A Palo Alto police officer faced criminal charges last year after investigators concluded that he had hit his neighbor's parked car with his own personal vehicle, neglected to leave a note and then repeatedly denied his involvement in the collision to officers from another agency.

The incident, which is described in a new report from Independent Police Auditors Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly, prompted the department to place the officer on administrative leave for five months. He ultimately returned to full duty, the report states. Department leaders subsequently told Gennaco that the officer received "significant disciplinary consequence" for his actions, though it doesn't say exactly what this was.

In keeping with prior reports, Gennaco and Connolly did not name the officer, the city where the incident occurred or the date of the incident. The report covered the second half of 2017.

According to the report, the officer was off-duty when he hit a car near his own home at around noon on a weekday, causing damage to both vehicles. The neighbor noticed the damage to his car a few hours later and, after seeing damage to the officer's personal vehicle, contacted the officer at his home. The report states that the officer denied knowledge of the collision.

The neighbor then called his local police department, which as part of its investigation also contacted the officer, who once again denied knowing about the collision and even said that he'd heard a sound early that morning consistent with his own car being sideswiped.

The case changed however, when a third neighbor emerged as a witness, the report states. That neighbor reported he heard the collision from his home, went to the window to see what had happened and saw the officer "emerge from his personal vehicle, inspect the damage, and proceed to his own house in an unsteady fashion," the report states.

Investigators later re-contacted the officer, whose physical features and clothing matched the information provided by the witness. In two separate interviews, the officer denied having hit the car, despite physical evidence and witness testimony that "strongly suggested the officer's culpability," the report states.

According to the auditors, the neighbor was reluctant to press charges but sought to get the officer to reimburse him for the cost of repairing his vehicle. The report also noted that while there was evidence of intoxication, the gap in time between the collision and the police investigation precluded an investigation into that issue.

The police agency also contacted the Palo Alto Police Department, whose supervisors began their own investigation by interviewing the witness and the victim. The day after the incident, the department placed the officer on paid administrative leave, which the report notes was a "rare step in Palo Alto."

The criminal allegation was ultimately settled when the officer negotiated a plea deal and pleaded guilty to an infraction in connection with the collision. The more serious charge, a misdemeanor "hit and run," was dismissed.

After the criminal investigation concluded, the Palo Alto Police Department conducted its own administrative investigation, which concluded that the officer "violated the policy by leaving the scene of the traffic accident without attempting to contact his neighbor or otherwise take responsibility."

He also violated department policies by engaging in conduct "unbecoming" an officer and for providing "inaccurate and incomplete notification" to a supervisor after the incident occurred.

During the investigation, however, the officer acknowledged his responsibility for the collision and provided other information "that put the behavior into the larger context of personal issues," the report states.

The auditors concurred with the department's findings, noting that the officer's off-duty behavior was "uncharacteristic for the employee's history and attributable to larger wellness concerns."

However, auditors did criticize the Palo Alto investigators for providing an "overly generous forum for the officer to explain his circumstances." This, according to the report, included leading questions from both the department's interviewers and the officer's attorney.

The audit also found that the department's inquiry was "less robust" when it came to "personal responsibility and outreach" to both the victim and the officers whom the offending officer repeatedly misled on the day of the incident.