| "Austin
American Statesman" Articles
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
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 bec | 
