.
Members also discussed periodic independent audits of force reports and the publication of aggregate information about complaint outcomes.
None of these proposals would automatically prevent every abuse of authority.
But they could make it more difficult for patterns to remain hidden and easier for reviewers to identify inconsistencies.
At the end of the hearing, the committee chair announced that written recommendations would be prepared for the legislature.
Outside the building, journalists approached Lena.
One asked whether she was satisfied with the hearing.
"It's a beginning," she replied.
"Do you believe the officer will be charged?"
"That decision belongs to the independent investigators and the appropriate prosecutors. I won't speculate about it."
"Do you think your position helped your daughter?"
Lena considered the question.
"My position made the incident more visible. But the evidence should be examined to the same standard regardless of who the child's parent is."
She declined further questions.
That evening, Maya watched a short clip of the hearing with her mother.
"You looked serious," she observed.
"I was talking about serious things."
"Did you talk about me?"
"Not in detail. I talked about how investigations should work."
Maya leaned back on the sofa.
"Do you think they listened?"
"I think some people did."
"Is that enough?"
Lena smiled faintly.
"Not by itself. Listening matters when people use what they hear to make better decisions."
Maya thought about that.
Then she picked up her sketchbook.
She had begun drawing again, although she was still uncomfortable with crowded streets. The newest picture showed a public building with large windows and several people entering through the front doors.
Above the entrance, she had written a single word.
Accountability.
She was not sure she had spelled it correctly.
Lena helped her check the letters.
Neither of them knew how long the investigation would take, or what consequences it would bring.
But the conversation in the hearing room had established something important.
The incident would not be treated only as a dispute between a police officer and a frightened child.
It would also be examined as a test of the systems designed to hold public officials accountable.
The independent investigation lasted several weeks.
Investigators reviewed the original recordings, interviewed witnesses, examined the officer's report, and compared the incident with the department's applicable policies.
They also considered the earlier complaints, separating allegations that had never been substantiated from documented findings and records relevant to the department's supervisory practices.
The process was slower than many residents wanted.
Some accused the investigators of delaying a necessary decision. Others argued that the public had already condemned Rourke before he had received a fair opportunity to respond.
The investigative team continued working through the evidence.
Its final report identified several central findings.
The initial detention lacked a sufficiently documented factual basis under the applicable standards. The report did not identify specific observations establishing the suspicion Rourke later claimed to have had.
The use of physical force was inconsistent with the department's governing policy when assessed against the available recordings and the circumstances established by the investigation.
The report also found that Rourke's written account contained material discrepancies with the recordings, including his description of Maya's movements and his statement concerning whether she had complained of pain.
Investigators distinguished those findings from the question of criminal intent.
Whether the reporting discrepancies satisfied the elements of a criminal offense required a separate legal assessment by the appropriate prosecuting authority.
The report also examined the department's earlier handling of complaints and identified weaknesses in supervisory review, record retention, and civilian access to supporting documentation.
It did not conclude that every earlier allegation against Rourke was true.
Instead, it found that the department's procedures had not always ensured that relevant evidence and dissenting analysis were fully preserved and considered.
The findings were transmitted to the appropriate authorities.
The police department initiated formal disciplinary proceedings under its employment rules. The relevant prosecutorial office separately reviewed the evidence to determine whether criminal charges were warranted.
Rourke was given notice of the allegations and an opportunity to respond through the established process.
His attorney disputed parts of the report, arguing that the officer had made a judgment under pressure and that some discrepancies reflected imperfect recollection rather than deliberate dishonesty.
The disciplinary authority considered those arguments alongside the recordings, witness statements, and written findings.
After the review, the department announced that Rourke's employment had been terminated for violations of its policies governing detention, use of force, and truthful reporting.
The decision did not resolve every question about his conduct, nor did it erase the need for further examination of the department's supervisory failures.
The separate prosecutorial review remained governed by its own legal standards.
When the announcement became public, residents gathered outside city hall.
Some cheered. Others held signs demanding reforms that would extend beyond one officer.
Patricia Wells attended with Jordan Price.
Hannah Brooks stood near the steps, recording reactions for a follow-up report.
Chief Hale addressed the gathering.
"The investigation established violations that required disciplinary action," he said. "The department accepts responsibility for correcting the failures identified in its review procedures. We will publish a timetable for implementing the recommended reforms."
A reporter asked whether Rourke's termination meant the department had solved the problem.
"No," Hale replied. "An individual personnel decision does not repair every weakness in an institution. The reforms must be implemented, monitored, and evaluated."
His answer received mixed reactions.
Some residents wanted a more forceful apology. Others questioned why earlier complaints had not produced stronger action.
Hale did not claim that the department had earned back public trust.
He said it would have to demonstrate change through its actions.
At home, Lena told Maya that the disciplinary decision had been announced.
"Does that mean he's going to jail?" Maya asked.
"Not necessarily. The employment decision and the criminal review are separate."
"So what happens now?"
"The appropriate authorities will decide whether the evidence supports criminal charges. The department also has to address its policies."
Maya stared at the television.
"Everyone keeps saying there are more things to do."
"There are."
"Why does it take so long?"
"Because different questions require different evidence and different decisions. It's frustrating, but we don't want people making serious decisions without examining the facts."
Maya thought about the answer.
"Do you think he understands what he did?"
Lena sat beside her.
"I don't know what he understands. I know the investigation found that his actions violated department policy."
"Will he ever say sorry?"
"I can't promise that."
Maya looked away.
For weeks, she had imagined that an official decision might bring a sense of relief. Instead, the news left her feeling tired.
The encounter had ended in less than a minute.
Its consequences had filled her summer.
She had visited doctors, spoken to investigators, attended counseling, avoided a familiar crossing, and watched strangers discuss her life as though she were a character in a story.
Now the department had reached a decision, but she still felt uneasy when a police car slowed beside her.
Lena put an arm around her.
"You don't have to feel better just because a decision has been made."
Maya leaned against her mother.
For the first time, she understood that accountability and healing were related but different things.
One required evidence, procedures, and decisions by responsible authorities.
The other required time.
By late August, the summer heat had begun to ease.
Fairmont's schools prepared to reopen, shopkeepers returned to their regular schedules, and the public attention surrounding the incident gradually shifted toward other news.
The investigation's findings remained part of the public record, but Maya did not want to spend every day thinking about them.