Rowlett, TX – On July 28, 2026, Rowlett Police Chief Michael Denning took to Facebook with what he called a message of “transparency and accountability” concerning an incident involving three off-duty Rowlett police officers at a local bar in 2025.
Denning said the officers had been approached by a man who didn’t know they were police. The man allegedly produced what appeared to be an illegal substance and said he was known to deal drugs at the establishment. According to Denning, one officer recognized an opportunity to gather intelligence on local narcotics activity, briefly engaged the man and arranged a follow-up narcotics transaction at another location. No transaction occurred, Denning said.
“The officers”, according to the chief’s account, realized the encounter could become an unauthorized investigation and promptly notified an on-duty supervisor. They were told to disengage and go home, and they complied.
Denning also acknowledged something else: all three officers had violated department policy and had received discipline.
What the chief didn’t tell Rowlett residents was exactly what happened inside that bar, what the officers did after leaving it, which department policies they violated, and how serious the resulting discipline actually was.
Pipkins Reports has now obtained the Rowlett Police Department’s internal affairs records concerning the incident. The department’s own investigation provides a much fuller account.
And it’s considerably less tidy than the Facebook version.
According to the March 11, 2025 internal affairs report, the incident began on Jan. 23, 2025, after the three officers had finished their shift. They met for drinks, first going to Brass Tap in Rockwall before heading to Hang Time in Rowlett. The report states that at least some of the officers had consumed alcohol.
At Hang Time, a patron identified in the investigation as “Shane” approached the officers, apparently unaware that they were police officers. During the conversation, one officer detected a strong odor of marijuana and asked Shane whether he had any.
Shane produced a bag containing an unknown substance and placed it on the table.
One of the officers picked up the bag, examined its contents, and removed some of the substance to smell it. They used the flash on their cellphone to illuminate the substance, which may have contributed to alerting the public. The officer later told investigators that he believed the substance was Delta 9. The bag was returned to the table, where Shane retrieved it, the report says.
The conversation then moved beyond marijuana.
Shane told the officers he could obtain other narcotics, including mushrooms, and asked whether they wanted to meet him to obtain them. The officer agreed.
At one point, Shane expressed concern about being robbed. An officer responded by lifting his shirt and displaying his department-issued firearm. The investigative report says he did so on three occasions during the encounter, including once when he indicated the weapon with his right hand.
This was not an authorized Rowlett Police Department undercover operation. It was three off-duty officers at a bar. And that distinction becomes important when the department’s findings are examined.
This was an off-duty encounter that eventually produced an internal affairs investigation, multiple sustained policy violations, and disciplinary action against all three officers. The Rowlett Police Department’s own investigative report tells a considerably more complicated story than the sanitized version that Chief Michael Denning presented to the public in a July 28 Facebook statement.
After some interaction inside the bar, which was recorded on various surveillance cameras and reviewed during the investigation, Shane suddenly became eager to leave and stated he would meet them at a nearby gas station.
While Shane was leaving, one of the officers contacted Sgt. Hughes, with Rowlett Police, and reported that Shane might be driving while intoxicated and that he had attempted to sell the officers narcotics. The sergeant advised that the officers should leave and let on-duty police handle the situation.
Before they could leave, however, the bar manager confronted them after being told they were attempting to sell narcotics, which would not be permitted in their establishment. The officers identified themselves as police and explained they weren’t involved in illegal activity. They told the manager they had already reported the incident to the on-duty sergeant. They paid their bill and left.
But the encounter wasn’t quite over.
After leaving Hang Time, one officer went home. The other two drove past Shane’s residence, using an address obtained during their conversation at the bar.
After speaking with Sgt. Hughes, the officers decided to get fuel at a different gas station than the EZ Mart on their way home.
What the Investigation Found
The department did not conclude that the officers committed a crime involving marijuana. Investigators found insufficient evidence to establish a violation of Texas Health and Safety Code §481.121, noting questions about whether the substance was actually marijuana and the lack of testing to establish its composition. The video also did not clearly establish what was inside the bag.
The internal investigation did, however, sustain several departmental violations.
Among them were violations involving conduct, off-duty law enforcement actions, firearms and alcohol, and displaying police identification. This is what the officers were disciplined for. The investigation also found that the officers’ actions amounted to an unauthorized operational plan because they were off duty and the encounter was not an official police operation.
The department recommended a two-day, 20-hour suspension without pay for one officer, along with ABLE training.
Another officer received a written reprimand and was required to complete an ABLE refresher.
The most severe discipline went to the officer who displayed the firearm. The department recommended a four-day, 40-hour suspension without pay (Reduced to 30 hours by Chief Denning), removal from the Problem-Solving Unit (PSU), reassignment to Patrol, ABLE training, and a law-enforcement de-escalation course.
A Note About Names
Pipkins Reports received the complete 91-page investigative report, but one officer’s identity was redacted in the records provided to us. We are not going to speculate about the reason for that redaction.
We have chosen to redact the names of the other officers in this article. Their identities do not change the facts, the department’s findings, or the discipline imposed, and in our opinion, publishing their names serves no legitimate public interest. Our redactions are clearly labeled in the accompanying copy of the report; the department’s original redactions are not labeled.