Complainant alleges that Austin police officers used excessive force against people experiencing homelessness and the complainant, a volunteer helping re-locate unhoused people, resulting in injuries. OPO recommends this complaint receive an A classification.
Disclaimer: The following text was extracted from the PDF file to make this document more accessible. This machine-generated content may contain styling errors due to redactions. In some instances, text may not load if the original file is a scanned image or has not been made searchable. For the full version of the document, please view the PDF.
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
ICMS #: 2021-0700
July 20, 2021
Complaint: The complainant submitted an online complaint to the Office of Police Oversight
alleging the following:
“I was helping move unhoused folx out of the
encampment by moving tents and
other belongings at the instruction of the police. I was leaving
and walking to my
car when suddenly a bicycle office rode up beside me on my right. “Stop you need to stop”
Confused and startled I asked why. “Because i fucking told you to” was his response. The
officer came to a stop on his bicycle in front of me, effectively blocking my way. He yelled
something that I can’t remember and I turned slightly to glance behind me to see what he
was yelling about. I saw that two Unhoused folx I had been working with that day had also
been making their way to the back of the building and were behind me, now surrounded
by and followed by several police. Neither unhoused person was doing anything but
walking. I saw a police officer push one of the unhoused men violently causing him to fall
back against a bicycle rack. Next police officers seized an unhoused man directly behind
me, slamming him on the ground. I instinctively went to the ground to try and protect him
and was repeating over and over “he didn’t do anything we didn’t do anything”. I was
hugging the man behind me as we both laid on the ground in an effort to shield him from
officer blows or other potential violence. My hands were wrenched behind me and zip tied.
The others were zip tied as well. I saw another officer push a man who was watching the
violence unfold down to the ground. The three of us were moved to a nearby area and
questioned and at this time I saw the man who had been pushed against the bikes had
several lacerations on his back that were bleeding.”
This notice of formal complaint is a request for Internal Affairs to initiate an investigation to
determine if the employee conduct is within compliance of APD policy, Civil Service Rules, and
Municipal Civil Service Rules.
Recommended Administrative Policies to Review (to include but not limited to):
200.2 DE-ESCALATION OF POTENTIAL FORCE ENCOUNTERS
When safe and reasonable under the totality of circumstances, officers shall use de-escalation
techniques to reduce the likelihood for force and increase the likelihood of voluntary compliance.
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
200.2.1 ASSESSMENT AND DE-ESCALATION
As officers arrive on the scene, observe conditions, and interact with the persons there, they
should continue to gather additional relevant information and facts. These assessments, along
with reasonable inferences help to develop an understanding of the totality of the circumstances
of the incident.
200.3 RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE
While the type and extent of force may vary, it is the policy of this department that officers use
only that amount of objectively reasonable force which appears necessary under the circumstances
to successfully accomplish the legitimate law enforcement purpose in accordance with this order.
200.3.1 DETERMINING THE OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS OF FORCE
Any interpretation of objective reasonableness about the amount of force that reasonably appears
to be necessary in a particular situation must allow for the fact that police officers are often forced
to make split-second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving, and
the amount of time available to evaluate and respond to changing circumstances may influence
their decisions. The question is whether the officer's actions are "objectively reasonable" in light
of the facts and circumstances confronting him.
211.4 EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ALL FORCE LEVEL INCIDENTS
The following outlines the required responsibilities of involved employees, employees that witness
an incident, and employees designated to assist at the scene of any response to resistance incident.
If a juvenile is in custody related to the incident, the juvenile should not be interviewed unless the
juvenile has been brought before a magistrate.
(a) Involved employees shall notify their supervisor as soon as practicable of any force
incident or allegation of use of force.
(b) Involved employees shall request EMS as soon as practicable when a subject complains of
injury, has visible injuries, or the circumstances indicate that an injury may have occurred.
For purposes of this section "Injury" does not include TASER probe marks that are not in
a sensitive area of the body. Officers will comply with section 208.5 in regards to post-
TASER deployment medical treatment.
211.4.1 EMPLOYEE REPORTING GUIDELINES FOR ALL FORCE LEVEL INCIDENTS
The following outlines the reporting guidelines for involved employees, employees that witness
an incident and employees designated to assist at the scene of any response to resistance incident.
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
303.3.1 WHEN DEPARTMENT ISSUED BWC SYSTEM USE IS REQUIRED
This section is not intended to describe every possible situation where the system may be used. In
some circumstances it may not be possible to capture images of an incident due to conditions or
location of the camera, however the audio portion can be valuable evidence and is subject to the
same activation requirements. The BWC should only be activated for law enforcement purposes.
402.2.4 REPORT WRITING
(c) Generally, the reporting employee's opinions should not be included in reports unless
specifically identified as such.
Recommended Classification: The OPO is permitted to make a preliminary recommendation on
the classification of administrative cases.
The OPO recommends this complaint receive an A classification.