Chief of Police Brian Manley determined that Officer Ogle's actions violated Civil Service Commission Rule 10.03 and suspended him from duty for ten days, from January 18, 2020 through January 27, 2020. Internal Affairs' investigation revealed that Officer Ogle made comments of an inappropriate and unprofessional manner regarding a judge in the presence of two assistant district attorneys, including a reference to bodily injury of that judge.
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.
Civil Service Office
JAN 2 12020
Austin Police Department
Office ofthe ChiefofPolice
Joya Hayes, Director of Civil Service
Brian Manley, Chief of Police
January 17, 2020
Temporary Suspension of Police Officer Julian Ogle #7787
Internal Affairs Control Numbers 2019-0530
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code, Section
143.052, and Rule 10, Rules of Procedure for the Firefighters’, Police Officers’ and
Emergency Medical Service Personnel’s Civil Service Commission, I have temporarily
suspended Officer Julian Ogle #7787 from duty as a City of Austin, Texas police officer
for a period often (10) days. The temporary suspension is effective beginning on January
18, 2020 and continuing through January 27, 2020.
I took this action because Officer Ogle violated Civil Service Commission Rule 10.03,
which sets forth the grounds for disciplinary suspensions of employees in the classified
service, and states:
No employee of the classified service of the City of Austin shall engage in,
or be involved in, any of the following acts or conduct, and the same shall
constitute cause for suspension of an employee from the classified service
of the City:
Violation of any of the rules and regulalions of the Fire
Department or Police Department or of special orders, as
The following are the specific acts committed by Officer Ogle in violation of Rule 10:
On July 26, 2019, Officer Ogle met with attorneys from the Travis County District
Attorney’s Office to prepare for trial. During the meeting, Officer Ogle made a comment
related to ajudge’s decision to allow certain defendants out ofjail on personal recognizance
bonds. The Assistant District Attorneys shared the comment that was made to them with
other members of their office, which was then brought to the attention of the APD.
Thereafter, on July31, 2019, APD Lieutenant Kenneth Hubbs signed an Internal Complaint
Memorandum requesting Internal Affairs Division (IA)
investigation to determine if Department General Orders, Civil Service Rules, or State Law
had been violated. Internal Affairs interviewed the two Assistant District Attorneys, who
were present when the comment was made by Officer Ogle.
Specifically, one District Attorney recalled the comment that Officer Ogle made to be “Too
bad that thisjudge [Judge Tamara Needles] wasn ‘t the one that was shot, “while the other
District Attorney recalled the comment to be “Too bad it wasn ‘t her [Judge Tamara
Needles] that was shot instead ofJudge Kocurelc “Officer Ogle acknowledged to Internal
Affairs that his comment were words to the effect of too bad Judge Tamara Needles was
not shot, instead of Judge Kocurek.
Officer Ogle acknowledged to Internal Affairs that he was expressing his frustration in an
admittedly inappropriate and unprofessional manner about the judge. Officer Ogle
acknowledged he violated APD general orders 972.4 Prohibited Speech, Expression and
Conduct along with 900.3.2 Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department.
By these actions, Officer Ogle violated Rule 10.03(L) of the Civil Service Rules by
violating the following rules and regulations of the Austin Police Department:
Responsibilities: Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department
Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department
Since the conduct of personnel both on-duty or off-duty may reflect directly upon
the Department, employees must conduct themselves at all times in a manner which
does not bring reproach, discredit, or embarrassment to the Department, or to the
Employees will not commit any act which tends to destroy public
and respect for,
the Department or which is
prejudicial to the good order, efficiency, or discipline of the
Austin Police Department Policy 972.4: Employee Speech, Expression, and
Social Networking: Prohibited Speech, Expression and Conduct
Prohibited Speech, Expression and Conduct
To meet the Department’s safety, performance,
following is prohibited:
Speech or expression made pursuant to an official duty that tends to
professionalism of the Austin Police Department or its employees.
Speech or expression that, while not made pursuant to an official
duty, is significantly linked to, or related to, the Austin Police
Department and tends to compromise or damage the mission,
of the Austin
Department or its employees.
Speech or expression that is contrary to the canons of the Law
Enforcement Code of Ethics as adopted by the Austin Police
By copy of this memo, Officer Ogle is hereby advised of this temporary suspension and
that the suspension may be appealed to the Civil Service Commission by filing with the
Director ofCivil Service, within ten (10) days after receipt of a copy ofthis memo, a proper
notice of appeal in accordance with Section 143.010 of the Texas Local Government Code.
By copy of this memo and as required by Section 143.057 of the Texas Local Government
Code, Officer Ogle is hereby advised that such provides for an appeal to an independent
third party hearing examiner. If appeal is made to a hearing examiner, all rights of appeal
to a District Court are waived, except as provided by Subsection (j) of Section 143.057 of
the Texas Local Government Code. That section states that the State District Court may
hear appeals of an award of a hearing examiner only on the grounds that the arbitration
panel was without jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction, or that the order was procured
by fraud, collusion or other unlawful means. In order to appeal to a hearing examiner, the
original notice of appeal submitted to the Director of Civil Service must state that appeal
is made to a hearing examiner.
By copy of this memo, Officer Ogle is hereby advised that this temporary suspension may
be taken into consideration in my determination as to whether a valid reason may exist to
bypass Officer Ogle for promotion in accordance with APD General Order 919.
N MANLEY, Chief of Police
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I hereby acknowledge receipt of the above and foregoing memorandum of temporary
suspension and I have been advised that if I desire to appeal that I have ten (10) calendar
days from the date of this receipt to file written notice of appeal with the Director of Civil
Service in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government
I ~7 ~4 ti
,~i’fieer Ju11~ t: e #7787