| "Austin
American Statesman" Articles 12-19-08:
Report: Austin police use
of force fell in 2007
11-29-08:
Austin firefighters reject labor contract
11-24-08:
Austin homicide detectives say job is as fulfilling as it is challenging
09-03-08:
Final contract between city, police made public
08-17-08:
Police union's prudent leadership
07-23-08:
Police pay causing friction
07-16-08:
David Lee Powell, cop killer, loses appeal
06-03-08:
Austin officers show support at killer's hearing
06-02-08:
Hearing this week could pave way for cop killer to get fourth trial
05-27-08:
Austin police want to learn from firings
05-23-08:
Police delaying major changes to iron out details
05-18-08:
Officer's death 30 years ago still remembered
05-18-08:
Waiting for justice: Mother of Austin officer killed 30 years ago today wants
killer executed.
05-17-08:
Austin police headquarters may move
05-17-08:
Charge in police shootout likely to be dropped, prosecutor says
05-12-08:
Austin police changing how they report, review using force
04-17-08:
Austin officer fired in sex-for-hire case
04-17-08:
Police may be owed nearly $900,000
04-08-08:
City often pays legal fees for fired, suspended officers
04-04-08:
Austin police brutally attacked Friday
04-04-08:
Police, city begin contract talks
03-28-08:
Jury finds police did not use excessive force
03-24-08:
Austin police officer surprised at severity of punishment to superior
03-20-08:
Police misused seized money, federal agency says
03-18-08
Austin police officers punished over gay remarks
03-11-08:
Austin police guidelines establish expectations and public trust
03-11-08:
Police develop punishment guidelines for officers accused of wrongdoing
03-02-08:
Austinites with police gripes urged to speak up
03-01-08:
City panel upholds firing of Austin officer
02-29-08:
City panel deliberating fate of fired officer
02-23-09:
Olsen hearing to move forward, panel rules
02-22-08:
Fired officer says he felt comfortable with most actions on night of fatal shooting
02-20-08:
Olsen lawyer asks commission to halt appeal of firing
02-20-08:
Fired officer's appeal hearing begins
02-19-08:
Tom Stribling keeps busy with police clients - Austin
lawyer prepares to represent Michael Olsen this week
02-19-08:
Officer shooting was within rules, police find
02-05-08:
Police create special investigation team for uses of force that lead to death
or serious injury
1-28-08:
Public safety unions endorse Shade, Galindo, Leffingwell
1-26-08:
Police should zoom in on trouble spots
1-26-08:
Austin Park Police have some officers with problematic pasts
1-24-08:Austin
unions line up bargaining chips
1-24-08:
Acevedo wants to put police cameras in key areas
2007 AAS ARCHIVES
back to top
AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN
back
to top
12-19-08:
Report: Austin police use of force fell
in 2007
Despite an across the board decrease, minorities still see more
force than whites.
By Miguel Liscano
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday,
December 18, 2008
Austin police officers used force on 186 fewer suspects
last year than in 2006, and use of force decreased for all racial groups, according
to an annual response to resistance report released by the department. Also,
the number of times an arrest resulted in use of force dropped by 25 percent,
from 2 percent to 1.5 percent, the report stated. Last year, use of force
by officers on white suspects dropped by 21.1 percent, by 20.4 percent on African
American suspects and by 20 percent on Hispanic suspects. But, when comparing
the use of force per 1,000 arrests, minorities still saw a higher rate of force
than Anglos last year. The use of force rate last year was 9.8 for whites, 14.8
for African Americans and 13.4 for Hispanics, all of which are down from 2006.
The number of times officers used a Taser dropped 14 percent from 2006
to 2007, according to the report. The number of times officers fired their weapon
at a suspect increased by one, from three times in 2006 to four times last year.
In June, the department implemented revisions to their use-of-force policies,
which now require officers to document more actions, including when they point
their weapons at suspects, and make supervisors do a thorough investigation sooner
in nearly all cases when force is used. The changes came after years of
community criticism about how Austin officers use force and during an ongoing
investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, which is looking into whether
the department routinely violates the rights of minorities. "We have
really overhauled our entire process," Police Chief Art Acevedo said. Austin
NAACP President Nelson Linder said, "It is very clear that the police chief
and (his) team have communicated to the public that they have a new standard,
and that is based on the respect of everybody." Last year, the department
responded to 375,253 calls for service and made 164,091 traffic stops, the report
said. Officers made 51,465 arrests and submitted 789 use of force reports
on 636 people. Last year, two use-of-force incidents resulted in death.
On June 3, 2007, Sgt. Michael Olsen shot and killed Kevin Brown, who was
fleeing officers who were told he had a gun outside of Chester's Nightclub in
East Austin. Olsen was later fired for his actions. Also, on Aug. 27, 2007,
Officer Michael Metcalf shot and killed Malcolm Thomas Smith, who was wielding
a knife and raised it when police told him to put it down. Metcalf was cleared
of wrongdoing. mliscano@statesman.com; 445-3629 Additional material
from staff writer Tony Plohetski. back
to top
11-29-08:
Austin firefighters reject labor contract
City
won't set new talks soon; union members to keep working without contract.
By
Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Austin
firefighters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed labor contract with the city that
would have given them pay raises and increased pension contributions and the department
more hiring flexibility to add minorities to the ranks. Austin Firefighters
Association Local 975 officials said that 582 firefighters voted against the agreement
during four days of voting that ended Wednesday, while 160 supported the measure.
The union has 948 members. "Our negotiations with the city were extraordinarily
difficult, but they led to concessions by both sides on more than dozen key issues,
including training standards, hiring, promotions and wages," firefighters
union President Stephen Truesdell said. "Even then, many firefighters had
understandable concerns about the tentative agreement, and they voted accordingly."
Union leaders said many firefighters feared that the agreement would weaken
hiring and training standards, potentially putting their lives at risk. Firefighters
will continue working under state civil service laws without a contract, and their
wages will be established by city officials. Firefighters returned to civil service
status in October after missing a September deadline to sign a new agreement.
City Manager Marc Ott said in a statement late Wednesday that he is disappointed
by the results and that he would recommend to the City Council that the city not
participate in further negotiations "in the near future." He
said city staff, who spent about seven months in contract discussions with union
representatives, must now devote their attention to economy-driven budget struggles
facing the city. "We diligently worked in good faith to negotiate
and create a contract that was beneficial for both sides," Ott said. "What
was proposed represented an outstanding benefits package, particularly under the
current economic conditions." In the rejected agreement, city officials
had sought to amend civil service laws, which generally base hirings and promotions
on standardized test results, to obtain more hiring rights. The department
has for years struggled to meet its goal of having the department's racial and
gender makeup resemble that of the city. Battalion Chief Bob Nicks, who
was part of a team that represented the union in contract discussions and later
helped lead a campaign against the agreement, said firefighters were concerned
that the contract would lower hiring and training standards. The contract
included a provision that would have given the city the right to "develop
and implement a process for hiring that deviates from any current restrictions
of this agreement" or civil service laws. In a recent e-mail to firefighters,
Nicks said that "the city basically wrote this contract. There was never
a negotiation. It was instead a dictation of terms and subsequent capitulation."
Nicks said Wednesday that he thinks the city's decision to not negotiate
further "would be bad for both sides." "It's an opportunity
to get these things corrected," he said. "I think we will end up with
a better contract and the city will end up with a better (hiring) process."
Under the proposed contract, firefighters, who earn about $58,000 after
three years, would not have gotten raises this year but would have received a
3 percent pay increase next year if other city employees got a 2.5 percent raise.
If other city employees did not receive that much, firefighters would have
gotten a 2.75 percent pay increase. The third year of the contract included
a 3.5 percent pay increase. The city's contribution to the firefighters
pension fund would have risen 2 percent this year and 1 percent in the third year
of the contract. Ott said that the contract represented the same "proportionate
value" as agreements recently signed by police officers and paramedics. He
also said that Austin firefighters are the highest paid in the state and among
the highest paid in the nation. "This contract represented our continued
commitment to the benefits provided to our firefighters," he said. Truesdell,
the union president, said that firefighters hope newly appointed Fire Chief Rhoda
Mae Kerr, who begins in February, will bring "new, more constructive perspectives
to the next round of negotiations and earn the trust of the city's firefighters."
back to top
11-24-08:
Austin homicide detectives say job is as fulfilling as
it is challenging
For investigators, 'death is tangible.'
By
Joshunda Sanders
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, November 24, 2008 Nothing
haunts Detective David Fugitt like the death of a toddler. Fugitt says
the sight of 2-year-old Paris Roach 's white pacifier lying in a clump of grass
is an indelible image, one that underscores the difficulty that comes with investigating
death. In June 2005 , the girl was accidentally run over by her grandfather's
lawn mower when she crawled into the path of the machine, Fugitt said. Her pacifier
symbolized the end of an innocent life, he said. "You do this job
long enough, and there are some things that just stay with you," said Fugitt,
who has worked in the Austin Police Department's homicide unit since 2003. "I
have many sleepless nights where images of dead bodies just play like a slide
show in my head." Fugitt, 36, is one of 12 detectives in the homicide
unit, which investigates all types of deaths . The married military brat who grew
up in Ohio said he loves his work — as stressful as it can be. He's
currently part of a team investigating an officer-involved shooting in North Austin
that left a robbery suspect dead. The demands of finding evidence, witnesses and
leads in the complicated case are just one example of the intensity of his work,
he says. "Homicide investigations are nowhere near as glamorous as
depicted on a sterile television or a movie screen," Fugitt said. "For
us, death is tangible. It has weight. It smells. And as an investigator, death
consumes all that you do." Much of what Fugitt does at work seeps
into his private life. At any given time, he said, he has between 20 and 30 investigative
shows lined up on his TiVo. He's "put a lot of bad guys in prison,"
so Fugitt doesn't talk much about his personal life. Threats have been made on
his life — an occupational hazard for all of the unit's detectives —
and he worries that someone looking for retaliation might use those personal facts
against him. "There's a reason our numbers are unpublished," he said.
Detectives in the unit also do not have addresses listed in public records. His
hair is cropped crew-cut style and, like his colleagues, he dresses in crisp long-sleeved
shirts with colorful ties and dark trousers. Fugitt applied to become an officer
with the Austin Police Department when he was 21 and graduated from the police
academy in 1995. He was a patrol officer in Southwest Austin before being promoted
to detective in 1999. He worked closely with the homicide unit as an investigator
with the juvenile/missing persons and family violence units before he transferred
to the homicide unit in 2003. The emotional weight of focusing on death
requires wry humor as an antidote. During staff meetings, discussions of suicides
and gang-involved killings are offset by a silly comment that leads to a contagious
round of chuckles as the inside joke travels around the table. Fugitt adds to
the unit's lightheartedness by being as creative as he is conscientious. On
a pillar at the center of the office in police headquarters downtown, he drew
the words "Let the dead teach the living" from the Latin phrase "Mortui
vivos docent, " a credo familiar to medical students. Fugitt also designs
the unit's coffee mugs each year, which usually include an illustration and truisms.
One mug bears the quote: "You can be a king or a street sweeper, but everybody
dances with the Grim Reaper." Between 2003 and 2006, the homicide
unit annually investigated an average of 27 homicides in Austin and 361 other
cases, including suspicious deaths or shooting incidents. The legal definition
of homicide is any act that "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with
criminal negligence causes the death of an individual." Fugitt says it's
an umbrella term that applies to any death that might be considered suspicious.
Other deaths are investigated by the homicide unit to rule out the possibility
that a crime occurred, Fugitt said. When a homicide is reported, a lead
investigator is paired with another detective. On Nov. 6, the homicide
unit assisted with an investigation into an officer-involved shooting during which
police say a robbery suspect wearing a bulletproof vest and brandishing an AK-47
shot at Austin police officer Will Ray . That man, 27-year-old Adan Mondragon
, was fatally shot by Ray. Two suspects in the case, Jorge Ugarte , 28, and Alfredo
Sierra , 25, were charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Police
are still searching for two more suspects who fled the scene. One of them is 25-year-old
Volivar Benitez . Police have not identified the other. Fugitt, the secondary
investigator on the case, was notified at 4:31 a.m. on Nov. 6, less than an hour
after the shooting. "I got the page, I got up, showered a little bit
and hit the road," Fugitt said. "You've really got to get it moving
in a case like this. Those first 48 hours are crucial." Detectives
are less likely to develop significant leads at the scene of a killing as more
time passes, Fugitt said. That is the best time to find significant evidence and
interview key witnesses who can break a suspect's alibi. Fugitt drove to
the scene, choosing classical music over his usual heavy metal to calm his nerves,
thinking through the list of things he needed to do. He says he enjoys the challenging
and rewarding nature of his work, but officer-involved incidents, with their many
layers, "cause a huge amount of anxiety" because of the level of public
scrutiny. Homicide Lt. Mark Spangler said that although the incident is
still under investigation, it does not appear that Ray is guilty of criminal wrongdoing.
Community leaders and organizations that closely watch police activities, including
officer-involved shootings, have been relatively silent. While the lead
investigator interviewed witnesses, Fugitt managed the search for evidence. He
took pictures of Ray to document that he was wearing an officer's uniform at the
time of the shooting and that the suspects knew they were fleeing from police.
Days later, Fugitt returned with a few other detectives to the corner of
Berkman Drive and Patton Lane, where Ray and Mondragon had exchanged gunfire.
They knocked on doors and passed out fliers, looking for more witnesses. The investigation
continues as the five other cases in Fugitt's caseload — such as the recent
fatal shootings at nightclubs La Rumba and Club Escapade — still demand his
attention. The week after the shooting, on his fifth or sixth visit to
the scene, Fugitt called the city's waste management department. He asked them
to lift the Dumpster behind the nearby Short Stop on Berkman Drive. A makeshift
wooden cross and two votive candles had been placed in a cardboard box nearby
— a shrine for the suspect who had died there. Fugitt left it intact and
knelt by the filthy concrete that had been beneath the trash bin to look again
for bullet casings. "I didn't think I'd find anything under the Dumpster,
but you never know," Fugitt said, standing up. He checked in with the other
detectives, then headed back to the office. There was evidence to analyze, records
to request and more death to look into. back
to top
09-03-08:
Final contract between city, police made public
Document
must be reviewed by city council, union members.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
STAFF
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Austin police union officials and
city leaders have reached a tentative contract agreement that includes changes
in the role of the police monitor's office and gives officers more time to view
evidence in conduct cases against them, according to the 83-page document made
public Tuesday. The contract would allow officers to immediately receive
as much as 400 hours of previously earned vacation and other leave after they
were fired, even if they planned to appeal the termination. Such payments
have traditionally been made only after an arbitrator upheld the firings. Union
officials, who posted the agreement on their Web site Tuesday evening, will begin
two-hour workshops with officers this week to explain provisions in the contract
and will put the document to a membership vote beginning Sept. 11. Austin
City Council members are scheduled to consider the agreement on Sept. 25. "There
isn't any overall win in the contract," union Vice President Wuthipong Tantaksinanukij
said. "Both sides negotiated a fair contract." The document comes
after nearly six months of negotiations involving officers of all ranks and city
officials. City officials recently completed negotiations with paramedics
from Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services, but that document has not
been released. The city is in continued talks with fire union representatives.
The proposed police agreement needs approval of City Council and police
union members, or else officers would return to working under state civil service
laws. The current contract expires at the end of the month. "We
are very pleased with the process," Assistant City Manager Michael McDonald
said. "I think the police association did a good job. Of course, during these
economic times, these types of contracts are not easy." Much of the
public debate concerning the proposed contract, which would expire in 2012, has
focused on officer pay raises and bonuses. According to the proposal, officers
would get a 2.5 percent pay increase in the budget year that began Monday and
a 3 percent raise in each of the next three years. The planned raise for
next year, however, would be 2.75 percent if other city employees got less than
2.5 percent raises. The proposal also calls for the city in the last two
years of the contract to make contributions of 1 percent of officers' annual pay
to the police retirement fund. Officers gave up special annual bonuses
now in their contract. Under the proposed agreement, the police monitor's
office would take complaints from civilians about officers . City officials
had sought that provision, in part at the request of several Austin residents.
The monitor's office would be responsible for gathering facts about the
complaints, the officers involved and any witness information. The office would
make audi recordings of any discussions and provide the information to internal
affairs detectives. In the past, the monitor's office served as an initial
contact point for residents with grievances, but those wishing to formally file
a complaint against officers had to do so with the internal affairs division.
Under the proposed contract, internal affairs would still conduct the full
investigation and make recommendations about whether officers had violated policies.
As part of the agreement, monitor's office staff members could be called
to testify if an officer was later disciplined and appealed. The proposal
increases the time officers would have to review evidence in cases against them
from three to five hours. The agreement also would give members of a citizens
review panel, which traditionally makes police and training recommendations in
such cases, five hours to individually review such information. In the
past, they have reviewed information with fellow panelists only in executive session.
"We think this is a balanced contract, where both sides accomplished
quite a bit," McDonald said. back
to top
08-17-08:
Police union's prudent leadership
Austin
Police Association, city reach reasonable pay compromise
Sunday, August
17, 2008 Members of the Austin Police Association still have to approve
it, but city and union negotiators have agreed to a 2.5 percent increase in pay
next year and a 3 percent raise for the following three years. The pay
raise is a reasonable one, made even more so by the elimination of a provision
in the 2004 contract that gave police officers 2 percent more than raises granted
other city employees. That premium boosted Austin police pay to the highest in
the state but reduced the city's ability to meet other obligations. The
City Council ignored warnings that the generous pay concessions to the politically
powerful police union would limit spending on other needs. Public safety spending
now consumes 65 percent of the general fund — money that pays for other city
services, including parks, libraries and social services. We urged city
negotiators to hold tough this time. As important as public safety is, there are
other demands for city money that are equally as important. It's good that
the police union negotiators recognize that the city isn't a bottomless pool of
money because it sets an excellent example for firefighter and Emergency Medical
Services union negotiating teams. The city is negotiating contracts with those
two unions as well. Police union negotiators showed some real leadership
in accepting the city's compensation offer. Other union negotiating teams should
take note. That would include members of the bus drivers' union, who will vote
this week on a reasonable contract offered by Capital Metro's management team.
back
to top
07-16-08:
Police pay causing friction
City
wants to end special bonuses; union gives own proposal.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
STAFF
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Austin officials want to revoke a special
pay raise they have given police officers during the past five years, saying they
can no longer afford the yearly increases that have cost the city $33 million
since 2004. But police union representatives on Monday rejected the city's
offer for how they would be paid during the next five years, saying that they
still deserve certain bonuses because of the danger of their jobs. The
discussions triggered intense friction at times as both sides worked on a new
labor contract that also will include benefits such as vacation time and sick
leave. "Other city employees don't risk staring down the barrel of
a shotgun every day when they show up to work," said Detective Melanie Rodriguez,
who is among several officers representing the Austin Police Association. Assistant
City Manager Mike McDonald and attorney Lowell Denton, who is representing the
city in the negotiations, accused the union of ignoring an unstable economy, including
higher fuel prices and a flat housing market. "Are y'all just not
believing us in terms of available resources?" Denton asked. "It sounds
like y'all don't believe what we've told you." If the two sides do
not reach an agreement, the current contract would be allowed to expire this year,
and officers would return to working under state civil service laws. The
discussions came two days before City Manager Marc Ott presents a proposed budget
to the City Council. In recent work sessions, city financial staff members projected
a general fund budget gap that could top $25 million. The negotiations
also continued an ongoing debate among Austin officials about how best to weigh
the cost of public safety against a sagging economy. A recent city report
showed that Austin police spending per capita grew 84 percent during a nine-year
period that ended in 2006, while that figure for six other departments, including
Dallas' and San Antonio's, increased 34 percent at most. City officials
have said salaries largely contributed to the rise in public safety costs. The
city since 2004 has given police officers, firefighters and paramedics a 2 percent
raise above what other city workers have received in what they have called a "public
safety premium." The raises have helped make Austin officers the highest
paid in the state. Officials have said the raises to police officers were
given, in part, in exchange for their cooperation in setting up the police monitor's
office, which gives civilians access to officers' disciplinary records. Without
a contract, the city would have to work out how the monitor's office would function
and would probably return to using only standardized tests for hirings and promotions,
for instance. Officers could lose special pay benefits. City officials
are still negotiating contracts with the paramedics' and firefighters' unions.
They estimate they have spent about $53 million on the premiums for police, EMS
and firefighters during the past five years. On Monday, police union representatives
did not address the premiums. However, they asked the city for 3 percent raises
during the first three years of their contract and an additional 2 percent for
their pensions during the second and third years. The union's proposal includes
a 6 percent raise the fourth year. The city had proposed giving officers
a 2.5 percent raise the first year, 2.75 percent the second and 3 percent the
third and fourth years. McDonald told the union that the raises were similar
to projections of what other city employees will get and are based on the city's
economic outlook. He said that the increases would continue keeping officers
near the top of the pay scale compared with similarly sized cities. "We
are in some tough times," he said. "We are down to some pretty tough
decisions." After hearing the union's proposal Monday, McDonald expressed
frustration. Union and city representatives are expected to meet again
this week. "I don't know what else to describe to you," he said.
"I guess at this point, we just have to go take a look at what is being proposed."
back
to top
07-16-08:
David Lee Powell, cop killer, loses appeal
Read
the opinion here. By Tony Plohetski and Chuck Lindell | Wednesday, July
16, 2008, 12:43 PM A man convicted and sentenced to death for the fatal
shooting of an Austin police officer 30 years ago will not get a fourth trial,
the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. The decision, issued today,
paves the way for David Lee Powell to face execution for killing Officer Ralph
Ablanedo, who was gunned down during a routine traffic stop in South Austin. Powell
is among the longest-serving inmates on Texas’ Death Row. “I am
just relieved that maybe justice will be served,” said Bruce Mills, who was
Ablanedo’s patrol partner the night of the shooting. “I am not surprised.
I am pretty confident from what we heard that they would deny the appeal.” Mills,
who is now the director for Austin’s Public Safety and Emergency Management
agency, had traveled to New Orleans with dozens of Austin police officers in June
for a hearing in front of the court. Powell’s attorney could not be
reached for comment. Permalink | Comments (11) | Post your comment Categories:
Appellate Courts
Comments Click here to report comment abuse. By
Larry July 16, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this He has been sitting there
fearful for 30 yrs trying every game he could to stop the death sentence…and
now the sentence of death will be carried out. He has not apologized as someone
said, in fact this attempt for a new trial was an attempt for him to escape punishment.
Hardly someone who has apologized. By Jon Smith July 16, 2008 1:35
PM | Link to this Once again, we have spent taxpayer dollars, over 3 decades,
to promote an appeals system, that is flawed. Why wasn’t this man executed
when found guilty the first, second or third time? There was never any doubt concerning
his gilt, he was granted retrial based on legal technecalities. The system is
flawed! The defense attorneys should be indicted for obstruction of justice. While
their tenacity is to lauded, their integrity and moral terpiude, is questionable,
to say the least. By mhh July 16, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this You
folks are somewhat correct, but you are missing an important point. Money. It
has cost WE the tax payers between a million and two million dollars of our money
because this guy got the death penalty. If you go back and add up all of the costs,
fees, expenses of past thirty years to pay for all of the legal work for appeals
to State and Federal Courts, you end up with about that amount. If he would have
been given “life with no parole” not another dime of tax payer money
would have been spent on any legal proceedings. Sitting around in a small, maximum
security concrete cell for 23 hours a day for an entire lifetime is not easy to
do. Texas should pass a “life without parole” statute like other states
have and use our tax dollars for the Victim’s family. By Roger July
16, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this hey, dint plea drugged out. For a cop killer
living a charmed life 30 yrs and still not terminated By don'ttakethissarcasmseriously July
16, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this But he’s a human being. He said he
was sorry. He found god in prison. How can we justify taking his life. PC in Austin. By
LeaAnn Johnson July 16, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this He should have
been put to deth years ago for killing a good cop and a good friend. By
Travis Cook July 16, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this Oh boo hoo, another
mad dog killer is going to be put down like the wild animal that he is. Maybe
that cop and his family can finally get some peace now. Either way, after we execute
this vermin scum, he at least will never kill again. By Becky July
16, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this GOOD!!!! Get that guy out of the picture
FAST!! I just hope he has been saying his prayers, because he certainly doesn’t
seem like he will enter Heaven by his works! By Connie July 16, 2008
1:10 PM | Link to this I remember when this happened. I can’t believe
the killer is still alive. What are we talking? 30 years? By Dr Rudy July
16, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this As I recall, this murder occurred around
May, 1978 as I was grabbing my diploma and heading off for med school in Galveston.
Powell gunned down the cop with an AK 47 or some such assault rifle. 30 years
later and he has not served his sentence. Justice sure moves swiftly in Texas. By
GlockGirl July 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this Thiry years this man
has tied up our justice system. At what expense? Ridiculous!
06-03-08: Austin
officers show support at killer's hearing
New Orleans appeals court
hears case of David Lee Powell, who killed Austin officer 30 years ago.
By
Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, June 04, 2008 NEW
ORLEANS — The Austin police officers, each wearing suits and lapel pins replicating
their badges, walked single file into the John Minor Wisdom U.S. Court of Appeals
Building and took their seats, filling half a courtroom. The somber crowd
included about 25 officers from nearly all ranks, some with only a few years on
the force and one with almost four decades. Most had come for one purpose:
to hear why the man who killed a fellow Austin officer 30 years ago should be
spared execution. "This shows we still are a family," said officer
Ruth Bullock, who scanned the crowd before walking from a nearby hotel to the
courthouse. "It doesn't take a person to have been here 30 years ago to feel
the loss." The officers, most of whom traveled to New Orleans at their
own expense and used vacation time for the trip, presented a unified front Tuesday
at a hearing in which the man who killed officer Ralph Ablanedo in 1978 is seeking
a fourth trial. During the nearly 90-minute hearing before the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, lawyers for David Lee Powell argued that Powell deserves
a new trial because prosecutors in his 1999 trial did not disclose evidence quickly
enough that could have helped the defense's case. For the officers, the
hearing provided a glimpse into a justice system that some say they fear might
give Powell, 57, another chance at life — or even freedom. And they said
they wanted to support Ablanedo's sister, Irene, who has attended three decades
of trials and hearings, sometimes alone or with only a small cluster of family. "Hopefully
this last appeal will be done and we can move on with setting an execution date
so we can move on, and the family of Ralph Ablanedo can finally get closure,"
said George Vanderhule, president of the Austin Police Association. Vanderhule
said the union in recent weeks had an outpouring from officers who wanted to attend
the hearing. The union paid for five board members to do so, but other officers
shouldered the expense for their airfare or drove their personal cars from Austin,
he said. Powell was found guilty and sentenced to death soon after the shooting
in the 900 block of Live Oak Street in South Austin. According to court documents,
he shot Ablanedo 10 times with an AK-47 during a traffic stop before trying to
kill other officers as they closed in on him. He appealed his conviction
and got a new trial in 1991. Powell also appealed that guilty verdict and was
given a new sentencing trial in 1999. He was again given the death penalty. The
appeals court judges on Tuesday asked Powell's lawyers about why they thought
information in the parole file of Sheila Meinert — Powell's girlfriend, who
was in the car at the time — would have helped Powell. The lawyers responded
that the information was given to them on the sixth day of Powell's 1999 trial. Meinert
was later found guilty of being a party to attempted capital murder. She served
four years of a 15-year sentence. Tina Miranda, a Texas assistant attorney
general, argued that the information, which included documents that hinted that
Meinert might have been more involved in the shooting, would not have helped Powell
or swayed jurors. Judges are expected to make a decision on Powell's appeal
in coming weeks. After the hearing, Powell's attorneys declined to comment.
His aunt Frida Milone of Dallas said her nephew is not a dangerous person. "He
was under the influence of drugs," she said. Ablanedo's patrol partner
and friend, Bruce Mills, said he is "cautiously optimistic" that the
court will rule against Powell. He said Powell's lawyers appeared to be
grasping for reasons their client should be spared. "My sense is that
the judges saw through that," Mills said. Then he walked over to Irene
Ablanedo, who was surrounded by the officers in a cavernous hall leading to the
courtroom. "I couldn't have asked for a better team to come to New
Orleans and support me," she said. "To know that my brother is remembered
all this time later, there are no words to express it." back
to top
06-02-08:
Hearing this week could pave way for cop killer to
get fourth trial
David Lee Powell remains on death row in fatal shooting
of Austin police officer Ralph Ablanedo in 1978.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
STAFF
Monday, June 02, 2008 Nearly a week after his third death penalty
trial began in 1999, lawyers for David Lee Powell got their hands on documents
that had for years been tucked in the parole file of a woman also convicted for
her role in the fatal shooting of Austin police officer Ralph Ablanedo. The
papers — letters to the parole board from prosecutors and police officers
who argued against her release — hinted that Sheila Meinert may have played
a more significant role in the 1978 shooting during a traffic stop in South Austin. To
lawyers representing Powell, an earlier look at the documents could have caused
them to rebuild their entire case or at least tweak Powell's defense. To
prosecutors, they amounted to inadmissible, insignificant evidence that would
have had no bearing on the trial's final outcome. Whether the information
could have swayed jurors is the question that is expected to dominate a hearing
Tuesday before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, where Powell's
lawyers will argue that their client deserves a new trial. "We are
reasonably optimistic that we'll get a decent result," said Eric Albritton,
an attorney in Longview who is representing Powell along with Richard Burr of
Houston. Attorneys for the Texas attorney general's office, which will represent
the state at the hearing, declined to comment. Bryan Case, chief of the
appellate division for the Travis County district attorney's office, said: "We
are ready for finality in the case. The justice system is ready for finality,
certainly the family of Ralph Ablanedo, certainly the people who knew him. And
the community is ready for finality." According to court documents,
Powell's lawyers are also planning to argue that Powell's constitutional rights
were violated when statements he made to an emergency room doctor three decades
ago were used in court and that Powell should have gotten a complete new trial
in 1999 — not one that dealt only with his punishment. If the court
grants Powell's appeal, it could result in his fourth trial. If it is denied,
officials said, an execution date would probably be set. Irene Ablanedo,
Ralph Ablanedo's sister, is planning to attend the hearing with dozens of Austin
police officers who are making the trip to New Orleans. "I'm a little scared
as to what could possibly happen, and I'm angry at the same time because I don't
understand why we are having to go through this again," Irene Ablanedo said.
"He's had 30 years' worth of appeals." Of 369 prisoners on Texas'
death row, Powell is the sixth-longest serving. Ronald Curtis Chambers,
who has been there longer than anyone in state history,for a 1975 double murder
in Dallas, was awarded a fourth trial by the same court in January. Maurie
Levin, an adjunct professor with the Capital Punishment Center at the University
of Texas Law School, said multiple new trials are uncommon in such cases but do
happen. "The courts do not do it lightly, and something was wrong,"
she said. "There was a reason they got reversed." According to
court documents, Powell doesn't dispute that he killed Ablanedo with an AK-47
in the 900 block of Live Oak Street after Ablanedo pulled over Meinert, Powell's
girlfriend at the time, during a routine traffic stop. Powell was in the passenger
seat. Sheserved four years of a 15-year sentence for being a party to attempted
capital murder. The documents also said Powell doesn't dispute that he tried
to shoot other officers with the same gun when they cornered him and that it was
his routine to carry the weapon and hand grenades. Powell, who was the valedictorian
of his high school class and had attended the University of Texas, has said he
was deranged from drug abuse. The shooting tore through Austin and the Police
Department. The city has since named a street in South Austin for Ablanedo. Travis
County jurors convicted Powell and sentenced him to death months after the killing.
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated his sentence in 1989 after Powell's attorneys saidstatements
he made to a psychiatrist about the killing were improperly used against him because
he had not been read his rights. The decision led to a second trial in 1991. Powell
was again found guilty and sentenced to death. He appealed that decision, and
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated the sentence and called for a new
sentencing trial. Attorneys for Powell had argued that he had been improperly
sentenced: The court should have used a sentencing law in place in 1978, not a
current law, they said. Jurors in 1999 upheld the death penalty decision. Before
that trial began, court records said, Powell's lawyers began trying to establish
that Meinert firedshots during the 1978 traffic stop and subpoenaed her parole
records. They asked for a continuance and were denied. According to court
documents, records in Meinert's file included a letter from former Austin Police
Association President Dell Shaw, with 25 pages of signatures from police officers
and prosecutors, accusing Meinert of throwing a grenade at a police officer. Powell's
lawyers said the information was favorable to him and contradicted testimony from
an officer who said Powell threw the grenade after being pulled over again following
the shooting of Ablanedo. They also said the information would have raised
questions about the credibility of prosecutors because during the trial, a prosecutor
said Powell had thrown the grenade. And they argue that by the time Powell's
trial lawyers received the information, they had already told jurors that Meinert
was blameless. Prosecutors said that Powell's lawyers knew, or should have
known, about the documents and that the outcome of the trial would not have changed. According
to court records, Powell's attorneys also said Powell should have been read his
rights before being treated by an emergency room doctor at Brackenridge Hospital
the day he was arrested. Dr. Wesley Wallace later testified that Powell told him
that he had not recently used drugs. Prosecutors said that the conversation
was "unremarkable." And Powell's lawyers will argue that opinions
concerning whether Powell posed a future danger were decided in violation of his
federal rights during his punishment trial in 1999. Such issues should have been
taken up in a trial to determine if he was guilty, they said. Longtime Travis
County defense attorney Edith Roberts, who represented Powell during his 1978
trial, said she is not surprised that the case lingers today. She described Powell
as "a fine gentleman" who was "strung out on drugs." "I
hope he fights it until hell freezes over," she said. tplohetski@statesman.com;
445-3605 In court Tuesday On Tuesday, the U.S. appeals court in New
Orleans hears arguments for death row inmate David Lee Powell, who is seeking
a fourth trial in the 1978 shooting death of Austin police officer Ralph Ablanedo.
back to top
05-27-08:
Austin police want to learn from firings
Search
of personnel files may yield meaningful info, officials say.
By
Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, May 27, 2008 Austin
police officials have begun reviewing the entire work histories of officers who
have been fired, looking for warning signs that might have gone unnoticed and
that could be used to help strengthen the department's hiring or training procedures.
Assistant Police Chief David Carter said that officials have not come up
with any conclusive findings since beginning the project recently but that they
plan to use what they learn to help prevent future firings. "We want
to get a sense of is there something we did miss — either through the initial
hiring process or some indicator that we could have picked up on — that this
was an officer who could have used some direction or guidance early in his or
her career," said Carter, the department's chief of staff. Since taking
almost a year ago, Police Chief Art Acevedo has fired six of the department's
1,500 officers. The department's internal affairs unit has traditionally
investigated officer conduct, but those inquiries were generally limited to a
single event, not an officer's work history. The department also has an
early warning system for officers who have repeated disciplinary or training problems
so that supervisors can address the issue. But Carter said the department
has typically not gone back to review fired officers' personnel files or other
information such as training histories and performance evaluations for problems
that the officers might have had in common. "There may be times that
we see when things simply go wrong," Carter said. "But quite a lot of
the time, there could possibly be indicators." Carter said officials
may use the information to improve hiring practices or modify training if they
notice patterns. Tom Stribling, an attorney for the Combined Law Enforcement
Associations of Texas who frequently represents officers, said the effort "may
yield some interesting things." "It is possible that there might
be a history or pattern, or it might show that this is a total anomaly for this
officer," he said. George Vanderhule, president of the Austin Police
Association, said that the department conducted such reviews years ago and that
he supports the recent effort. "I think it is beneficial for everybody,"
Vanderhule said. "The more you can do in terms of looking at predictors,
the better officers you hire and the better it is for the department, the better
it is for the community. "You want the best quality and caliber you
can get," he said.
back
to top
05-23-08:
Police delaying major changes to iron out details
Monitor
raises concerns about how his office will participate in certain investigations.
By
Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, May 23, 2008 Austin
police have delayed for at least a month putting several major changes in place,
including the way officers accused of minor offenses are investigated, amid concerns
about how an oversight agency would monitor such inquiries. The delay,
which also will affect the department's new use-of-force policy, marks one of
the first challenges Police Chief Art Acevedo has faced on one of his major policy
initiatives since taking office in July. Acevedo said Thursday that he realized
that the department had set up "challenging deadlines" for certain projects
and that delays were possible. Austin Police Monitor Cliff Brown said he
had asked Acevedo to hold off on launching a new process in which supervisors
would investigate low-level complaints against officers until they work out certain
details, including where and when interviews with officers by their supervisors
would take place. Brown said his highest priority is making sure his staff
can sit in on supervisor-led interviews, which he said is a crucial part of his
agency's effort to oversee such investigations. "It fundamentally
affects the way we do business, so these things have to be resolved," Brown
said. "We have to work some things out." The delay, which is
expected to continue until at least July 1, would put the department nearly three
months behind its original March target date for beginning a new investigation
process for officers accused of minor offenses, such as rudeness. Under that proposal,
officers' supervisors would conduct such investigations, not internal affairs
detectives. Brown said he is concerned that under the proposed plan, such
interviews may happen at all hours of the day and night, when officers and their
supervisors are working, but that his employees work mostly in the day. The
department also is delaying its June 1 plan to unveil a new use-of-force policy,
which will require officers to report more force encounters, including drawing
their weapons at suspects, and supervisors to investigate most force incidents;
Acevedo said officials want to simultaneously launch the new policies. Brown
said he has not had time to study the proposed use-of-force policy or provide
his suggestions to the Police Department. Acevedo said he is working with
Brown and the police monitor's office to address their concerns. "We
will do whatever it takes to help him meet his needs," Acevedo said. Acevedo
said he might use overtime to call officers in if necessary to ensure monitor's
office representatives will be present. City officials created the police
monitor's office in 2002, hoping primarily to increase community trust that officers
accused of wrongdoing would be properly investigated. Office staff members have
since attended internal affairs interviews with officers. Acevedo has said
that requiring supervisors to investigate certain offenses will make them more
accountable — they could face punishment for failing to properly supervise
— and free internal affairs detectives to investigate more serious complaints.
Critics of Acevedo's plan also have said they are concerned that supervisors
may not be as objective in investigating such cases, increasing the need for independent
oversight. Acevedo said department officials initially delayed the new
supervisor-led investigation process for several weeks to give city lawyers more
time to review the new policy and to send it to officials at the U.S. Department
of Justice, which is investigating how the department uses force, particularly
against minorities. He said that Brown then asked for a further extension
and also cited a need to have more time to develop a training program for supervisors
who will be responsible for such investigations. Acevedo said he agreed
to wait. "In the spirit of cooperation and collaboration, rather than
meet self-imposed deadlines, I'd rather postpone it," Acevedo said.
back
to top
05-18-08:
Officer's death 30 years ago still remembered
Shooting
reminded officers of police work dangers.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
STAFF
Sunday, May 18, 2008 The shooting death of Ralph Ablanedo 30 years
ago was a reminder to Austin police officers about the dangers of their work. Today,
it is a reminder that justice can be elusive. "The idea of 'justice
delayed is justice denied' is absolutely appropriate in this case," said
Mike Sheffield, the past president of the Austin Police Association who joined
the department soon after the May 18, 1978, shooting. Convicted killer David
Lee Powell "has still enjoyed the fact of seeing his family and visiting
and doing all those things that officer Ablanedo has not," Sheffield said. Ablanedo
was killed while conducting a traffic stop in South Austin and was shot 10 times
with an AK-47. Powell was convicted several months later and sentenced to
death. He has been sent to death row after two more trials, and he may get a fourth. Many
of the officers most touched by the shooting have retired or gone on to other
jobs. But newer officers know details of the case and its significance in
Police Department history. The department's South Austin substation is on a street
named for Ablanedo. Robert Dahlstrom, a retired assistant police chief who
is now the chief of the University of Texas Police Department, said he made sure
that new cadets learned about Ablanedo when he supervised Austin's training academy. "It's
important they know the history of the Police Department and that officers have
given their lives in front of them to keep this town safe," Dahlstrom said. Former
Travis County Sheriff Doyne Bailey, who was a police sergeant at the time of the
shooting, said Ablanedo's death "was a blow in the gut to everybody." Ablanedo
was known and well-liked by officers, who were stunned by the brazenness of the
slaying. Bailey said that it was a reminder that the city wasn't immune
from violent crime. "I think it made everybody, sort of tuned everybody
up that it could happen here in Austin, Texas," he said. back
to top
05-18-08:
Waiting for justice
Mother of Austin officer
killed 30 years ago today wants killer executed.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
STAFF
Sunday, May 18, 2008 The doorbell rang at 2 a.m. that Thursday,
but Betsy Ablanedo refused to think the worst. Maybe it was only a stranded
motorist. Or a troubled neighbor. Then she heard her husband's voice and
others that she recognized. She went to the living room to confront the
news. She looked into the tearful eyes of her daughter-in-law, Judy Ablanedo.
She also saw Bruce Mills, the young officer who patrolled with her son, with blood
on his uniform. "Right away, I said, 'Is it Ralph, and is he dead?'
" Betsy Ablanedo said. "Judy said, 'Yes, he is.' " Austin
police officer Ralph Ablanedo was fatally shot during a traffic stop about two
hours earlier. Mills was already responding to the scene to serve as Ablanedo's
backup on May 18, 1978, when he thought he heard a scream on the radio. When Mills
got to the 900 block of Live Oak Street near Travis High School, Ablanedo was
on the ground and uttered something about a Mustang and a gun as Mills shouted
for the dispatcher to send an ambulance. Paramedics took the 26-year-old
to the hospital, but the doctors could do little. He had been hit by 10 bullets. Betsy
Ablanedo recalls being so overcome with grief when she heard of her son's death
that she melted to the ground and yanked grass from her yard to console herself. During
the next several hours, other family members showed up. Reports of Ablanedo's
death were all over the television by then. Officers and friends poured into the
Ablanedo house on Dittmar Road in South Austin. The officers promised that they
would find the killer. Neighbors offered to help call out-of-town friends and
brought food. Then, just as the sun came up that morning, one of the officers
got word that David Lee Powell, a suspect in the slaying, had been arrested a
few blocks from where the shooting happened. For Betsy Ablanedo, relief
momentarily pushed through sadness. Now, she thought, the man who killed her son
would pay for what he had done. Thirty years later, she is still waiting. Betsy
Ablanedo is 85 now. She walks with a cane and has trouble hearing. Her home
— she no longer lives onDittmar Road — is filled with pictures of her
dead son. Several show the ambitious police officer in his uniform. One over the
mantle has a placard showingthe date he became a police officer and the date he
died. She regularly visits the Austin cemetery where he is buried, telling
him about her life and his children's lives. David was 17 months old when his
father died. Steve was 5. She has watched them grow up without their father. Ablanedo
said she talks only of pleasant memories at the grave site and has never mentioned
Powell. Ablanedo also watched as Mills and her son's widowbonded through
grief, fell in love and got married in 1980. Ablanedo has since buried her
husband, Armand, in 1981, and another child, Arlene Ablanedo-McNeill, who became
a noted victims rights advocate after her brother was killed. She died of cancer
in 1995 at age 35. Betsy Ablanedo said she has never talked publicly about
what happened that night in 1978, fearing that it might somehow jeopardize the
case against Powell. But now she is afraid that she might die before her son's
killer. "I don't have much time left," she said. She has
spent the past three decades picturing the drive to Huntsville and the arrival
at the Polunsky Unit, which houses inmates on Texas' death row. She imagines
sitting down, family members beside her, looking through the glass window and
seeing Powell strapped to a gurney. Only five other Texas death row inmates
have served more time there than Powell. He was found guilty and sentenced
to death four months after Ablanedo was killed. Since then, he has received two
new trials and has been sentenced to death each time. But he may now have
a fourth trial. A panel of judges will rule on his latest appeal after a June
3 hearing. Lawyers representing Powell, 57, do not dispute that he was involved
in the incident or that he shot Ablanedo. But they say matters of fairness, including
whether prosecutors withheld information in all three trials that could have helped
Powell's defense, are pushing his appeal to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals. Betsy Ablanedo said officers told her after Powell was
arrested that morning that they had nearly shot him in the process. At first,
she was relieved that they hadn't. "That was too good for him,"
she said. "Now I wish they had shot him. It's taken 30 years, and it's still
not over." "We have waited long enough for a closure," she
said. Ralph Ablanedo was her third child. She has an older daughter, Irene,
and son, Armand. Arlene was the youngest. As a boy, Ralph Ablanedo enjoyed
softball and horseback riding. He went fishing, another favorite hobby, the day
before he was killed. He worked as a lineman for the City of Austin electric
department before becoming a police officer in 1972. His mother said she
was fearful for him to go into law enforcement. She tried to talk him out of it
but eventually gave up. "It's a dangerous job," she said. "But
that was his dream. That's what he wanted to do." Judy, who met her
future husband while they were in high school, pinned his badge on him at the
police academy graduation. By then, Betsy Ablanedo said, she had made peace with
her son's profession and sat proudly in the audience. During the next six
years, Ralph Ablanedo patrolled throughout the city. Austin was much smaller and
quieter then, and Austin officers were more like relatives than co-workers. At
the time, the city had only about 450 officers. There are 1,500 today. Bruce
Mills and Ablanedo became friends along the way and eventually worked the same
patrol shift in South Austin. They rode to work together in Ablanedo's truck that
day. "It was just another night," said Mills, who went on to serve
as Austin's acting police chief in the late 1990s and is now the director of the
city's Public Safety and Emergency Management agency. "You wouldn't go to
work every day if you thought you or your partner were going to get killed." Court
records describe what happened that night: Ablanedo spotted a red Mustang and
pulled over the car after noticing that it did not have a rear license tag. Powell's
girlfriend, Sheila Meinert, was behind the wheel. Meinert got out of the
car, told Ablanedo that she had lost her driver's license and showed him her passport.
Ablanedo checked Powell's driver's license and asked a dispatcher to do a criminal
warrant search on both people. The dispatcher said the computers weren't functioning
properly, so Ablanedo gave Meinert a ticket for failing to display a driver's
license. The Mustang pulled away. Moments later, according to court
records, a dispatcher told Ablanedo that Powell, who was 27 at the time, was possibly
wanted for misdemeanor theft. Ablanedo caught up with the Mustang and pulled
it over again. As Ablanedo approached the car, Powell shot him with an AK-47
in semiautomatic mode through the car's back window, knocking the officer to the
ground. As Ablanedo tried to get up, Powell shot him again, according to court
records. Ablanedo was wearing a bulletproof vest, but it was not designed to withstand
semiautomatic fire. The dispatcher had alerted Mills, who was only a few
blocks away, about the possible arrest warrant and sent him as backup. On the
way, Mills heard on the radio what he thought was a scream. When he arrived,
he found Ablanedo on the ground. Mills has testified that Ablanedo repeatedly
said "that damn girl" or "that God-damn girl." Mills
also said that Ablanedo twice told him, "He got me with the shotgun." Meinert
had driven the car into the parking lot of a nearby apartment complex. An officer
who was responding to the shooting spotted the car and immediately came under
fire as he pulled into the lot. According to court documents, Meinert testified
that Powell handed her a hand grenade and told her to remove tape that had been
placed around it. She shoved it back at him. Meinert ran from the car, "screaming
hysterically and flailing her arms," documents said. Then, Powell made
a "throwing motion" and began running from the car to the grounds of
Travis High School across the street. Officers found a live hand grenade
in the parking lot, but it did not explode because the safety clip had not been
removed. Police arrested Meinert in the apartment complex parking lot. She
was later convicted as a party to attempted capital murder and served four years
of a 15-year sentence. Powell was found in some shrubbery on the high school grounds. George
Vanderhule, who had been an officer for about five years in 1978 and is now president
of the Austin Police Association, said the killing and manhunt tore through the
department. "We were a huge extended family," Vanderhule said.
"This was personal." Betsy Ablanedo didn't go to the first trial. Family
members persuaded her not to. They thought it would be too emotional. Instead,
they gave her daily reports about what was happening in the courtroom. On
the day Powell was sentenced to death, Ablanedo said, she hoped punishment would
be swift. But Powell appealed, saying that he had talked to a psychiatrist
after the killing without being warned of his rights. More than a decade passed
before the U.S. Supreme Court set aside his death sentence, which required a new
trial under Texas law. Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle had
been in office a year and helped try the first case himself. He remembers
telling jurors how Powell had ambushed Ablanedo. "He left a wound on
the heart of this community that has not healed," Earle said. "It was
a terrible time for Austin." Betsy Ablanedo attended the second trial,
in 1991, with her family, listening to testimony about her son's final moments. She
left the courtroom only twice: When the medical examiner testified about where
Ablanedo was shot and when prosecutors played a tape in which Ablanedo is heard
shouting as gunfire pops in the background. Powell was convicted again and
sentenced to death. He appealed, and in 1994, the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals reversed the death penalty sentence. The court ordered a new punishment
hearing after lawyers argued that Powell had been improperly sentenced. Betsy
Ablanedo sat through the third trial, in 1999, nearly in disbelief. "I
just wondered why he got so many appeals," she said. "Every time, they
found some error, and it went on and on and on." Now, she fears that
the hearing next month in New Orleans will result in a fourth trial. Powell
is claiming that his rights to due process were violated because prosecutors didn't
disclose in a timely manner documents that showed Powell's girlfriend may have
fired the shots at Ablanedo and tossed the hand grenade, among other objections. If
the judges rule against Powell, he can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the
justices do not rule in his favor, prison officials will set an execution date. Betsy
Ablanedo said that she can't make the trip to New Orleans but that her daughter
will be there. So will Bruce Mills. He and Judy said they are less adamant
that Powell die for his crime but are certain that he should never leave prison. Today,
Ablanedo said she will spend the day remembering her son's life and thinking about
the upcoming hearing. But she still longs for it all to be over. "Thirty
years has gone by, and it still hurts," she said. "I miss him. I love
him. I'm hoping that we get some closure." Only then, she said, will
she visit her son's grave and talk to him about the long fight for justice. "I
will tell him to rest in peace," she said. back
to top
05-17-08:
Austin police headquarters may move
City
Council to vote on study of shifting department outside downtown.
By
Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, May 17, 2008 The
Austin Police Department headquarters, part of the city's skyline from Interstate
35 for decades, may be demolished and moved as officials look to make space for
downtown development. City Council members will vote Thursday on a resolution
directing City Manager Marc Ott to study the benefits and cost of moving the department's
central operations to a Northeast Austin police station "or other appropriate
locations." Ott would report his findings to the council in 90 days. "We
are trying to re-energize downtown for everybody," said City Council Member
Sheryl Cole, who is sponsoring the measure with Mayor Will Wynn and Council Member
Mike Martinez. "We have to make space for amenities to attract them there." The
police headquarters on the I-35 frontage road between Seventh and Eighth streets
also sits along Waller Creek, which officials have said they hope to one day transform
into a world-class destination with restaurants, housing and businesses. It has
been likened to a hip version of San Antonio's River Walk. The Police Department
also would join several other city services, including Austin Municipal Court
and the city's animal shelter, in leaving downtown. Council members voted
in October to spend $6.9 million to convert a former Home Depot on Interstate
35 and St. John's Avenue into the Municipal Court, a decision that angered some
civic groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the League of United
Latin American Citizens. Representatives said it would inconvenience residents
who need easy access to the building. City officials have said that the
city's population center — the point at which an equal number of residents
live north and south and an equal number live east and west — is now Northcross
Mall in North Austin and that regardless of where services go, downtown will remain
the musical and tourism center of Austin. According to the resolution, development
along Waller Creek "necessitates the need to maximize developable land." Cole
said that though discussions are preliminary, she thinks it is possible that the
police building could be torn down or renovated, sold or leased, depending on
the results of the study. Raw land downtown goes for $100 to $200 per square
foot. The resolution also said that the current police headquarters is aging
and that Municipal Court, where officers file many of their arrest warrants, is
already moving. The current five-story, 100,000-square-foot police headquarters
opened in 1982 and housed all police divisions at the time. It is now the
home for Police Chief Art Acevedo and certain investigative units, including homicide,
financial crimes and the SWAT team. The property also includes a large parking
garage. "As the department continues to grow, eventually we will outgrow
this building," Acevedo said. He said some employees already are working
in converted storage closets and in walkways. The department also has split
other units, including internal affairs, from the headquarters building to both
leased and city-owned facilities throughout the city, Acevedo said. Cole
said she still would want some police operations to remain downtown. Martinez
said he is not committed to moving police headquarters to Northeast Austin but
supports the idea of looking at options. "We know we are going to need
a bigger headquarters some day, and a more modern headquarters some day, so let's
start talking about it now," he said. back
to top
05-17-08:
Charge in police shootout likely to be dropped, prosecutor
says
Defense attorney says audio indicates that police officer fired
first.
By Miguel Liscano
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, May
17, 2008 A man accused of shooting at an Austin police officer has been
released from jail, and an attempted capital murder charge against him will probably
be dropped after an examination of an audio recording of the incident revealed
inconsistencies about how many shots were fired and when, a Travis County assistant
district attorney said. In March 2007, David Lozano was arrested and charged
with attempted capital murder after he was in a shootout with officer Roger Boudreau,
who had responded to a domestic disturbance call at a home near Yager Lane. Bail
was set at $300,000. At the time, Boudreau said Lozano fired first; now,
Lozano's attorney, Ryan Deck, says new evidence shows the officer fired first. An
expert hired by Deck last month reported that Boudreau's account appeared to be
inconsistent with an audio recording from his patrol car. The Travis County
district attorney's office had another expert examine the recording, and inconsistencies
with what prosecutors believed was the sequence of events that night were found,
Assistant District Attorney Karen Sage said. She would not elaborate on what those
inconsistencies were but said they centered on the number of shots fired. "Based
on the results of their tests, it made us question the sequence of events,"
Sage said. "Based on that fact, the trial was set to go May 12, and we asked
for a continuance. We also allowed the defendant to be let out" on a personal
bond. After about 13 months in jail, Lozano, who was shot three times and
lost part of one leg, was released on May 2. "Most likely, the attempted
capital murder case against the defendant will be dismissed," Sage said. She
said a second charge of aggravated assault, which was included in the original
indictment, will also probably be dismissed. The case will go before a new
grand jury, which could exonerate Lozano or charge him with a crime, within the
next few weeks, Sage said. Sage said the district attorney's office is not
accusing Boudreau of any wrongdoing, but the grand jury will examine the entire
case anyway. "Officer-involved shootings always go to the grand jury,"
Sage said. "And when there are new facts that involve any of the parties,
we think it's only right for the grand jury to look at the entire matter again." Boudreau,
who was unharmed during the shootout, was awarded the medal of valor for his actions
during the incident. He was placed on restricted duty, per department policy after
a shooting, and has returned to regular duty. Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo,
through a spokeswoman, said the department "supports the actions of our officer
in this case and the vigorous prosecution of the suspect." He added that
the case is now in the hands of the district attorney's office. Police spokeswoman
Anna Sabana said Boudreau would not comment on the case because it's still open
and going back to a grand jury. At the time of the shooting, Boudreau told
investigators that in the initial exchange of gunfire, Lozano fired at him once
and he returned one shot, according to an arrest warrant affidavit. Deck, citing
an internal affairs report unavailable to the public under state law, said Boudreau
later told investigators that he fired two shots after Lozano fired once. The
shootout continued at the side of the house. In April, Deck asked representatives
from the Dallas-based forensic tape analysis company Yonovitz & Joe LLP to
examine the audio. Herbert Joe said his firm found that two shots were fired from
the same caliber weapon within 10 seconds of Boudreau's knock on Lozano's front
door. "We have determined that in the first 10 seconds, there are only
two gunshots," Joe said. "And these two gunshots are very likely from
the same caliber." Joe said he is sure he did not hear a third shot.
"We just did not find evidence of that whatsoever," Joe said. Joe
said his findings were based on a copy of the audio portion of the video from
Boudreau's patrol car. Joe said his firm used computer software to determine the
acoustic characteristics of the shots, along with various mathematical analyses. He
added that the analysis did not determine from which gun the two shots were fired,
only that two shots were fired seconds after Boudreau arrived at the home. Deck
said the analysis proves that his client did not fire at Boudreau first because
the two were carrying different caliber guns. He also said that no .45-caliber
shell casings — the size Lozano was shooting — were found near the front
door. "My client has said from the very beginning that he had never
fired first, but in fact the officer fired first," Deck said. Sage
said the district attorney's office on April 29 sent the patrol car audio to Corey
Roberts of 501 Audio to present at the trial. The district attorney's office has
used the company in the past as an expert audio witness, Sage said. She would
not discuss details of that analysis. Lt. George Vanderhule, president of
the Austin Police Association, would not comment on the case because he said he
didn't know all the facts. However, speaking generally, Vanderhule said,
"if you come out with a gun and point it at a police officer, it doesn't
matter who fires first." According to the arrest warrant affidavit,
Miguel Salazar, the ex-boyfriend of David Lozano's wife, Rosemary, called police
just after midnight on March 21 and said he thought Rosemary was in danger. Deck
said Salazar had threatened Lozano in a phone call about five minutes before Boudreau
showed up at the home in the 1200 block of Silverton Court. In a police
affidavit, Boudreau said that when he arrived and knocked on the door, he heard
"the distinct sound of a slide being sent forward on a gun" from inside
the home. When Lozano heard a knock on the door, Deck said, he cocked his
gun loudly to make sure the person outside could hear. He thought it was Salazar,
Deck said. Boudreau moved off the porch after he heard Lozano's gun, the
affidavit said. He took cover behind a porch pillar and drew his weapon, according
to the affidavit. Boudreau was wearing a police uniform along with a hat
bearing a police department patch, according to the arrest warrant affidavit. The
affidavit doesn't indicate whether Boudreau verbally identified himself as a police
officer. After the initial shots were fired, Boudreau tried to keep cover,
retreating to the back of the house, and Lozano said something like "I'm
going to get you," according to Boudreau's account in an arrest affidavit. Deck
said Lozano couldn't see whom he was shooting at because it was dark, and he tried
to shoot toward the flash of gunfire. Boudreau told Lozano to show him his
hands, and Lozano fired another shot, according to the affidavit. Boudreau,
who told investigators that he could hear bullets whizzing past him, was not hit
during the shootout. Lozano fell to the ground at one point and then managed
to go back inside, the affidavit said. Moments later, Lozano came back outside
with his hands in the air and lay down. Police found 10 shell casings at
the scene, three from Lozano and seven from Boudreau. The affidavit said
Lozano fired at least three times at Boudreau. Deck said Lozano was shot
in the abdomen and leg, and another bullet grazed his right arm. Half of his leg
was amputated because of the injury, Deck said. back
to top
04-17-08:
Austin police changing how they report, review using
force
Move comes as department awaits results of Justice Department
inquiry.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, May
11, 2008 As part of a sweeping overhaul of their use-of-force policies,
Austin police officials will soon begin requiring officers to document more actions,
including when they point their weapons at suspects, and making front-line supervisors
do a more immediate, thorough investigation in nearly all cases when force is
used. The changes are scheduled to take effect June 1. They come after
years of community criticism about how Austin officers use force and during an
ongoing investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, which is looking into
whether the department routinely violates the rights of minorities. Police
officials said they will spend the next three weeks training officers and supervisors
on the new "response to resistance" standards. They will no longer refer
to the rules as their "use of force" policies and said the name change
more accurately reflects why they take certain actions to subdue suspects. "We
want to bring in the very best practices for Austin," Police Chief Art Acevedo
said last week. "Our officers deserve to have the best policies, procedures
and practices, and the community deserves the same. Having that brings trust and
a spirit of cooperation between the Austin Police Department and the community
we are sworn to keep safe." The new policies are already drawing community
support from some longtime police critics and concern from Austin Police Association
representatives, who say they worry that the added responsiblities could take
supervisors off the street for extended periods to complete reports. Police
officials also will appoint a force review board that will meet several times
a year to evaluate recent cases in which officers used force. The group will determine
whether the incidents highlight a need for policy changes or different training
or equipment, or whether the department practices are working. "There
are times when it is the duty and moral obligation of an officer to use force,"
said Assistant Police Chief David Carter. Carter, the department's chief
of staff, said the board will be made up of city attorneys and commanders of training,
special operations and patrol units. The modifications are the result of
a nearly year-long effort by police leaders, who reviewed similar policies in
other departments, including Oakland, Miami and Washington, D.C., which also revamped
their standards amid Department of Justice inquiries. Acevedo said officials
have sent their new policies to the Justice Department, which opened its investigation
in June. Results of the inquiry are pending. The investigation came nearly
three years after representatives of the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People and the Texas Civil Rights project filed a federal complaint
asking authorities to investigate how Austin officers use force. They cited
a series of American-Statesman articles in 2004 that revealed that from 1998 to
2003, police were twice as likely to use force against blacks as against whites
and 25 percent more likely to use force against Hispanics than against whites.
During that time, all but one of the 11 people who were killed by police
officers were minorities. Police have said the reports were based on inaccurate
data and inconsistent reporting by officers about when they use force. The
groups added to their complaint in February 2005 after several officers and dispatchers
exchanged computer messages that included "burn baby, burn" during a
fire at the Midtown Live nightclub, which catered to African American patrons.
Former City Manager Toby Futrell and previous Police Chief Stan Knee co-signed
a letter to the Justice Department a month later saying they welcomed an outside
review. Justice Department officials have declined to comment on the investigation,
which they said in a letter to the city will seek to determine "whether APD
is systemically violating the Constitution of the United States." Acevedo,
who was hired last summer after two decades with the California Highway Patrol,
said he realized during interviews to become Austin's police chief that he wanted
to immediately review how Austin officers use force. Since becoming chief, he
has raised concerns about how supervisors in some instances reviewed force incidents,
including a Thanksgiving 2006 traffic stop in which a corporal used his Taser
stun gun on a motorist as the driver appeared to question what was happening.
The corporal's immediate supervisor exonerated him of wrongfully using the weapon.
Acevado later used video from the traffic stop as a training tool for how not
to handle such situations. Acevedo said he has met with community leaders,
including Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, to discuss
the policies. Harrington said the new rules address "exactly what
we've been talking about for a long time that needs to be done. The proof will
be in the implementation of it, but I think everybody is quite willing to give
them a chance. "It is remarkable that we are making this much progress,"
he said. Last year, Austin police used force in 553 incidents, 83 instances
of which involved Taser stun guns. In 2006, officers used force in 714 incidents.
Supervisors' new roles As part of the new policies, which Acevedo
said will be made public when they are finalized, each incident would be evaluated
on the type of force officers used and whether it resulted in injuries to suspects.
In most instances, supervisors would be required to respond to the scene, interview
witnesses and officers and write a report that would be sent to higher-ranking
officers. Officials said supervisors will be evaluated on the quality of
their reports. Carter said in previous years, supervisors weren't required
to respond to such scenes, although many of them did. Officials said they
also typically reviewed force reports that officers filed, but they weren't required
to conduct or document a full review. They were responsible, however, for flagging
such incidents for their superiors, or sending the cases to internal affairs detectives
if they thought officers violated policies. "Sergeants need to become
leaders, and it is our job as ranking officers to empower these sergeants so they
can better serve officers who work for them and hold them accountable," Carter
said. Ideally, supervisors will file their reports before the end of their
shifts on the same day of the incident, he said, but some could take 24 to 48
hours. Austin police Lt. George Vanderhule, president of the Austin Police
Association, said he is worried that the new responsibilities could take sergeants,
who generally supervise about 10 patrol officers for each shift, off the street
for lengthy periods. "We are getting to the point where sergeants
are going to spend more time inside doing paperwork instead of outside supervising
their troops," Vanderhule said. "That is a concern for me." Carter
said questions about sergeants' workload are legitimate, but said they will be
able to file such reports from their patrol car computers without returning to
the police station. At any point, sergeants would be required to refer
cases to internal affairs investigators if they think officers violated department
policies, Carter said. New investigative unit Also under the new
policies, a new unit would investigate the most serious force incidents, including
those in which a suspect is killed or seriously or critically injured. The homicide
unit previously performed that job. The special investigations unit also
will look into cases in which officers strike a person's head with weapons, such
as their nightsticks, officials said. Department officials announced the
creation of the unit in February. The Los Angeles Police Department recently trained
unit members on how to better interview officers and witnesses after such incidents,
among other procedures. The unit will send its findings to the Travis County
district attorney's office for further review and also will share its work with
internal affairs investigators, who will determine whether officers violated department
policies. Sergeants will still be required to show up at those incidents
and write reports. Those supervisors also must respond to scenes in which
suspects are hurt and their injuries require them to be taken to the hospital,
even if they are not admitted, according to the new policies. The rules also say
that they must respond to scenes in which officers use their Taser stun guns.
Supervisors also generally will respond to all other scenes in which officers
use force, especially if the suspect complains of pain. However, in cases where
minor force was used and supervisors might be responding to other calls, they
would not be required to go. Incidents in which officers point their weapons
at suspects or use pressure points to subdue them fall into that category, officials
said. "We are adding levels of review more than anything," said
Sgt. Jim Beck, who was on the committee that helped create the new policies. Nelson
Linder, president of the local NAACP, said he also is pleased with the policy
changes, especially the reporting requirements for sergeants. "You
want a bigger picture about what is happening in the department, and it gives
you a lot more information about what's happening," he said. "More information
leads to more accountability." back
to top
04-17-08:
Austin officer fired in sex-for-hire case
He
remains under investigation by Travis County prosecutors.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
STAFF
Thursday, April 17, 2008 Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo fired
an officer Wednesday for having a relationship with a woman he paid for sex, repeatedly
lying about it and improperly discussing the case with fellow officers before
internal affairs detectives interviewed them, according to a disciplinary memo.
The woman, Denise Pfeifer, told investigators that officer Scott Lando
gave her several rocks of crack cocaine from the trunk of his police car and also
provided her with Vicodin and Xanax during their relationship between June and
September 2006, according to the memo. She also said that Lando once put a gun
to her boyfriend's head and threatened to kill him unless he told Lando where
she was. Acevedo said he found a preponderance of evidence that Lando not
only violated department policy but also state laws, including aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon, official oppression and delivery of a controlled substance.
Lando remains under investigation by the Travis County district attorney's
office. His attorney, Travis Williamson, said Lando would appeal the firing.
"He has maintained that he never had a sexual relationship with her,"
Williamson said. He said Lando thinks the reason Pfeifer was able to describe
the inside of his house and Jacuzzi bathtub to investigators was because she had
burglarized it. He said investigators gave credence to the woman's statements
that she and Lando had sex based on that description. According to the
disciplinary memo, Lando and Pfeifer had sex while Lando was on duty. She
also said that Lando gave her $250, which she used for a room at a hotel, and
bought her clothes at a Wal-Mart, the memo said. According to a search
warrant affidavit, Lando opened his wife's closet to Pfeifer as part of her payment,
allowing her to take a pair of black Harley-Davidson leather boots that were still
in the box, jewel-studded jeans and a pink and yellow top. The disciplinary
memo said that Lando accepted phone calls from the woman after she was sent to
jail on a probation violation and, according to a transcript, called her "baby"
in one of the calls. Acevedo also said in the memo that Lando discussed
charges pending against Pfeifer and his intent to visit her behind bars. The memo
said Lando provided her information about her case after reading an offense report,
which was in violation of department policy and probably the law. Acevedo
said in the memo that Lando's "egregious abandonment of the ethical canons
of the law enforcement profession serves to erode public trust. ... It is therefore,
in the best interest of the Austin Police Department and the community that we
are sworn to keep safe that Officer Lando be permanently dismissed from service."
back
to top
04-17-08:
Police may be owed nearly $900,000
Department
officials trying to trace billing, payments.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
STAFF
Thursday, April 17, 2008 Dozens of government agencies, businesses
and nonprofit groups might owe the Austin Police Department nearly $900,000 for
police overtime and other costs incurred in the past few years. But how
much was actually paid to the department — and how much might still be owed
— remains unclear. Department records spanning at least five years
don't conclusively show which organizations have paid those bills for police services,
or whether they were even billed. Officials said Wednesday some payments
might have been made but credited to the wrong accounts. They said they
are trying to recreate previous bookkeeping practices to see who owes money. "It
is just a time-consuming task," said Alice Suter, the department's chief
financial manager. This is the latest in a series of concerns raised during
the past year about how department officials have handled finances. Suter
joined the department last year and has been working with new police leaders,
including Chief Art Acevedo, to establish procedures for collecting and documenting
payments for special events such as fun runs and rallies. Organizers of
such events are billed for police services; fees usually include overtime pay
for off-duty police officers to patrol the areas. In some instances, City
Council members waive those fees for city-sponsored or co-sponsored events, such
as the South by Southwest music festival. Suter said she did not know when
the police would have an accurate accounting of money owed to the department and
whether it was paid. She said she assumes bills were sent to the organizations,
but that she doesn't know for sure. The department's former budget officer,
Shana Nichols, resigned in February after officials learned that a $1.1 million
payment to Travis County for use of the county jail hadn't been made. The
special event expenses came at a time when the department was consistently exceeding
its overtime budget, which officials have since tried to contain, in part, by
eliminating a staffing rule that required at least eight of 10 officers on each
shift to be on the street. The Police Department's financial practices
have come under scrutiny since last fall, and the department received a rebuke
last month from the U.S. Department of Treasury for the ways it spent $382,000
seized in criminal investigations. The agency told department officials
that they would receive a one-time waiver to use the money to pay overtime salaries
for 911 operators but cautioned that further use of seized money for that purpose
could jeopardize future federal dollars. Justice Department officials are
conducting a separate inquiry to see whether $700,000 in expenditures with seized
money violated federal rules. A recent audit of Austin's public safety
agencies said the department repeatedly exceeded its overtime budget and "is
not fully reimbursed for chargeable overtime." The American-Statesman
submitted a request under Texas open records laws for information on how much
the department has been reimbursed by outside organizations. According
to the response, $561,230 of the $885,000 in question is from more than a year
ago. Many of the fees appear to be owed by businesses, and Suter said most
were for special events. The documents do not provide a reason for the costs.
RunTex, for example, had a $31,000 fee. Owner Paul Carrozza said Wednesday
he would have to research whether the department billed his business and whether
he needed to make additional payments. The list also includes money that
was billed, or should have been billed, to other government agencies, including
the FBI, which helps the department pay for special task forces, for example.
Suter said most of the expenses under review are for less than $20,000.
She said the department probably will send letters to the organizations
or businesses in coming months to verify whether they have paid their bills. Austin
police Executive Cmdr. Sean Mannix said, "Our ultimate interest is determining
if money is owed, and collecting that money if it is." tplohetski@statesman.com;
445-3605 Do they owe Austin police? The Police Department doesn't
know whether some groups, including these, paid their bills for special event
services. Travis County$168,365 Run-Tex $31,588 Texas attorney
general's office $118,740 Capital of Texas Triathlon$9,212 Ringling
Brothers $8,042 One Star Foundation/Texas Roundup$7,364 back
to top
04-08-08:
City often pays legal fees for fired, suspended
officers
Officials say state law requires payments to attorneys.
By
Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, April 08, 2008 After
she was fired in the fatal shooting of Daniel Rocha in 2005, former Austin police
officer Julie Schroeder asked the city to pay for an attorney to represent her
in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by Rocha's family. City payments
so far to attorney Robert Icenhauer-Ramirez have reached nearly $300,000, and
the case has not yet gone to trial. An attorney who last month represented
an Austin officer and two former officers in a federal lawsuit alleging excessive
force against Ramon Hernandez also said he plans to bill the city thousands of
dollars for his services. The trial resulted in a not guilty verdict for his clients.
And city officials said they probably will pay tens of thousands of dollars
for an attorney to represent fired Austin police Sgt. Michael Olsen in a federal
suit. Olsen was dismissed in November for fatally shooting Kevin Alexander
Brown twice in the back last year. When a police officer is fired or suspended
for actions that later result in a lawsuit, the person's attorney fees usually
fall to taxpayers. Since 2002, those payments to private attorneys have
reached nearly $500,000. "That is a serious dichotomy," said
attorney Bobby Taylor, who is representing Rocha's family in the federal case
against Schroeder. "If you fire her because she did something wrong, why
is the taxpayer paying her legal fees? I can't rationalize it." A
state law passed in 1987 requires cities to provide attorneys in cases if the
suit "involves an official act of the employee within the scope of the employee's
authority." The law also applies to firefighters and paramedics. Cities
are required to provide the attorneys even if the public servant violated department
policies. Ron DeLord, executive director of the Combined Law Enforcement
Associations of Texas, said lawmakers wanted to give public servants full legal
protection in dealing with high-stress situations they confront in their jobs.
In firing Schroeder, former Police Chief Stan Knee said that she did not
have a "reasonable belief" that Rocha posed a threat and that Schroeder
could have accidently shot her sergeant during the struggle. Schroeder
has said that she fired during a scuffle with Rocha after she thought Rocha took
her Taser stun gun and was going to use it against her or her sergeant. Anne
Morgan, the city's chief of litigation, said Austin generally hires private attorneys
instead of using city lawyers, especially in cases in which officers have been
suspended or fired. "The most important thing is that people feel
comfortable with the representation they are getting, and we feel comfortable
providing it," Morgan said. She said that officers generally ask for
outside lawyers and that many of them have already selected an attorney. Morgan
said in those instances, city officials make sure those lawyers have the skills
for the job and typically require them to submit a budget. Legal fees of
more than $50,000 require City Council approval. Tom Stribling, an attorney
for the Austin Police Association who often represents officers in high-profile
incidents, said he agrees with the practice of city officials hiring outside attorneys
to represent officers who have been fired or suspended. "The city,
acting through the chief, has taken a position that is, or potentially is, in
conflict with the position that the officer would want to present in the federal
civil rights trial," Stribling said. "The city attorney's office should
not be put into a position of having to represent both of those points of view."
Stribling recently represented officer Christopher Gray and former officers
Joel Follmer and William Bradley Heilman, who were accused of using excessive
force against Hernandez. Hernandez suffered cuts and bruises in the incident,
which began when he fled the scene of a minor car accident on Burnet Road. He
said during the trial that he has schizophrenia and felt symptoms the day of the
wreck and arrest. Gray was suspended for 70 days, Follmer was fired, and
Heilman quit the department to attend law school. Stribling said he plans
to bill the city in the coming days. He also represented Olsen in arbitration
this year in which Olsen unsuccessfully sought to get his job back. Police
Chief Art Acevedo fired Olsen for excessive force and for using poor judgement
and tactics leading up to the shooting outside Chester's Club in East Austin.
Olsen has said that he fired at Brown after the man reached toward his
waist, as if drawing a weapon. Investigators later recovered a gun about 25 feet
from Brown's body. Stribling said he will continue to represent Olsen in
an appeal in state District Court. However, Stribling said Olsen probably
would seek another attorney in the federal case. City officials said they
have not yet been asked to pay the fees for Olsen in that matter. tplohetski@statesman.com;
445-3605 Highest fees paid since 2002 According to the City of Austin,
the highest fees paid to represent a fired or suspended Police Department worker
are: Officer: Julie Schroeder Incident: The June 2005 shooting of
Daniel Rocha, which happened during a struggle between Schroeder and Rocha in
which she thought he took her Taser stun gun. Former Police Chief Stan Knee fired
Schroeder. Fees paid to private attorney: $285,000 Officer:
Hector Polanco Incident: Polanco was sued for his tactics that led to the
false confession of a man in a 1988 rape and slaying. A grand jury investigated
Polanco for perjury but did not indict him. He was fired by the department but
later reinstated. He is now retired. Fees paid to private attorney: $110,350
Officer: Michael Olsen Incident: Olsen was accused of using excessive
force on Jeffrey Thornton in 2002. Thornton later sued the city and Olsen, and
the city settled for $31,000. Olsen was suspended for 60 days. Fees paid
to private attorney:$15,428 back
to top
04-04-08:
Austin police brutally attacked Friday
08:29
PM CDT on Friday, April 4, 2008
By RUDY KOSKI
KVUE News An Austin
policeman was attacked during a traffic stop along South Congress. A metal
prong and some copper wiring from a Taser were all was left Friday of the fight
-- small bits of evidence from a life and death struggle that investigators said
took place. “Officer Nordstrom was extremely lucky,” said Austin
Police Department Lt. Max Westbrook. It all began on I-35 shortly after
one in the morning. Officer James Nordstrom and his partner, Officer Jeffery
Page, were running radar and say they clocked a car speeding -- about 82 miles
per hour. The chase exited the interstate and briefly went down Slaughter
Lane before stopping at the corner of South Congress. Investigators said
the driver Samuel Landa got out of the car and started acting suspicious before
beginning to fight. What happened next, investigators said was captured
by the patrol car dash-camera - but that video is not expected to be made public
until after the case goes to trail. Westbrook has seen the tape and found
it frightening. “You can hear the officers say stop resisting, stop
resisting, put your hands behind your back, stop kicking me,” said Westbrook.
The officers used a Taser -- not once but three times. According
to Westbrook, Landa pulled out the prongs and kept on fighting. “The
Taser had no affect on this guy and so this violent struggle continues to roll
around on the ground,” said Westbrook. Dorothy Ward and Linda’s
son Joshua were in his car as the fight raged on. “And she basically
tells him you need to protect your father; you need to protect your father. She
provides him with a box cutter knife,” said Westbrook, who described what
took place next. “The videotape shows him actually leaving the car
at a high speed, rapidly, I mean he is running out of the car, you can see the
fist clinched, and we know from other sources what is in his hand, as he approaches
the officers. It happens in a matter of seconds.” The razor blade
sliced Officer Nordstrom, according to investigators, under the eye and along
the back of his neck. A total of 14 stitches were required to close the
wounds. It was estimated that the fight took less the three minutes, and
ended moments after back up arrived. Dorothy Ward and Joshua Landa were
both charged with aggravated assault on a police officer. Samuel Landa,
the driver, was charged with assault. All the charges could be upgraded
at a later date. back
to top
04-04-08:
Police, city begin contract talks
Negotiations
will be open to the public for the first time.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
STAFF
Friday, April 04, 2008 Austin city officials and representatives
from the police union began negotiating a new employment contract Thursday that
is expected to address issues such as pay, benefits and the process for disciplining
officers. Both sides have agreed for the first time since signing their
first contract in the mid-1990s to open discussions to the public, a decision
they said should boost confidence in how they go about reaching such agreements.
Meeting notices will be posted on the city's Web site. "We believe
in open government," said Wuthipong "Tank" Tantaksinanukij, vice
president of the Austin Police Association. "Police work isn't anything super
secret." Assistant City Manager Michael McDonald, who is leading the
city's bargaining team, said city officials recently approached the union about
making their discussions public. Similar requests to the union have been denied
in the past, he said. A state law that allows the bargaining does not require
officials to make negotiations public. However, representatives from the Austin
fire union and Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services negotiate contracts
under a different law that prevents them from meeting privately. Those
two groups are expected to begin bargaining with the city later this year. Past
contract talks between the city and police union have led to turmoil and polarized
relationships between both sides. Talks in 2004 resulted in a 10-day impasse
after nine months of negotiations. Union officials said the process had become
too political and that they did not think it was in the best interest of officers
to continue. Union members and the City Council eventually passed the contract.
Tantaksinanukij said the police union's negotiation team is still discussing
concerns they want to address in this year's agreement, which is expected to span
five years. The current contract expires in September, and officials said they
hope to have a new contract approved by then. Officials said they probably
would meet at least two days a week for several months. Tantaksinanukij
said the union is likely to continue to press the city to preserve "due process"
rights of officers accused of violating department policy, but he declined to
elaborate. The union's negotiation team consists of 18 officers of various
ranks and levels of experience, he said. McDonald said the city will seek
to maintain operations of the Austin Police Monitor's office and adjustments in
how the department promotes officers. The city's negotiation team includes
representatives from the city's human resources and legal departments and Assistant
Police Chief Patti Robinson. tplohetski@statesman.com; 445-3605 If
you go People interested in hearing negotiations should check on the Boards
and Commissions section on the city's Web site, www.cityofaustin.org, for meeting
dates and times. Members of the public are not allowed to provide input. No video
or audio recordings of the proceedings are allowed.
back
to top
03-28-08:
Jury finds police did not use excessive force
Ramon
Hernandez loses civil rights case against officers in videotaped beating.
By Steven Kreytak
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, March 27, 2008
A federal jury this afternoon found that an Austin police officer and two
former officers did not use excessive force against Ramon Hernandez, whom they
were videotaped beating during an arrest in September 2005. During
closing arguments this morning, one of Hernandez's lawyers implored the six-woman
federal jury hearing his civil rights case to hold the officers accountable for
roughing Hernandez up while he was handcuffed and lying facedown behind a Central
Austin transmission shop in 2005. "If what you saw on that
video was not a violation of Ramon's civil rights, I don't know what is,"
Amber Vasquez Bode said in U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Pitman's court. "Ladies,
you have the ultimate amount of responsibility to draw the line in the sand and
say what is acceptable in our community and what isn't." The
jury began deliberating the case at 10:45 a.m. and announced its verdict around
3:15 p.m. The jurors were charged by Pitman to decide whether Officer
Christopher Gray and former officers William Bradley Heilman and Joel Follmer
used excessive force that was "objectively unreasonable" in light of
the facts and circumstances that day. "These punches weren't
gratuitous. They weren't intended to one way or another punish him," said
Tom Stribling, one of the officers' lawyers. "They were used as a technique
to keep him from rolling over, which he has admitted he was trying to do."
Hernandez got into a minor car accident on Burnet Road on Sept. 21, 2005,
after which he acted strangely and fled the scene. He testified that he was having
trouble breathing and processing his thoughts. He also testified he has been diagnosed
with schizophrenia. Hernandez scaled a razor-wire fence and then
kneeled to pray a block away from the accident. That's where Heilman approached
him. Heilman said Hernandez refused commands to stop approaching
him and so Heilman used his Taser on Hernandez. Heilman said he deployed the Taser
several times, punched Hernandez and hit him with his collapsible baton because
Hernandez resisted arrest. At one point, Heilman said, Hernandez grabbed his gun
and tried to pull it from the holster. That's when Gray and Follmer arrived. Gray
said he kicked Hernandez in the head and soon they got him in handcuffs.
Hernandez broke free momentarily and the melee moved within view of Heilman's
squad car camera. From that point Hernandez is shown facedown, screaming and crying,
as Gray punched him 14 times in the back, Follmer punched him in the legs and
Heilman stood on his neck. Heilman was accused of using his Taser
on Hernandez at that point, which he has denied. Stribling said
Hernandez suffered no long-term injuries from the use of force, which he said
was necessary. "Sometimes the use of force doesn't look good,
and we understand that," Stribling said. "No one can say that they enjoyed
watching this videotape, but that is not the question. ... The question is whether
this was excessive force."
back
to top
03-24-08:
Austin police officer surprised at severity of punishment
to superior
She said that commander had provided 'proof' of discrimination
against her.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday,
March 24, 2008 An Austin police officer who complained that a commander
discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation wrote in a memo to
top police officials that she was "horrified" at the severity of the
punishment offered to a second commander for not reporting it. "I
was floored by the (offer of a) 30-day suspension, considering that I would have
never known about Cmdr. (Calvin) Smith's discrimination had Cmdr. (Larry) Oliver
not provided the information to prove the case," the officer wrote in a March
14 letter to Assistant Police Chief Leo Enriquez. Her name was redacted from the
documents. The memo was part of the information about the case obtained
today, which also included an interview by internal affairs detectives with Smith
and Oliver. Enriquez requested a memo from the officer after learning that Oliver
had talked to her before the case was resolved and asked her to describe the conversation.
Acevedo fired Oliver last week after he refused the 30-day suspension for
violating department policies requiring him to report suspected misconduct to
supervisors. State civil service law requires officers to agree to a suspension
of more than 15 days or be fired. Acevedo's decision, which Oliver is appealing
to an arbitrator, has angered the Austin Police Association and many inside the
department, who said they thought it was excessive. The suspension stemmed
from a conversation last year in which Smith told Oliver that he was concerned
about the officer's transfer to the training academy because of the "kind
of message" it would send. The academy already had two lesbians assigned
there, Smith said. Acevedo suspended Smith for 20 days. He said
he did not think his comments were discriminatory, but that, "I'll be darned
if I'll say anything like that again, because of, uh, the perceived lack of sensitivity
on my part." Smith said that he did not grant the transfer to the
female officer because of the number of people transferring in and out of the
academy and that he was concerned about the success of the training program.
back
to top
03-20-08:
Police misused seized money, federal agency says
Treasury
Department warns department not to repeat error.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
STAFF
Thursday, March 20, 2008 The Austin Police Department improperly
spent $382,000 from money seized during investigations to pay overtime salaries
for 911 operators, and it has been warned by federal officials not to do so again.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury sent the Police Department a letter
this week granting a one-time waiver for the expenditures, but it cautioned that
further use of seized money for that purpose "will be considered a misuse
of funds and may result in the agency's (loss of) eligibility to receive future
shared funds." Shortly after he started work in July, Police Chief
Art Acevedo asked federal officials to review how the agency has spent more than
$1 million in seized funds after he learned some of the expenditures probably
violated federal and state rules. Treasury Department policies set out
how a portion of the more than $1 million should be spent. U.S. Department
of Justice officials are conducting a separate inquiry to see whether $700,000
in expenditures violated its rules, including a $13,000 college tuition payment
for a police commander. The Treasury Department money was from investigations
police conducted with agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms that are run by the department; the Justice Department is investigating
money seized by Austin police with its agencies, including the FBI. "We
appreciate their response in clarifying this particular issue for us," Assistant
Police Chief David Carter, who is the department's chief of staff, said Wednesday
of the Treasury Department's letter. "We also recognize that there
is an outstanding amount of money that is still being looked at. We are fully
cooperating with them as we have been, and we have no news relating to that."
Questions about how the department has spent seized funds arose in August,
soon after the American-Statesman requested a list of such expenses and Acevedo
asked for an update of the department's finances. Acevedo received a memo
that said the agency had used seized funds in 2005 and 2006 to balance the department's
budget and that at one point, cash balances for the funds were in the negative.
Federal guidelines and state law require the money to be spent on law enforcement
and prohibit uses such as paying for existing staff or supplanting existing funding.
According to a response to the Statesman's request, money was used for pay to
clothing for the department's running team and for coffee mugs, for instance.
According to the letter from the Treasury Department, using seized money
to pay for 911 operators "generally would not be considered a permissible
use of funds. "I recognize that the call takers/dispatch provide ancillary
benefits to law enforcement," said the letter from Eric Hampl, a Treasury
director. "Therefore, I am hereby granting a one-time waiver for the prior
use of the shared funds for this purpose." The letter said that the
department should request an opinion from Treasury officials in the future if
an expense falls into a gray area or gives the appearance of an impropriety. Carter
said Acevedo has established new policies requiring his signature on expenses
from seized funds. "We appreciate your candor in explaining the prior
use of shared funds and for taking the initial steps to resolve atny potential
misuse of funds," the Treasury Department letter said. back
to top
03-18-08:
Austin police officers punished over gay remarks
One
commander fired; one who made biased comment is suspended for 20 days.
By
Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, March 18, 2008 Austin
Police Chief Art Acevedo suspended a veteran commander for 20 days Monday for
making comments that Acevedo said demonstrated a "personal bias" toward
gay officers and fired a second commander who failed to report it and refused
a suspension. Cmdr. Calvin Smith, who has worked for the department for
34 years and supervises the Austin police training academy, told the fellow commander
that he was worried about the "kind of message" the potential transfer
of a gay female officer would send at the academy, which already had two lesbians
working there, according to a disciplinary memo. Cmdr. Larry Oliver was
fired for failing to report the comments, even though he later confirmed to investigators
that he thought Smith was referring to "their being lesbians," a disciplinary
memo said. He was fired after refusing Acevedo's offer of a 30-day suspension.
"We hold our commanders to the highest standards, which were not met
in this case," said Assistant Police Chief David Carter, who also is the
department's chief of staff. The punishments are the most significant Acevedo
has imposed in his 22-member command staff since taking over the department in
July. His actions immediately brought harsh criticism from the Austin Police Association,
which has mostly remained publicly silent about how Acevedo has disciplined officers.
Association President George Vanderhule said Acevedo committed "financial
blackmail" by telling the commanders that they must accept a certain number
of days off without pay and agree not to appeal, or be fired. Under state
civil service laws, police chiefs can suspend an officer for no more than 15 days
without such an agreement. Vanderhule said the punishments were excessive
and outside new disciplinary guidelines announced last week. For instance, he
said, under those guidelines, failing to report a policy violation carries a suspension
of up to four days. "I am disappointed in the whole process,"
he said. "I'm disappointed in the outcome." It was not clear
Monday whether Oliver, a 24-year department veteran, will appeal the firing. Smith
agreed to a 20-day suspension that will begin today and conclude April 6. According
to the disciplinary memos, Smith made the statements last year when he and Oliver
were discussing the possible transfer of an unidentified female officer. Smith
had recently been assigned to replace Oliver in supervising the training academy.
Oliver later related the conversation to one of the women. The memo
said that Smith told internal affairs investigators that he had denied the officer's
transfer request for reasons other than her sexual orientation. "Commander
Smith's opinion concerning the sexual orientation of these employees, and their
assignment within the Austin Police Department, exhibited a personal bias, was
inappropriate, and failed to demonstrate an impartial attitude required by Austin
police employees," the memo said. The memos said that Oliver told
internal affairs detectives that he was "pretty taken aback" by the
comment. "I've reported discriminatory statements in the past to my
chain of command," he told them, according to the memo. "I just didn't
do it this time, and it was an oversight on my part." Acevedo also
disciplined Oliver for not abiding by an order not to discuss the case. That was
why his proposed suspension of Oliver was longer than Smith's. The memo said that
after learning that he would probably be suspended earlier this month, Oliver
called the woman who was denied the transfer and told her the outcome of the inquiry.
He also said that he "would not hold it against her for filing the complaint
against Commander Smith." Carter said the punishments should send
a message to the department and the community: "We are going to hold people
in leadership accountable."
back
to top
03-11-08:
Austin police guidelines establish expectations and
public trust
By The Editorial Board | Tuesday, March 11, 2008,
05:14 PM
When Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo was hired last year, he promised
to make the department and its employees behave more professionally. It is an
important promise to keep. Police officers who violate the public trust undermine
confidence in law enforcement. This week, the city’s police department
leadership took a major step forward in keeping that pledge by crafting a set
of discipline guidelines that will help ensure fairness by setting clear expectations
of officer conduct. The policies are expected to take effect by the end of the
month. American-Statesman writer Tony Plohetski reported in Tuesday’s
editions that police officers who wrongly use deadly force or lie in police reports
or in any official statement will be fired under the new guidelines. Those rules
also establish punishments for improperly using city equipment, including the
Internet, failure to videotape traffic stops, and for accidents involving patrol
cars that stem from negligence. As would be expected, the guidelines create
stiffer penalties for officers who continue to make the same mistakes. It
all sounds like common sense, yet the police force has operated without those
kinds of clear guidelines for too many years, and that has created havoc in the
department and the community. Officers rightly complained of unfair treatment
when some were terminated for lying while others were only suspended or reprimanded
for the same offense. Three years ago, the department’s unequal disciplinary
procedures came under fire by an arbitrator, who gave officer Timothy Little his
job back, but with a 90-day suspension. Former Chief Stan Knee fired Little for
filing a false police report. The arbitrator wrote in the ruling that “there
is too much disparity between the termination imposed on (Little) and the far
lesser discipline imposed on other officers engaging in the same or similar conduct.” In
explaining the new guidelines, Acevedo said they spell out expectations, help
officers know upfront the consequences of unprofessional or illegal behavior and
provide greater transparency - a key goal of Acevedo’s. “If you
know you are going to get fired for certain offenses, then you are going to think
twice before doing it,” Acevedo said. “Some believe that you give employees
enough rope to hang themselves. But leadership requires that we put high standards
in place and help people understand them.” Keep in mind that the guidelines
do permit a certain amount of flexibility. Department officials could consider
whether an officer acted intentionally or violated a policy for personal gain,
or if someone accepted responsibility for a mistake and whether an officer’s
conduct damaged the department’s reputation. Acevedo said the next step is
devising new guidelines for non-sworn department employees, such as forensic employees,
technicians, dispatchers and office workers. Most police officers are law-abiding
men and women who pinned on a badge to serve the public. But there is obviously
room for improvement. The proposed guidelines are big steps toward that improvement.
back to top
03-11-08:
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police develop punishment
guidelines for officers accused of wrongdoing
Process will make punishment
more fair, department officials say.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
STAFF
Tuesday, March 11, 2008 Under guidelines to be adopted
soon, Austin police officers who wrongly use deadly force or break certain state
or federal laws while on duty will be fired. Those who lie in police
reports or in any official statements also will be terminated. Police
officials have created a set of discipline guidelines they say will help ensure
fairness, bolster cases in which officers appeal their punishments and, it is
hoped, ease public concern about the fate of officers accused of wrongdoing.
The guidelines, which officials hope to put in place by the end of the
month, set out punishments for offenses such as negligent patrol car accidents,
improper use of city equipment, including the Internet, and failure to videotape
traffic stops. They establish more severe penalties for officers
who continue to make the same mistakes. "It is making it very
clear, up front, the expectations," said Assistant Police Chief David Carter,
who is the department's chief of staff. "If you are involved in this, this
is what is going to happen. It's not about, 'You are one of the good ol' boys,
and we are going to give you a pass,' or 'You're in this group, and we are going
to hammer you.' " The shift is among several the department
is making in the disciplining of officers. Officials plan to begin
this month requiring officers' supervisors to investigate complaints of low-level
offenses, such as rudeness or missed court appearances, instead of routing them
to internal affairs investigators. Supervisors would still be required to send
cases to internal affairs if they learn of a more serious violation while investigating
a minor offense. Carter said the effort should make supervisors
more accountable for the actions of officers —they could face punishment
for failing to properly supervise — and free internal affairs detectives
to investigate more serious complaints. However, Police Monitor
Cliff Brown, who supports the adoption of discipline guidelines, questions the
ability of officers' immediate bosses to handle such matters objectively.
"The concern is that they may be too close to the situation,"
he said. Brown said he is worried that representatives from his
office won't be able to monitor interviews with officers accused of a policy violation
because supervisors might meet with them when they are on duty, even at night,
instead of in the normal business day. Brown said he has two staff
members who monitor such interviews. Police union officials for
years have been pushing the department to develop guidelines for officer punishments,
saying that discipline in the past has been inconsistent and arbitrary.
Three years ago, an arbitrator gave officer Timothy Little his job back,
but with a 90-day suspension, after he was accused of filing a false police report.
In his ruling, arbitrator Norman Bennett wrote that "there is too much disparity
between the termination imposed on (Little) and the far lesser discipline imposed
on other officers engaging in the same or similar conduct." The
idea of developing punishment guidelines arose during Austin's search for a police
chief last year, with some community leaders asking candidates whether they support
such a system. Dallas and Houston police departments have such systems, which
officials have said work successfully. Assistant Police Chief Al
Eells said department officials created a committee to develop the guidelines
soon after Police Chief Art Acevedo took over the department in July. The
group included officers, supervisors and union representatives who spent about
nine months developing the guidelines. Police officials are completing documents
further describing the new parameters and declined to make them public last week.
According to a draft of the guidelines, which officials said should undergo
only minor revisions before they are released, officers would receive oral or
written reprimands for the least serious offenses, and the range would increase
from a one- to a three-day suspension for first-time violations such as improperly
using city resources. For a second offense, officers would move
into a second discipline tier, which includes a four- to 15-day suspension.
The guidelines said department officials would consider other factors in
disciplining officers, including whether the officer acted intentionally or violated
a policy for personal gain. Officials will consider whether officers accept responsibility
for their mistakes and whether their conduct harmed the department's image.
The guidelines said that Acevedo will still retain his right to step outside
of the recommended disciplines. George Vanderhule, president of
the Austin Police Association, said the union supports the concept of establishing
discipline parameters. However, he said the group has other concerns
about the new process but declined to discuss them. "The chief
has asked for our input, and we are giving him our input," he said
back
to top
03-02-08:
Austinites with police gripes urged to
speak up
Police monitor's office encouraging mediation
By
Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, March 02, 2008 People
who think that an Austin police officer was rude to them or has a bad attitude
have adifferent way to settle disputes: by talking it out face to face. Representatives
from the Austin police monitor's office have recently begun pitching the option
of mediation to people who have gripes about officers, hoping that such discussions
can help create a better relationship between police and the community. Police
Monitor Cliff Brown said that so far, no resident has chosen to pursue the option
but that he plans to encourage people who file complaints with his office about
officers to do so. "It could be a meaningful resolution to both parties,"
Brown said. Police officials said that minor disputes — mostly those
involving conduct — could be settled through such discussions but that internal
affairs investigators would still handle more serious complaints, such as those
involving excessive force. Police officials and representatives from the
Austin Police Association said they like the idea of mediation, which would be
conducted by an arbitrator hired by the monitor's office and would serve as final
resolution on a case. The process has been in place for years through a contract
between the police union and the city. Both the officer and the resident
must agree to settle the matter with a third party. If the officer refuses, the
resident can proceed with a formal complaint. Union President George Vanderhule
said officers want feedback from residents about how they have conducted themselves.
He said mediation would probably cut down on the number of cases sent to internal
affairs detectives for a full investigation. "Officers do appreciate
at a later point feedback on how the stop went, what the citizen's perception
was," Vanderhule said. "It's a good tool." Vanderhule said
officers like the chance to further explain how they do their jobs and would get
to do so in a neutral environment. Police officials said it is unclear whether
officers on the 1,500-member force would participate in mediation while on duty
or would be paid overtime to meet with residents. Police Chief Art Acevedo
said participating in mediation could help officers be more reflectiveabout how
they approached a particular traffic stop or other encounter. That, he said, can
only help how they interact with residents in the future. "There is
value," Acevedo said. Brown said residents may also want a chance
to tell officers how they perceived their actions. With mediation, residents
may also get a faster resolution with the officer who they thought wronged them,
Brown said. In many cases when people file a complaint, they do not find
out how the matter was resolved unless an officer gets at least a one-day suspension.
Verbal or written reprimands are not public record. Cmdr. Charles Johnson
of the internal affairs division said detectives investigate numerous complaints
each month that involve "just basic misunderstandings." If they
go to mediation, people who file complaints "will walk away with a better
satisfaction, but also officers will," Johnson said. "They have very
brief encounters. And a month later, they find out a person complains, and they
are left with, 'What did I do? Why is this person complaining?' " Some
other cities with civilian oversight said such mediation programs have been successful.
Leslie Stevens, director of the office of independent police review in
Portland, Ore., said that since 2002, about 110 cases have been successfully mediated.
The office gets about 750 complaints a year. Portland has 929 police officers.
Portland officers who participate in mediation usually do so when they
are scheduled for regular duty, but the department has paid overtime to those
when scheduling conflicts happen, Stevens said. "Oftentimes, face-to-face
communications and just explaining why each party said, did or perceived, people
walk away with a better understanding of what happened," Stevens said. back
to top
03-01-08:
City panel upholds firing of Austin officer
Group
finds that Olsen used excessive force in June shooting.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
STAFF
Saturday, March 01, 2008
A city panel responsible for deciding
whether fired Austin police Sgt. Michael Olsen should get his job back upheld
his termination Friday, ruling that charges of excessive force in the fatal shooting
of Kevin Alexander Brown "are true." The three-member civil service
commission also agreed with Police Chief Art Acevedo, who fired Olsen in November,
that Olsen had demonstrated poor judgment and tactics in his actions leading up
to the June 3 shooting outside Chester's club. Panel members made no public
comments, other than reading aloud their written order, which said they found
that Olsen had not used "the minimum level of force reasonably necessary
to bring an incident under control." Their opinion came after a six-day
appeal hearing that included testimony from Olsen, Acevedo and other officers.
Leaders of the Austin Police Association, who had previously declined to
issue an opinion about whether Olsen should have shot Brown, sided with him after
the ruling. "The decision to use lethal force often highlights the
difficult environment and dangers of being a police officer and the split-second
decisions officers make while putting their own lives at risk," union Vice
President Wuthipong "Tank" Tantaksinanukij said. "These decisions
are almost always subject to months and years of intense review with the clarity
of 20-20 hindsight." Tantaksinanukij said the union had refrained
from making a decision about whether the shooting was justified because it had
asked the community to do so until facts of the case were made public. Olsen
shot Brown twice in the back after investigating a report that Brown had a gun
outside the popular nightclub. Olsen has said that he fired after Brown
reached toward his waist, as if drawing a weapon, during a foot chase. A gun was
later recovered in an apartment complex courtyard where Brown was shot. Olsen
testified at the hearing that he was comfortable with most of his actions, but
he said he now realizes that he could have waited for more officers before approaching
Brown. Acevedo testified that Olsen should have waited for backup and should
not have separated from his patrol partner, Ivan Ramos. He also said that Olsen
has a history of impulsiveness and not following his training, and that the shooting
was avoidable. Olsen declined to comment Friday, other than to say that
he will pursue appeal options, including possibly taking the case to state District
Court. Acevedo, who was present for the ruling, said at a news conference
that he had based his decision to fire Olsen on facts of the case. "When
it comes to accountability, we have to hold people accountable," he said.
Acevedo also asked the community to no longer liken the shooting of Brown
to the fatal police shooting of Sophia King in 2002. King was shot and killed
by officer John Coffey as she was lunging at her apartment complex manager with
a knife. Acevedo said he had reviewed the King case and thought Coffey
was justified. During closing statements Friday, attorney Tom Stribling,
who is representing Olsen, told the panel that Acevedo had failed to adequately
show why Olsen should have been fired. Stribling reminded the panel that
officers who have worked in the department's training academy testified that Olsen
had been taught to continue firing at a threatening suspect, even if the suspect
had been hit and was injured. "He did exactly what he was trained
to do, and now he is being fired for that," Stribling said. "If you
don't like the policy, change the policy. But don't make him the scapegoat."
Assistant City Attorney Michael Cronig urged the panel to consider Olsen's
previous disciplinary history, including a 60-day suspension in 2002 for violating
the department's use of force and honesty policies. Olsen was accused of lying
about an incident in which he slammed a man on the hood of a police car on East
Sixth Street, causing him to lose consciousness. In its one-page order
Friday, the commission said it had considered Olsen's past. The written order
also said the panel had given Olsen a chance to introduce all evidence and call
any witnesses. It also said that they think they had retained the right
to hear the matter. Last week, Olsen's attorney had argued that the group
had lost its jurisdiction by failing to agree with Olsen on a deadline for hearing
the case, as required by state law. Tantaksinanukij said union officials
think Olsen's rights were violated during the appeal. The city violated its contract
with the union by releasing confidential information about the investigation,
he said. The commission also illegally denied Olsen's request to take his
case to an independent arbitrator, Tantaksinanukij said. "The association's
primary role has been, and will always be, to ensure that the officer's rights
and due process are protected, just like the rights of any other citizen,"
he said. back
to top
2-29-08:
City panel deliberating
fate of fired officer
Attorney for Michael Olsen says decision should
not come down to 'popularity contest' with police chief.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
STAFF
Friday, February 29, 2008
A city panel responsible for
deciding whether fired Austin police Sgt. Michael Olsen should get his job back
has begun deliberating after six days of testimony in an appeals hearing. Today,
attorneys representing Olsen and Police Chief Art Acevedo presented closing statements
that included an argument from Olsen's lawyer that Acevedo had failed to adequately
show that Olsen should have been fired. "This is not a popularity
contest," attorney Tom Stribling said. "This is not, 'You have a very
charismatic chief who needs your support.' " Acevedo fired Olsen in
November for the fatal shooting of Kevin Alexander Brown after a June 3 encounter
outside Chester's club in East Austin. Olsen, who was investigating a report
that Brown had a gun outside the club, has said that he fired after Brown reached
toward his waist, as if drawing a weapon. Acevedo testified for more than
four hours Thursday, saying that he didn't think Olsen should work as a police
officer again "because of the way he is made up." Acevedo said
Olsen used excessive force and poor judgment and tactics leading up to the shooting.
Acevedo has said that the first two rounds that Olsen fired at Brown may have
been within policy, but that the second two after Brown had hit the ground were
not justifiable. Brown was hit twice in the back. Stribling reminded
the city's three-person civil service commission this morning that officers who
have worked in the department's training academy testified that Olsen had been
taught to continue firing at a threatening suspect, even if the suspect had already
been hit and was injured. "He did exactly what he was trained to do,
and now he is being fired for that," Stribling said. "If you don't like
the policy, change the policy. But don't make him the scapegoat." Assistant
City Attorney Michael Cronig said that the incident was the third time Olsen has
been found to have used excessive force and repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment
during the incident by not waiting for backup officers and splitting up with his
partner during a foot pursuit.
back
to top
2-23-08:
Olsen hearing to move forward, panel rules
Commission rejects claim they were slow to begin hearing after appeal.
By
Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, February 23, 2008 A
city panel responsible for deciding whether fired Austin police Sgt. Michael Olsen
can have his job back rejected an opinion Friday from Olsen's lawyers that the
panel could no longer hear the proceeding and criticized them for making the argument.
"As a commission, we are very concerned that counsel for Mr. Olsen
would pursue this strategy at this late date," said Stephen Edmonds, who
sits on the city's three-person civil service commission. The commission's
ruling on whether the hearing was held soon enough after the filing of Olsen's
appeal came the same day it decided against tossing the testimony of an Austin
police homicide detective who said he had watched on TV an animated re-creation
of the shooting that led to Olsen's firing. Witnesses in the hearing are
prohibited from watching media coverage. Detective Doug Skolaut said he was unaware
of the rule. "The commission wishes to serve justice and ensure that
all witnesses with facts of the incident should be heard," member Janis Guerrero
Thompson said. Police Chief Art Acevedo fired Olsen in November, saying
that he had used excessive force and poor judgment and tactics in the June 3 fatal
shooting of Kevin Alexander Brown outside Chester's Club in East Austin. Olsen
had been investigating a report that Brown had a gun outside the club and has
said that he fired at Brown after Brown reached toward his waist, as if to draw
a weapon, during a foot pursuit. The panel heard a fourth day of testimony
Friday and is expected to make a decision next week. Attorney Tom Stribling,
who is representing Olsen, told the panel Wednesday that it could no longer hear
the proceeding because it had not done so within 30 days of the filing of Olsen's
appeal, nor had it set a new deadline with Olsen, as required by law. However,
Edmonds told Stribling that the commission had already tried to accommodate Olsen
by not conducting the hearing 30 days after the appeal at Olsen's request. Edmonds
also said that at a recent hearing Stribling had asked the commission to be flexible
in its schedule and that any objections should have been voiced before the proceeding
began. During his testimony, Skolaut, who investigated the case, said he
was confident that Brown was carrying a gun during the chase. Investigators later
recovered a gun at the scene. He also said he did not think Olsen was required
to wait for additional officers before approaching Brown, and he pointed out that
Olsen had called on the radio for backup. "I think at some point,
he had to approach this person," he said. "I don't see that as bad judgment."
Senior Patrol Officer Todd Myers testified that it is routine for Austin
officers to chase a suspect who might be armed and that he has also separated
from partners during such pursuits. Police officials have said that Olsen
showed poor tactics in separating from his patrol partner, Ivan Ramos. Olsen's
lawyers and the city wrapped up testimony Friday. It had been expected to go through
the weekend. Acevedo is scheduled to testify at 11 a.m. Thursday, when
the hearing resumes.
back
to top
2-22-08:
Fired officer says he felt comfortable with most
actions on night of fatal shooting
In hearing to get job back, Olsen
says, in hindsight, he should have waited for backup.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, February 22, 2008 Fired Austin police
Sgt. Michael Olsen said Thursday that he "felt comfortable" with most
of his actions the night he fatally shot Kevin Alexander Brown but that he could
have delayed approaching Brown until more officers arrived. The encounter
quickly led to a foot pursuit outside Chester's Club in which Olsen shot Brown
twice in the back. "Hindsight 20-20, I would have waited for more
officers," Olsen testified at an appeal hearing in which he is seeking to
get his job back. "Knowing what I know now." Olsen discussed
the June 3 shooting for nearly four hours on the third day of testimony, including
how he thought he gave "sufficient" information to his patrol partner
about why he was approaching Brown and why he was "100 percent sure"
Brown was armed. Police Chief Art Acevedo fired Olsen in November, saying
that he used excessive force and demonstrated poor tactics and judgment during
the incident. Olsen has said that he was investigating a report that Brown
had a gun and that he fired when Brown reached toward his waist, as if drawing
the weapon. Olsen is appealing the termination before the city's civil
service commission, which is expected to decide next week whether to reinstate
him. The commission on Thursday postponed deciding whether to suspend the
hearing after Olsen's lawyers objected to them moving forward. Attorney Tom Stribling,
said the commission violated state law by not agreeing with his client to a deadline
on when they would rule. During his testimony, Olsen said that he had communicated
with Officer Ivan Ramos about which club patron might have a gun and that he knew
a third officer was moments away. He said officers often investigate such reports
without backup. He said that he initially was unsure whether Brown had
a gun and that he had hoped Brown would consent to a pat-down search. He said
his concern heightened after Brown shoved him away and ran. Olsen said
that at first he was only trying to catch Brown but that he became worried that
Brown was going to fire at him after Brown began "digging" at his waist.
"I believed he was trying to pull that gun out and shoot me,"
Olsen said. Olsen said he kept firing after Brown had fallen to the ground
because Brown was still moving, perhaps for the gun, and that the shots were consistent
with his training. "I still felt the deadly threat," he said.
"We are taught to end the threat, and I wanted to go home and see my kids."
Acevedo has said that the first shots at Brown may have been within Police
Department policy but that the second round of shots violated such rules. Assistant
City Attorney Michael Cronig questioned Olsen about his history with the department.
The shooting was the third incident in which Olsen was found to have violated
the department's use-of-force policy. Olsen also was suspended for 60 days
after an incident in 2002 in which he assaulted a bystander on Sixth Street and
was accused of lying about it in his police report. Cronig also questioned
whether Olsen's account of what happened that night could be trusted. "We
should believe you because you tell us that's the truth?" Cronig asked. Olsen
responded, "Yes sir." Near the end of his testimony, Olsen told
the commission that his termination could have a lasting impact. "There
are going to be officers who are going to be afraid to pull their trigger to save
their life or the life of another," he said.
back
to top
2-20-08:
Olsen lawyer asks commission to halt appeal of firing
Attorney representing police officer says time for decision has legally passed.
By Tony Plohetski
AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Attorneys representing fired Austin police Sgt. Michael Olsen this morning
threw into jeopardy an appeal hearing in which Olsen is seeking his job back,
arguing that the city's civil service commission no longer has an ability to rule
in the case. Lawyer Tom Stribling must present in writing his objections
to the commission on Thursday, when members will decide in a closed meeting whether
to move forward with or suspend the case. Commissioners denied Stribling's request
to immediately end the hearing. Olsen could be automatically reinstated
to the force if the commission rules that they no longer have jurisdiction. Stribling
said that state law says that if the commission cannot hear the case, and uphold
the firing, Olsen would get his job back. Stribling said at the beginning
of the hearing's second day that state law requires commissioners to hear a fired
officer's appeal within 30 days of the termination, unless both sides agree to
extend the deadline and set a date for a ruling. It was unclear this morning
why the hearing was not set within 30 days. Stribling said that he asked
for the hearing to be delayed to a point past 30 days, but additionally had requested
in writing that it be completed by Feb. 19. Police Chief Art Acevedo fired Olsen
on Nov. 28. "We think that because of this fact, there is nothing
more you can do in this case," Stribling said. "You don't have jurisdiction
to hear this appeal any further." Stribling also objected during the
hearing to the city's hiring of a Fort Worth lawyer to represent the commission.
Attorney Bettye Lynn has built a practice representing cities in such matters,
which Stribling said would be similar to the commission using an attorney who
has traditionally represented police officers. Stribling said the commission
should have independently hired a lawyer or sought an attorney to which both sides
had agreed. Acevedo fired Olsen after reviewing the June shooting in which
Olsen shot and killed Kevin Alexander Brown outside Chester's Nightclub in East
Austin. Olsen has said he fired after Brown reached for his waist as if drawing
a weapon. Olsen had been investigating a report that Brown had a gun at
the club.
back
to top
2-20-08:
Fired officer's appeal hearing begins
Witness says Olsen did not coordinate with other officers, but that he would have
'no problem' with Olsen as his supervisor.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
STAFF
Tuesday, February 19, 2008 Fired Austin police Sgt. Michael Olsen
never coordinated with fellow officers about how best to confront Kevin Alexander
Brown on the night Olsen fatally shot him and did not point Brown out to his patrol
partner before approaching, according to testimony today at Olsen's appeal hearing
to get his job back. "The only thing I gathered was that a black male
suspect had passed a gun to a black male with a red shirt," Officer Ivan
Ramos said. "He didn't communicate at all." However, Ramos, who
has been a patrol officer for nearly four years, said he would trust Olsen's decision-making
if he is reinstated and would have "no problem" having Olsen as his
supervisor. Ramos was the first witness today in Olsen's hearing before
the city's three-member civil service commission, which must decide whether Olsen
should be returned to the police force. The hearing is expected to continue through
next week and include witnesses such as Police Chief Art Acevedo, police training
experts and officers who patroled with Olsen that night. Acevedo fired
Olsen in December, saying that he used excessive force when he shot Brown twice
in the back outside Chester's club in East Austin and that he used poor judgment
leading up to the shooting. Acevedo said in a disciplinary memo that a
first round of shots that Olsen fired at Brown might have been within policy,
but that he used excessive force when firing at Brown after he had fallen to the
ground. Olsen, who was working an overtime assignment in the area near
the club, had been investigating a report from a security guard that Brown had
a gun. Brown fled on foot behind the club and into an apartment complex
courtyard. Olsen, who pursued Brown with Ramos, has said he fired after Brown
reached toward his waist, as if drawing a weapon. Police later found a gun nearby.
Ramos said during his testimony that he and Olsen had stopped a motorist
for loud music when the Chester's security guard approached them to report that
a patron might have a gun. Ramos said that Olsen completed writing a ticket
to the motorist, then approached Brown. Ramos said he had "no idea"
which man Olsen was approaching and that Olsen had not told him he planned to
grab Brown. However, attorney Michael Rickman, who is representing Olsen
with lawyer Tom Stribling, questioned Ramos about how he thinks Olsen should have
performed. "I don't know if I would have done anything different or
not," Ramos said. He also said that the Police Department has no policy
concerning how officers should conduct foot pursuits, nor was he taught such tactics
in the department's training academy. "No one said, 'If you are chasing
someone, this is what you need to do,' " he said. During opening statements,
city attorney Michael Cronig urged the commission to consider that Olsen had been
previously disciplined for using excessive force and had fired his weapon at animals
twice in the months before shooting Brown. One incident involved a pit bull that
a police report said had been threatening neighbors; the second involved a cat
that had been hit by a car. Cronig said that the incident shows that "Sgt.
Olsen can't be trusted with a weapon again." Stribling said that Brown
contributed to the incident by having a gun and fleeing police. He said Olsen
had an obligation to immediately investigate the report that Brown had a weapon
and that the department has no set number of officers who must be at a scene before
taking action. Stribling also said that evidence will show that Olsen was
trained to continue shooting at Brown after he had been struck. Stribling declined
to comment further. back
to top
2-19-08:
Tom Stribling keeps busy with police clients
Austin lawyer prepares to represent Michael Olsen this week.
By Tony
Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, February 19, 2008 When
Austin police officer Gary Griffin was being investigated by internal affairs
detectives in 2006 over accusations that he used excessive force on a man with
mental retardation, he wanted a top-notch lawyer who could steer him through what
was fast becoming a high-profile case. He called Tom Stribling. During
the next few months, Stribling accompanied Griffin when internal affairs detectives
questioned him and represented him at a disciplinary hearing where Griffin was
fired. The veteran attorney then convinced an arbitrator that Griffin shouldn't
have lost his job and got him reinstated. Griffin now patrols in Northwest
Austin. "Tom knew what needed to be said and when it needed to be
said," Griffin said in an interview last week. "He's been doing this
so long, he has it down to a science almost." When Austin police officers
get in trouble or need a lawyer, the 51-year-old Stribling has become the man
they turn to for help. This week, Stribling faces what may be the biggest
challenge of his careerso far:convincing the city's three-person civil service
commission to give fired Sgt. Michael Olsen his job back. Police Chief
Art Acevedo fired Olsen last year. He said Olsen used excessive force by shooting
Kevin Alexander Brown twice in the back in June. Acevedo also said Olsen used
poor judgment leading up to the shooting. Olsen, who was not indicted by
a grand jury that looked into the shooting, has said that he shot Brown outside
Chester's Club in East Austin after Brown appeared to be reaching toward his waist,
as if to draw a weapon. Olsen had been investigating a report that Brown had a
gun at the club. "The odds are long, but I truly believe that if you
know the facts, hear the evidence, and if you are devoid of outside political
influence, that there is certainly reason why Olsen should not have been fired,"
Stribling said. He declined to comment further. Olsen's appeal hearing
begins today at the City of Austin Learning and Research Center and is open to
the public. It could last up to seven days.The panel is expected to make a ruling
immediately after testimony from internal affairs investigators, Acevedo and others
involved in the case. Stribling has built a steady practice over the past
18 years by representing officers accused of anything from a negligent patrol
car accident to shootings that may have violated department policies. In
recent years, Stribling has gotten several fired officers back on the force, including
Griffin, whose patrol car video showed a use-of-force encounter between the officer
and Jose Cruz at a bus stop on East 11th Street in which Cruz's nose was broken.
"He certainly does his job well," said Jim Harrington, director
of the Texas Civil Rights Project, which represents Cruz. "He knows how to
pull the levers, and he pulls them vigorously. He obviously does a good job for
the officers, even though I'm not always sure it is in the interest of justice."
Stribling said that he has been preparing for the Olsen hearing by poring
through hundreds of pages of documents and that he knows every detail that led
to Brown's death. In previous use-of-force cases, he has tried to build
a case focused on police training, tactics taught in other departments and expert
testimony. Stribling's most recent appeal involving a fatal police shooting
was that of fired officer Julie Schroeder, who killed Daniel Rocha in June 2005.
An arbitrator upheld her termination. That decision "still hurts today,"
Stribling said. "I should have won that case. Julie Schroeder was a good
officer. She is a good person. She reacted to what was a violent confrontation,
and to this day, I don't believe there is any reason she could not serve as a
good police officer." As a child growing up in Sulphur Springs, about
80 miles east of Dallas, Stribling wanted to become an attorney. He excelled in
speech and debate and won second place in a national competition in high school.
But he never set out to represent police officers. After graduating
from what is now Texas A&M University at Commerce, where he studied political
science and accounting, he enrolled in law school at the University of Texas and
graduated in 1979. He went to work for attorney Joe Colbert, who specialized
in personal injury law, and became a partner in Colbert's law firm in 1986. Stribling
said he liked the challenge of taking on major insurance companies with teams
of lawyers. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Colbert also worked with
the Austin Police Association, advising it on anything from salaries to disciplinary
cases. In 1990, the firm began taking on more disciplinary cases. The Combined
Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, which traditionally had provided officers
with an attorney, had no full-time lawyer at the time in Austin to do that kind
of work, Stribling said. Stribling said he enjoyed representing officers
and learned the intricate state civil service law, which governs how cases involving
officer conduct must be handled. When Colbert retired, Stribling started handling
most of the cases. "For the most part, I find that officers really
do try to do good work, that they are conscientious about their work," he
said. "I've always enjoyed getting to present their side of the issue."
Two years ago, after more than decade in private practice, Stribling began
working full-time as an attorney for the law enforcement associations, and his
salary is paid by members' dues to the organization. Officers can still
hire their own lawyers and have the union pay up to $30,000 for their legal defense,
but most choose Stribling, whose fees are not capped. "If you are
accused of something, you want the best legal representation you can get,"
union President George Vanderhule said. "In my view, Tom is the absolute
best you can get." Last year, Stribling represented about 130 officers
under investigation, most of whom were from the Austin Police Department. He has
about 50 cases now. As he begins Olsen's appeal, Stribling has confidence in his
case. "The wins you get to savor for about 24 hours, then you have
to get up and go to something else," he said. "The losses stick with
you."
back
to top
2-19-08:
Officer shooting was within rules, police find
AUSTIN
Police shooting inquiry closed Internal affairs investigators found
no policy vioations in last year's police shooting of a 72-year-old man who opened
fire as officers tried to serve a warrant on his house, officials said Monday.
Assistant Police Chief David Carter, the department's chief of staff, said
detectives finished their inquiry and closed the case last week. A Travis
County grand jury declined in December to indict Detective Aaron Bishop. Bishop
shot and wounded Felix Rosales in the torso Oct. 22 after Rosales shot officer
Robert Benfer in the foot, police said. Investigators were executing a
search warrant for narcotics at a home at 6102 Club Terrace in Southeast Austin
at the time.
back
to top
1-28-08:
Public Safety
Police create special investigation
team for uses of force that lead to death or serious injury
Department
official say new unit should add level of expertise to inquiries.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Austin police officials have created a team of investigators to review police
shootings and other use-of-force incidents in the future that result in serious
injury or death.
Officials are moving that responsibility from the homicide
unit, which has traditionally investigated fatal police shootings, to a new special
investigations unit, said Assistant Police Chief David Carter, who is also the
department's chief of staff. The investigators will try to determine more quickly
whether officers violated any laws during such incidents. Some past investigations
have taken up to six months.
This week, members of the new unit are participating
in training at the Los Angeles Police Department, where they are learning how
to better interview involved officers and witnesses and how to spot potential
problems at the scenes of such incidents. Representatives of the Travis County
district attorney's office, who receive investigators' findings and present cases
to a grand jury, are also attending the training.
"You will have
a unit that is specifically selected, specifically trained, to understand use
of force," Carter said. "We want the SIU to become the experts."
The change comes after years of criticism by some community groups about
how Austin police have reviewed officer shootings and other high-profile use-of-force
incidents. An ongoing federal investigation is looking into similar concerns.
In some instances, supervisors have investigated such cases and cleared officers
of any wrongdoing, only to have those decisions later questioned.Under the new
practice, all cases involving serious injury or death will be reviewed by the
special investigations unit.
Internal affairs detectives will still review
whether officers violated department policies in such incidents.
Police
have traditionally relied on homicide investigators to review such cases because
they have the most experience in handling incidents involving serious injury or
death, including reviewing matters such as bullet trajectory and blood patterns.
However, department officials have said that detectives are often temporarily
pulled from those assignments to work on newer homicide cases.
The department
also has, in most cases, waited for homicide detectives to finish their work before
an internal affairs investigation could begin. The wait and the internal affairs
investigation have taken months in some high-profile cases, including the June
fatal shooting of Kevin Alexander Brown by Sgt. Michael Olsen; Olsen was fired
in November.
The new unit will automatically be called to investigate
incidents involving death or serious injury and will send its findings to the
district attorney's office. It will share its information with internal affairs
investigators, who will review the case without doing a separate inquiry.
"The hope is that, at the end of the day, we will get an accurate picture
of what happened, but it is going to be timely," Carter said. "The bottom
line is that it is about transparency."
Nelson Linder, president
of the Austin chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People, who has criticized how police investigate such incidents, said, "Ultimately,
(police officials) are saying this is a priority. I think the motivation is probably
positive."
back
to top
1-28-08:
Public safety unions endorse Shade, Galindo, Leffingwell
Firefighters defect from Kim's re-election bid for City Council.
By
Kate Alexander
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Austin's
three public safety unions on Tuesday jointly endorsed Randi Shade, Cid Galindo
and incumbent Lee Leffingwell in the upcoming City Council race. The unified
endorsement, a first for the groups, comes as the unions for police, firefighters
and emergency medical services workers separately head into contract negotiations
with the city this year. City leaders have expressed growing concerns about
the increasing cost of public safety as a proportion of the city's general operating
budget. Salaries are the driving force behind those cost increases. Independently,
the unions have been influential players in many past races and often, but not
always, endorsed the same candidates. This was the first time they evaluated the
candidates together and set out to choose by consensus. Together, their
political action committees have almost $66,000 available that could be used in
the May races, according to their most recent campaign finance reports. The PACs
are subject to the $300 contribution limit when giving directly to a candidate.
But there are no limits on the PACs spending money independently on items such
as signs and mailers, as long as they don't coordinate their efforts with the
candidates. The candidates said they made no promises to the unions about
contract demands. And union leaders didn't discuss the contracts with the candidates
during interviews, said representatives from the political action committees of
the Austin Police Association, the Austin Firefighters Association and the Austin/Travis
County Emergency Medical Services Employees Association. The unions' top
priority, they said, is getting the necessary resources to improve response times
and ensure quality protection from all three departments. "We're not
looking for candidates to run on a public safety platform," police union
PAC Chairman Wuthipong Tantaksinanukij said. "We need candidates to perform
on a public safety platform." Shade and Galindo, an urban planner
who serves on the city Planning Commission, committed in written statements to
increase public safety staffing. Leffingwell, who won the unions' endorsement
for Place 1 without contest, has been leading the effort to put the airport and
park police under the Police Department chain of command in order to standardize
training. Shade, an Internet entrepreneur, is challenging one-term incumbent
Jennifer Kim for the Place 3 seat. Firefighters' backing in 2005 helped
to propel Kim into a runoff, which she won. Mike Bewley, a board member
of the firefighters' PAC, said they were not satisfied with Kim's responsiveness
and accessibility. He did not offer specifics. They also had concerns about her
ability to build a working coalition on the council to address their issues, Bewley
said. Kim said she was disappointed but not surprised that the firefighters
endorsed her opponent. She dismissed the accessibility claim and said the firefighters'
primary beef is over their request for an additional contribution to their pension
system, which she was not willing to support at the expense of other city employees,
she said. Galindo is running for the Place 4 seat being vacated by Betty
Dunkerley. kalexander@statesman.com; 445-3618 Unions' endorsement
history Police Fire EMS 2006 Mayor Will Wynn Will Wynn Will
Wynn Place 2 Mike Martinez Mike Martinez Mike Martinez Place 5 Brewster
McCracken none Brewster McCracken Place 6 Sheryl Cole Sheryl Cole Sheryl
Cole 2005 Place 1 Lee Leffingwell Lee Leffingwell Lee Leffingwell
Place 3 Gregg Knaupe/Jennifer Kim* Jennifer Kim Gregg Knaupe/Jennifer Kim*
Place 4 Betty Dunkerley Betty Dunkerley Betty Dunkerley 2003 Mayor
Will Wynn Will Wynn Will Wynn Place 2 Raul Alvarez Raul Alvarez Raul Alvarez
Place 5 Brewster McCracken Brewster McCracken Brewster McCracken Place
6 Danny Thomas Danny Thomas Danny Thomas * = endorsed in the runoff back
to top
1-26-08:
Police should zoom in on trouble spots
By The Editorial Board | Saturday, January 26, 2008, 06:07 PM
Security cameras
have proved effective in monitoring
and deterring crime in other communities.
The Austin community should support Police Chief Art Acevedo’s proposal to
install security cameras in pedestrian-heavy and crime-ridden areas of the city. The
question we should be debating is whether the city should start with a pilot project
limited to Sixth Street, as the American Civil Liberties Union is recommending,
or go citywide, as Acevedo wants to do. Our preference is the latter because
cameras could bring relief to some neighborhoods overwhelmed by drug dealing and
property crimes. We disagree with critics who have cast cameras on public
streets as an invasion of privacy. Even if that were true - which we don’t
believe because public streets are, well, public - it’s a bit late to reverse
course. We already are being watched. Those who fret about being watched
on public streets ought to consider that there are surveillance cameras in grocery,
convenience and department stores. Video cameras are in shopping malls and schools.
Some, placed by a state agency, are on public streets downtown. Soon Austin will
see cameras at some intersections to catch red-light runners. And video cameras
are standard equipment in police patrol cars. They have proved useful in separating
fact from fiction when officers and suspects collide over details of arrests.
Cameras can’t replace officers, but they can extend and bolster patrols. The
so-called virtual patrols Acevedo is proposing would start with Sixth Street’s
entertainment district and expand to areas that include 12th and Chicon streets
in East Austin, Rundberg Lane and Lamar Boulevard in North Austin, and Montopolis
Drive in Southeast Austin. Those areas continue to require more police help in
ridding their streets of property and drug crimes. But Austin doesn’t have
enough officers to adequately staff or keep watch on all neighborhoods around
the clock. Manned cameras have proved effective in monitoring and deterring crime
in other communities. If you want to get more details about this issue,
read the story by American-Statesman writer Tony Plohetski published in Thursday’s
editions. He gives a full account of Acevedo’s proposal and how cameras have
worked elsewhere. Crime dropped an impressive 28 percent in Dallas during
the first few months of 2007 compared with the same period in 2006 after city
officials installed dozens of cameras downtown and in other locations around the
city. No one should discount increased efforts by police in lowering Dallas’
crime figures. But there is little doubt that cameras played a role in reducing
street crime. In Austin, Acevedo has yet to work out details, such as who
would monitor cameras and how the city would pay for them. Caution should be taken
so as not to abuse the technology. But if installing cameras can deter crime,
then Austin officials would be wise to roll the tape.
back
to top
1-26-08:
PUBLIC SAFETY
Austin Park Police have some officers
with problematic pasts
As department prepares to merge with Austin
police, lapses in background checks come to forefront.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, January 27, 2008 During an interview
to become an Austin Park Police officer, Ralph Garcia talked about being fired
from the Bastrop Police Department for viewing adult Web sites on a city computer,
including possible child pornography sites, according to records in his personnel
file. Park Police officials looked into the matter, which had resulted in
an investigation by the Texas attorney general's office but no criminal charges
against Garcia. Then they hired him. A few years later, Park Police officials
hired Roger Aguilar, who had quit the Austin Police Department while under investigation
for using his Taser stun gun on a handcuffed suspect. And they hired Armando
Valverde, whose personnel file at the Lockhart Police Department had several disciplinary
actions, including one for accidentally shooting through the floor of police headquarters. An
Austin American-Statesman review of the 27 Park Police officers who joined the
department during the past five years shows that the city has hired officers with
problematic backgrounds and that a check of those backgrounds was sometimes inadequate. New
supervisors overseeing Park Police officers acknowledge the lapses, but they said
they have worked in recent months to create a more rigorous hiring process that
includes comprehensive background reviews. How Park Police officers have
performed since going to work for the city and their records from other agencies
are expected to face scrutiny in coming months as officials begin consolidating
city marshals and park and airport police officers with the Austin Police Department. The
American-Statesman's review, which included hundreds of pages of personnel files
from previous employers and background information collected by Park Police officials
before offering jobs, found that: The city has hired officers who have been
arrested in connection with assault, theft and failure to pay speeding tickets.
Much of that information was discovered as part of background reviews, but the
city hired them anyway, sometimes after background investigators discouraged it. Until
late 2005, officials had no standard for doing background investigations for prospective
park officers. Bruce Mills, the director of the Public Safety and Emergency Management
agency, took over the Park Police that year from the Parks and Recreation Department.
He said the agency previously had assigned the task to other officers, most of
whom had no training or experience doing such checks. An experienced background
investigator who works for the agency now performs the reviews. The Parks
and Recreation Department until 2005 had a 10-year pattern of hiring officers
as temporary employees and not providing them insurance or other benefits, in
an effort to cut costs. Sgt. Michael Hart, president of the union that represents
Park Police officers, said the policy probably affected the pool of prospective
officers. Ten officers have an arrest history or some type of disciplinary
action against them. City officials have said they will negotiate with the
Austin Police Association this year to determine what criteria park officers must
meet before becoming Austin police officers. Some Park Police officers could lose
their jobs. "We are going to do some hard looking, and there is a lot
of explaining they are going to have to do," said association President George
Vanderhule,who will be negotiating for the union. "We want to make sure we
get people who will meet our standards." Two years ago, city officials
combined city marshals and airport and park officers to create the Public Safety
and Emergency Management agency and appointed new leadership to supervise it. Since
then, Mills and other officials said they have developed a selection process similar
to the Austin Police Department's. They ask applicants to respond in writing to
questions, including whether they have ever been arrested or convicted, whether
they have ever been cited for certain driving offenses and whether they have resigned
or been terminated from a job. Under those guidelines, officials acknowledge
that some of the current officers would not be hired. However, since the
new standards were put in place, the city has hired officers with questionable
work histories, including Valverde. Officials defend their decisions in
those cases, saying that they considered candidates' entire work history, including
commendations and positive performance reviews. "The downside to someone
who has 10 to 12 years of experience is that they are going to have histories,"
Mills said. "It's a judgment call. The best you can do is take the collective
information and base your decision on their track record." Cost-saving
might have been factor In Texas, officers can jump from one agency to the
next, carrying baggage that can include anything from excessive tardiness to negligent
car crashes, without generally drawing interest from the state agency that licenses
them. Only if officers are arrested or indicted are they required to notify
the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. The
agency and state law, in an effort to stop officers accused of misconduct from
easily getting other jobs, require all departments supervising peace officers
to submit documentation when officers leave explaining the reason for their departure,
including whether they quit while under investigation. But commission officials
keep no record of excessive disciplinary histories, said Executive Director Tim
Braaten. That means it's up to local agencies to research prospective officers. Other
factors, in addition to inconsistent background checks, could have led to the
hiring of officers with questionable histories, Mills said. As a cost-saving
measure, he said, Park Police sought to hire people from other police departments,
which probably limited the applicant pool. Other city law enforcement agencies,
including Austin police and airport police, tended to recruit people with experience
in civilian jobs and then pay for them to attend an academy. Warren Struss,
who started work as Parks and Recreation Department director in 2004 and retired
in 2007, could not be reached for comment. Darryl Lewis, who was Park Police chief
from 2002 to 2006, did not return calls seeking comment. Assistant City
Manager Mike McDonald, who supervised the Parks and Recreation Department from
February 2002 to July 2006, said high-ranking city officials would not have been
involved in how background searches were conducted. Those decisions were left
to the department director and human resources officials. Mills said he
thought it was likely that when he took over the agency, some officers had extensive
discipline histories at previous departments. He said he and other officials
began looking through the documents after receiving the Statesman's requests last
year. What they found in some instances "has caused concern,"
Mills said, and perhaps pointed up a need for additional supervision of those
officers. No more pornography found Among the 27 officers hired in
the past five years, Garcia was among those whose history troubled officials the
most. This month, after the Statesman requested his background file, Mills
and other officials questioned Garcia about the investigation by the attorney
general's office and his subsequent firing. Mills said they also checked his computer
use but found nothing suspicious. According to a report from the attorney
general's office, Bastrop Police Chief David Board called the office in October
2002 seeking help looking into whether Garcia had accessed child pornography on
the city computer. Investigators used a computer program to view images
on the computer and found more than 1,300 possible pornographic images, 277 of
which could have been child pornography, according to the report. At the time,
they could not tell whether the images had been downloaded onto the computer. Several
days later, investigators wrote in a report that they had found no "actionable
child pornography images" on the hard drive. They referred the case
to the Bastrop County district attorney's office and closed their investigation. Garcia
declined to be interviewed recently. He has had no disciplinary actions against
him since becoming a Park Police officer in April 2004. At the time, he
asked Bastrop city officials in writing to give him his job back. "I'm
sorry all this happened," he said. "I am glad that I was caught early
before it got out of hand. I can tell you it won't happen again." Two
years later, in Aguilar's case, he told Park Police officials that he had correctly
used his Taser on a suspect who was "high on drugs." He said he handcuffed
the man, but the man continued to resist after he got him to his patrol car. Aguilar
said he used his Taser again, in violation of department policy. He said
he decided to resign instead of appealing a possible firing. Michael Hart,
the Park Police union president who performed the background investigation, wrote
that Aguilar "falls into the disqualifiers portion of the Park Police eligibility
requirements" but recommended that he get a waiver from former Chief Darryl
Lewis to proceed to an oral exam. Aguilar, who declined to comment, was
the subject of an internal affairs investigation after becoming a Park Police
officer for a use of his Taser. However, officials said he was justified in the
July incident because the suspect was resisting arrest. According to documents
from the Luling Police Department, Valverde was fired in 1998 after he had a witness
sign a blank statement that the officer later filled out. Valverde also signed
the document as a witness to the statement. An interim city manager rescinded
the firing, saying the punishment was "much too severe" and Valverde's
error was a "major administrative mistake" but not a crime. Valverde
quit the next year to join the Lockhart Police Department. His personnel
file from Lockhart included disciplinary actions such as a 2006 reprimand for
twice leaving evidence unsecured — one from a case involving a charge of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In 2004, he was reprimanded for
not taking corrective steps concerning an officer who repeatedly left her duty
belt at home and had to return to get it. An August 2001 disciplinary memo
about the incident in which he shot a hole in the floor of police headquarters
said Valverde was running late to work and was trying to see if his gun was loaded.
His supervisor found that the discharge was avoidable and that he didn't adequately
check the gun to see if it was loaded before firing it. Valverde declined
to comment. He has not been the subject of any discipline or internal investigations
since joining the Park Police. Negotiations to start soon City and
Austin police union officials said they plan to begin discussing at the bargaining
table in coming months which Park Police officers should — and shouldn't
— join the Austin Police Department. Negotiations for a new employment
contract are set to begin later this year. The current contract will expire in
September. McDonald, who will lead the city's negotiating team, said he
will soon begin meeting with human resources officials to get input on possible
hiring standards for Park Police officers. Each will probably face an extensive
background check, he said. Vanderhule, president of the police union, said
he would probably support rules prohibiting officers from joining the department
if they have been fired from the Austin Police Department or if they resigned
while under investigation. He said he also would support a rule that would
not allow an officer with a history of lying to be hired. "We want
to bring people who are going to be good Austin police officers," he said.
"That's the bottom line."
back
to top
1-24-08:
Austin unions line up bargaining chips
By The
Editorial Board | Wednesday, January 23, 2008, 05:41 PM
The power play
by Austin’s public safety unions to enrich themselves through city council
elections is distasteful on several levels. Police, firefighters and emergency
medical service personnel engender a great deal of respect because of what they
do. And in recent years, their unions’ political endorsements have had significant
influence in city council elections. This week the three unions combined forces
to endorse the same candidates in the May 10 council election. As a reward
for the endorsements, past city councils have made Austin police the highest paid
in Texas and among the highest paid in the United States. Firefighters have bargained
their way into favorable contracts, too. However, the result of those lucrative
contracts is a city budget that is being overwhelmed by public safety costs. Fully
65 percent of the city’s $593 million general fund budget is devoted to public
safety, and it’s growing. That comes, of course, at the expense of other
city departments and services. The unions’ outsized influence on the
City Council is grating because three out of four police officers and two of three
firefighters don’t live in Austin. So the vast majority of them don’t
pay taxes in the city and can’t vote in city elections, but they want the
council to tax Austin residents more to reward them. It was highly disappointing
that Cid Galindo and Randi Shade, two of the candidates endorsed this week, promised
- in writing - to increase public safety staffing without knowing the rest of
the city’s needs or financial limits. And the third candidate endorsed, incumbent
Lee Leffingwell, wants to increase union clout by consolidating city park, airport
and court officers into the Austin Police Department at an additional cost of
$2 million the first year. That’s not surprising, given that Leffingwell
is a longtime union leader and Council Member Mike Martinez is former president
of the firefighters union. Still, taxpayers could hope that City Council members
courting union support would put the fiscal health of the city and the good of
the taxpayers first. As of now, the three public safety political action
committees have $66,000 to commit to candidates in the May 10 election. And they
will undoubtedly have more as other groups supporting those candidates add money
to the public safety PACs. Endorsing three candidates and showing off a
full campaign treasure chest before filing even begins for the City Council election
is a way to scare off other candidates. The first day of filing to be on the May
ballot isn’t until Feb. 11. Early endorsements also send a signal to city
negotiators who begin bargaining for new contracts with all three unions in a
few weeks. By joining forces in this year’s endorsements, the unions
hope for even greater influence in the elections and on the council. And they
may get their way unless city leadership wakes up to the reality that the council
needs to get a grip on the public safety budget as contract negotiations begin. After
this week’s show of muscle by public safety, Austin’s voters wouldn’t
be wrong to wonder if the unions have gotten too big for their britches. Permalink
| Comments (19) | Post your comment Categories: Top Editorial Comments
By Buddy
January 23, 2008 7:26 PM
What an outrage! We should
spend more city dollars to fund projects like the Las Manitas fund. Way to go
Statesman! Hmmmmm… are you all actually thinking about endorsing Jennifer
Kim? By Bob
January 23, 2008 7:42 PM
Unions are a good thing,
but public safety is probably the labor sector that needs them the least. When
was the last time voters turned down a request for more manpower/pay/benefits/equipment
for them? Never happens and it never will. Voters see these services as essential
and necessary no matter the staggering costs. Didn’t the APD just get another
million dollar+ helicopter recently? By Juan
January 23, 2008 8:34
PM
The Democratic process in the United States is also extended to Public
Safety Employees and they have used it well to get the benefits and pay they are
entitled to. I am going to guess that there are about 3100 police officers, firefighters,
and EMS personnel employed by the City of Austin and only maybe 1600 live outside
the City. Why is it that the Statesman takes every opportunity to try to make
a mountain out of a molehill regarding where these Emergency Services folks live?
No one else cares and I would bet that a large portion of the paper’s employees
come from Lockhart, Kyle, San Marcos. However, most of these City employees still
have to eat in Austin, they gas up here, and they come back to purchase cars,
appliances, furniture, etc. Wherever they live, they contribute to that community
and they ably represent the City of Austin.Get off their back. By Rob
Baxter
January 23, 2008 9:17 PM
The Statesman, once again, shows its
true colors…this time in an anti-union rant. Can you imagine their objecting
to the Downtown Austin Partners or Chamber of Commerce exercising their political
clout in the name of their constituents? I doubt it. Were there more unions and
union members in this country, as there should be, the Statesman would have likely
said nothing, as this would be the norm, as it once was in America when we had
not off-shored our industry, had no NAFTA and had a growing, not shrinking, middle
class. America needs to wake up. Unions are not, nor were they ever the problem.
Anti-labor practices and a media controlled by anti-labor conglomerates are. By
David
January 23, 2008 10:08 PM
Once again Alberta Phillips is the
lone person in Austin who cares where our public safety employees live. Our brave
police officers, firefighters and paramedics deserve everything they get and much
more. The Statesman and Ms. Phillips in particular should find a new crusade and
get off the backs of our men and women in blue. How about railing against the
huge tax breaks given the Domain and other high tone complexes at the expense
of local business people? By KP
January 23, 2008 10:55 PM
Bob
- Austin public servants do not turn to voters for increases in “manpower/pay/benefits.”
They are at the mercy of the city’s management (including the Council) for
those things. The pay increases mentioned in this article all came within the
last decade, and they were needed to allow Austin’s public safety agencies
to compete for the best applicants. Those pay raises, not incidentally, were negotiated
by the legal bargaining representatives of the people we rely on to protect us
day and night: the unions. Also, the voters are not always as kind as you
make them out to be. Just this past election cycle, voters in the City of Lakeway
turned a deaf ear to their local fire department’s request for help. A sad,
short-sighted paradox exists there: while the voters of that area live in relative
wealth compared to Austinites, their firefighters and police fall far behind their
Austin colleagues in “manpower/pay/benefits.” Our standards of
public safety should not be so subject to the whims of miserly constituents or
the effects of a cyclical economy. When the people who know best what it takes
to keep us safe are well organized, they have a stronger voice in maintaining
the high standards we all expect. If anything, they are some of the most necessary
labor unions. By Mike
January 23, 2008 11:25 PM
While union
organizing of AAS newspaper reporters into The Newspaper Guild-CWA would be viewed
as really ‘distasteful on several levels’ by Cox Newspaper Corporation,
I can just imagine that seeing several successful, politically strong unions in
this city has caused some in AAS management to get sick to their tummies and throw
up in the publisher’s trash can. The obvious conclusion is the Austin
American Statesman is just one more union hating corporate newspaper. Remember,
in Texas members of public safety unions can not strike or participate in any
work slow down and if they do they are subject to immediate termination. The only
rights a union has in this ‘at will’ state is to participate in the
political process just like this newspaper does every election with its editorial
endorsements. So quit your hypocritical whining and write about something more
meaningful, like whether corporate newspapers will survive in the internet age
or go the way of the dinosaurs. By Austindude
January 23, 2008 11:54
PM
I’m not anti-union, but I think the Statesman is correct on this
issue. Austin has about the highest paid police and fire personnel in the country
and this has limited funding for pay raises for all other city employees as well
as for other needs and priorities. Personally I think police earn their money,
but fire personnel simply don’t work hard in their jobs and are massively
overpayed already. Do some research and see how many major structural fires occur
in Austin an annual basis. Firefighters are sleeping in their buildings most the
time, that’s why they all have lucrative second jobs. When they do respond,
they rush out on giant trucks burning lots of fuel with 4 employees on board to
vehicular accidents. The public is too enraptured by images of spotted dogs and
soot covered NYC firefighters to look at the reality here in Austin. We need to
totally reconfigure staffing based on modern realities not 19th century images. By
Ed Strout
January 24, 2008 12:21 AM
Those who feel that increasing
funds for public safety means salary increases are not looking at the big picture.
Yes, the people that we depend on to save our lives deserve every penny that they
are paid, but beyond that is the cost of equipment, training, and billeting, to
name a few things. Austinites are surviving heart attacks, strokes, and major
trauma every day, partly because of the tremendous skills of our paramedics. Acquiring
and becoming proficient in using state of the art emergency medical equipment
isn’t cheap. We count on the police to protect our lives and property, yet
every time a bad guy gets hurt fighting a police officer, the public screams that
they need more training. This costs money. There has been a lot of press about
the shortage of help for those with mental illness. APD is providing specially
trained officers to help meet that need. This costs money. Firefighters must contend
not only with fires, but also with hazardous chemicals, rescue, and assisting
EMS with medical emergencies. Again, specialized equipment and training costs
money. With public safety, as with everything else, you get what you pay for,
only in this case, the cost of being miserly could well be measured in lives,
both shattered and lost. By doesn't matter
January 24, 2008 1:17
AM
Will someone please tell the Statesman that the city’s General
Fund is only half or less of the entire city budget? In other words, this city
has plenty of cash to support a professional public safety response. Which is
exactly what we have, no matter where those firemen, medics or police choose to
live. And no, APD did not get another $1m helicopter. We need two more
$2m ones. By James
January 24, 2008 4:30 AM
As well paid
as APD is there’s no excuse whatsoever for any of them to live outside Austin,
much less Travis County. Public employee unions should not endorse Council
candidates because they’re directly influencing their bosses! By
Roadgeek
January 24, 2008 8:14 AM
More anti-public safety drivel from
the same newspaper that endorsed Shrub. Twice.
By Wes
January
24, 2008 8:29 AM
Ahh yes, the Statesman rails about public safety being
a large part of the city budget. The last time I checked, public safety is one
of the chief responsibilities of city government. Of course, as the Statesman
and some of the downtown utopians see it - the chief responsibility of city government
is to redistribute tax dollars to developers whose projects appeal to the utopians
— downtown lofts, the Domain, etc — none of which our “overpaid”
public safety employees can afford to live in. By John Garville
January
24, 2008 8:31 AM
Are not sanitation, clean water, electricity, functioning
traffic lights, health clinics also public safety issues? If so, why don’t
those employees get the massive raises that the unionized employees get? By
SPARKY THE FIREHOUSE DOG
January 24, 2008 3:11 PM
Thank you taxpayers
of Austin for giving us high school graduates such great jobs and benefits. This
is such a hard job that only 3,500 applicants showed up to compete for 125 vacant
Austin firefighter jobs last year. We have to work at least 2 whole 24 hour shifts
a week and we get to eat and sleep during that time while watching big screen
tv sets and working out in our weight rooms - all paid for by you good folks.
And thank you for adding a 4th crewmember to all our fire engines because having
only 3 crewmembers was just too hard on us when we have the occasional semi-annual
fire to go put out. We take our very generous salaries and drive as much as 100
miles back home to Podunk where that money goes a lot farther and we don’t
have to pay any of those high taxes in Austin. All in all it is a good deal for
us and we know that it is easy to make politicians look stingy at election time
if they don’t come out real strong for public safety. If we could just get
Austin to pay for our gasoline and truck maintenance, it would make that long
commute really painfree. Come on Austin taxpayers, don’t be stingy, we are
heroes! By longhornfan
January 24, 2008 3:25 PM
Unions are
awful. They have out lived their usefulness. They have and continue to do more
harm to the American Economy than ever before. They aare corrupt, greedy and have
no place in government or other private businesses. By JB
January
24, 2008 4:09 PM
There are reasons why Austin is a great place to live.
Public safety is one of them. Why doesn’t the Statesman explore why a lot
of native austinites DO NOT enter public safety jobs? Locals grow up and see the
constant ravaging of public servants. Out of towners come in and get blind sided
by the lack of respect from local media. Next time you need help, call the newspaper
to stop the rape, put out the fire and perform cpr. Why not shut down all of the
universities and colleges since the students graduate and leave taking their education
with them. P A T H E T I C. By Wut Tantaksinanukij
January 24, 2008
10:19 PM
Have you heard that Public Safety takes the largest pie from
the General Fund or is it that Public Safety is the General Fund. This certainly
is not the picture the City paints to the citizens of this community. We do take
up the majority of the General Fund, because every other department has been moved
out of the General Fund. Look at these figures and fact check them for yourself
on the City of Austin websites. Total City of Austin Operating Budget =
$2.651 billion dollars. (Actual = $2,651,263,000 - that’s billion!) Total
City of Austin General Fund = $593 million. That is approx 22% of Operating
Budget. (Actual = $593,013,000) Total City of Austin expenditures
on ONLY Police, Fire, EMS, PESM = $385 million. That is approx 14%
of the entire City of Austin Operating Budget…. (Actual REAL Public Safety
= $385,520,272). Here is the breakdown: Police = $ 219,669,973 Fire
= $ 116,888,512 EMS = $ 43,024,723 PESM = $ 5,973,064 Yes when
I hit the light switch, it would be nice that the lights turned on, when I flush
the toilet or take a shower it would be nice that the water runs, when I fly out
of Austin, it’s nice to have parking and an airport close by. When I go to
the libraries I expect to be able to check out books, when I run the trails I
expect them to be cleared and clean. When I go the parks I expect to be able to
take my family. If I dial 911, I also want a response from Police, Fire and EMS.
These are the bare basic essentials that our Government should provide. So
where is Public Safety breaking the bank? Why do we still have a City Clothing
Store? For a 1500 member department, surely someone realizes that the shelves
have to be stocked with all uniform sizes for both shirts and pants, not to mention
for both males and females. Why are we not using a local uniform shop where we
can walk in and get properly fitted for a uniform and walk out the same day with
it? Instead we pay in inflated price and have to wait several weeks before we
get a serviceable uniform. So when APD is charged for the inflated prices where
does the fund get credit too? I suspect back to the General Fund. Does the
City really want to be transparent? Then lets be transparent. Officer shortage
on the streets, 10 minute response time from EMS, 25,000 people moving downtown
to be protected by sprinkler systems (that AFD can’t inspect, right to privacy
thing gets in the way when it comes to homes/condos) and downtown fire station
built in 1936. I wonder if we took the 50,000 students at UT all the folks that
come into Austin to work and play on a daily basis into consideration or did we
just look at the City Limit sign and say that population figure looks good. When
it comes to wages, benefits and working conditions, yes the Union plays a large
roll in this. Meet and Confer is just that, both sides meet and agree upon issues.
The employment opportunity is also extended to anyone who wishes to apply.
Of course you will need to make some adjustments, because it’s not just a
job, it is a lifestyle. Be prepared to give up your holidays, weekends and family
time to be able to hang out with 6 - 8 of your closest friends if it’s a
full shift and no Officer is off on vacation, sick or training and run from call
to call. Oh yea you also have to be able to make split second decision
at the most critical point of your life only to be second guessed Monday morning
with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight from your peers, administration, city leaders,
the Police Monitor, the Grand Jury, Independent Investigations, the courts, citizens,
media and any other groups that can get air time from the media. With this high
salary we get, we still have a difficult time recruiting along with AFD and EMS.
If this sound like the job for you please step to the front of the line. Police
Officers aren’t paid for what we do, we’re paid for what we are willing
to do. By Trooper IV
January 25, 2008 5:57 AM
I might be
confused here but Im not quite sure that the AAS has a shovel to go with that
pile they are throwing around because we all know they don’t have a stellar
track record for getting the whole facts before they print anything related to
the police department. What difference would having the 1,500 APD officers
living within the city limits have on the city of Austin? APD policy says that
officers cannot intervene in anything if they are off-duty unless life is in jeapardy.
This liberal community has helped institute that policy. So private citizens can
intervene before off-duty police officers can (at least in Austin anyway). All
police officers are granted the authority to act on anything 24 hours a day anywhere
in Texas. That authority is stripped away from APD officers by their restrictive
policy. The only thing an off-duty APD officer will do is dial 911 and
report the crime like any other citizen who would be already dialing 911. The
officer won’t intervene because if they follow the policy, they won’t
get suspended. Now that you know this fact, what difference would it make
to have APD officers live inside the city limits? NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. The
vast majority of APD officers don’t get to take their police cars home so
presence is a moot subject also. You reap what you sow. I could care less
where the liberal newspaper wants police officers to live at. I just want a police
officer to be at my doorstep when I dail 911. The post above this said it
best, police officers aren’t paid for what they do, they’re paid for
what they are willing to do. While we’re running away from gunfire,
they’re running towards it. While we’re asleep at night, they’re
driving around looking for those who would do us harm. They stand ready to do
what is necessary to protect us, and sometimes sacrifice their lives in doing
so. Texas led the nation again in 2007 for the most number of police officers
killed in the line of duty. The next time you want to sling mud around,
climb down off that high horse of yours, put down that pen, get your fingers off
that typewriter and run towards gunfire while I run away. If you survive
the gun battle, then ask yourself, were you just paid a whopping .147 cents for
a 21 second gun fight or were you paid your salary for what you were willing to
do while others are not willing to do it and while a liberal newspaper with nothing
better to do will then criticize you for your actions and tell you where to live.
back to top
1-24-08:
Acevedo wants to put police cameras in key
areas
Critics say such systems are too intrusive to public activity.
By
Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, January 24, 2008 Austin
Police Chief Art Acevedo wants to install security cameras in pedestrian-heavy
and crime-ridden areas of the city that would allow officers to monitor activity
from afar and conduct "virtual patrols." Acevedo said this week
that he wants to start the project in the Sixth Street entertainment district
in coming months and expand it to areas that include 12th and Chicon streets in
East Austin, Rundberg Lane and Lamar Boulevard in North Austin, and along Montopolis
Drive in Southeast Austin before the end of the year. He said he plans to
explore ways to pay for the project — possibly through federal grants —
and work out logistics such as who would monitor the camera footage. Acevedo said
one option could be to hire retired officers to watch the videos 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, and call officers on the street if they see a crime in progress. Other
details, such as where the cameras would be positioned and how long the footage
would be preserved, need to be worked out, he said. "As I travel around
the city, I have been approached by residents in high-crime areas who are not
only asking but who are really starting to demand the use of technology,"
Acevedo said. Use of such police cameras has increased across the country
in recent years, especially in large and midsize cities where officials are looking
for new ways to cut crime. The trend began nationally in Acevedo's hometown of
Los Angeles in 2004 but has since been introduced in other cities, including Dallas,
which has a 40-camera system downtown. Police say the cameras reduce crime,
bolster the prosecution of criminal cases with video evidence and serve as a "police
force multiplier" by effectively allowing one officer to be several places
at once. Opponents of the cameras, however, raise concerns of privacy rights
and say the cameras constitute unnecessary government surveillance. "You
have to have some limits on government," said Jim Harrington, director of
the Texas Civil Rights Project. "They have to respect people's right to privacy.
I think there is too much potential that makes this dangerous." Courts
across the country have upheld the legality of police cameras. Acevedo said
the department would create policies to make sure officers did not violate a person's
rights, such as not allowing them to zoom into a person's home or office without
a search warrant. Critics also have argued that police can't prove that
video surveillance contributes to a decrease in crime and that the cameras only
push criminal activity a couple of blocks away. Debbie Russell, president
of the Austin chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she would urge
the department to use the cameras on Sixth Street for six months as a pilot program
before committing to a citywide project. Austin police and representatives
from downtown business associations last year began discussing the possibility
of adding cameras along Sixth Street and traveled to Dallas to study its system,
which officials added in January 2007. Bill Brice, program director for security
and maintenance for the Downtown Austin Alliance, said the visit intensified his
group's support for the cameras. The alliance is also considering whether to help
pay for the Sixth Street camera system, he said. Dallas police received
a local grant to pay for their $850,000 system of 40 cameras, which are on utility
poles or stoplights across downtown, including areas around the Dallas Convention
Center and in the West End historical district. Police officials said each camera
cost about $800. Deputy Police Chief Vincent Golbeck said crime downtown
dropped 12 percent from 2006 to 2007. More striking, said Paul Lindenberger, director
of Downtown Dallas, a business association, is that crime dropped 28 percent during
the first two months of 2007 compared with the same period in 2006. Acevedo
said he thinks the cameras, particularly the ones on Sixth Street, where police
more frequently use force against suspects, also could help protect police or
suspects accused of wrongdoing. He and Russell mentioned a 2002 incident
in which former police Sgt. Michael Olsen — who was fired last year after
Acevedo said he used excessive force in a fatal shooting — arrested and charged
a man with resisting arrest and interfering with police duties after an incident
on Sixth Street. Charges were dropped against the man after a security video from
the Texas Lottery Commission captured what happened. Acevedo said he chose
the other areas based on public support and crime statistics. Scottie Ivory,
who lives near 12th and Chicon streets, said she has asked police officials for
cameras in her neighborhood for years and was pleased to hear that Acevedo is
moving ahead. "It should be done," she said. "This will be
a tool to help them clear out that area." back
to top
| 
