Complainant alleges that officers may have violated policy during a call for service regarding the theft of her vehicle. She states that the officers didn't show up in a timely manner, failed to gather proper evidence or information, and insinuated that she was lying about the theft. The complainant further alleges that the treatment was bias-based. The OPO recommends that this allegation receives a B 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.
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American Disabilities Act.
Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request.
NOTICE OF FORMAL
ICMS #: 2019-1345
March 16, 2020
, complainant, alleges that Austin Police Department (APD)
officers may have violated APD policy during a call for service regarding the theft of her vehicle.
She states in her complaint that “no one showed up” for hours when she called to request service,
and she alleges that when officers did show up, they insinuated that she had loaned her car out or
knew who stole it.
states that when she presented officers with a credit card she had
found in her front seat, they told her to ask her friend who the card belonged to. She further alleges
that officers never asked for her driver’s license to verify that she was the owner, and states that
when she asked officers to fingerprint the door of her vehicle, they said “that’s all fiction, we can’t
believes that the treatment she received from officers was bias-based.
This notice of formal complaint is a request for Internal Affairs to initiate an investigation in
order 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):
301.2 IMPARTIAL ATTITUDE AND COURTESY
Employees are expected to act professionally, treat all persons fairly and equally, and perform all
duties impartially, objectively, and equitably without regard to personal feelings, animosities,
friendships, financial status, sex, creed, color, race, religion, age, political beliefs, sexual
orientation, gender identity or gender expression or social or ethnic background.
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.
304.3.2 WHEN DMAV USE IS REQUIRED
This order is not intended to describe every possible situation where the system may be used. In
some circumstances it is not possible to capture images of the incident due to conditions or location
of the camera however the audio portion can be valuable evidence and is subject to the same
435.3.2 RECOVERING STOLEN VEHICLES
Recommended Classification: The OPO is permitted to make a preliminary recommendation
on the classification of administrative cases.
The OPO recommends that this allegation receive a B classification.