[00:00:04]
[CALL TO ORDER]
CENTRAL.UM, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING OF, OF A-C-P-R-C, UH, TO ORDER.
LET'S FIRST BEGIN BY, UH, CONFIRMING QUORUM WITH A ROLL CALL.
UH, WHEN I MENTION YOUR NAME, PLEASE, UH, SAY HERE OR LIFT YOUR HANDS.
PRESENT? MARISSA JOHNSON HERE.
I THINK THAT CONFIRMS, UH, WE HAVE CORE.
WELL WELCOME, UH, COMMISSIONERS, COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND GUESTS.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
TO START OUR MONTHLY MEETING BY, UM, LOOKING AT OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS.WE HAVE FIRST, UH, MR. PETER HUNT? YES.
I'M HOPING TO TESTIFY ON A COUPLE ITEMS. WILL I BE ALLOTTED THREE MINUTES PER ITEM? I WANTED TO SPEAK ON DISCUSSION ITEMS 5, 6, 7, AS WELL AS ACTION ITEM 19 6 7.
I THINK WE, UH, WE CAN ALLOW FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN, BUT A 19 IS IN OUR ITEMS. I THINK.
I WILL NOT, WE WOULDN'T DISALLOW THAT, BUT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN.
BUT THERE'S, THERE'S NO ACTION ITEM RELATED TO DISCUSSION OF A REQUEST FOR A PO AND A PD ITEMS? NO.
IS THAT 17 THEN? DO I WRONG? NO, IT'S, YEAH.
WELL, IN, IN THAT CASE, I'LL SPEAK ON, UH, FOR, FOR EACH ITEM OR ALL, ALL TOGETHER, EACH ITEM.
UM, WELL, IN THAT CASE, I THINK I'LL, I'LL SPEAK FIRST ON, UH, ITEM NUMBER FIVE, WHICH RELATES TO LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING NON CONCURRENCE, UM, WITH A PD RECOMMENDATIONS OR OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE, UH, DISTRIBUTION, FOR EXAMPLE, OF BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE BY THE CPRC.
UM, AND ON THIS ITEM, I WANNA SAY THAT I, I DO THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR THE CPRC TO BE ABLE TO PROACTIVELY RELEASE BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS, I BELIEVE IT WAS COMMISSIONER HARRIS IDENTIFIED THAT THIS CAN HELP, FOR EXAMPLE, CLARIFY THE CP C'S THINKING WHEN THEY RENDER A JUDGMENT OR AN ASSESSMENT OF A CASE THAT THEY'VE REVIEWED.
UM, AND ALSO I THINK WHEN IT COMES TO THE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS HERE, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT IF COMMISSIONERS ARE EVER TOLD THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT THEY, UH, ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO OR SOMETHING THAT THEY NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT DISCLOSING, WHICH I THINK IS ALMOST CERTAINLY GOING TO COME UP AT SOME POINT, GIVEN THE MATERIAL THAT Y'ALL WORK WITH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE AN, AN UNDERSTANDING OF, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU REQUEST WHATEVER COUNSEL YOU'RE TALKING WITH AT THE TIME TO PROVIDE YOU AN EXACT REFERENCE TO WHAT LEGAL SECTIONS WOULD PROHIBIT THAT BEHAVIOR SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE LANGUAGE FOR YOURSELF.
AND SO THAT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, IT IS AN UNINTENTIONAL PROHIBITION, OR IT'S SOMETHING THAT RUNS AFOUL OF THE INTENTION OF THE CR C PRCS, UH, ESTABLISHING ORDINANCE, THAT COULD THEN BE RECTIFIED BY, UH, LATER WORK.
UM, SO I THINK WHEN LOOKING AT ANY OF THESE SORT OF LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS, I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD SAY, WELL, OKAY, WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY IS IT THAT WE CAN'T DO? WHERE IS THAT LANGUAGE? AND HOW MIGHT IT NEED TO BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE IN THE COMMUNITY IDENTIFY AS AN APPROPRIATE THING THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO? UM, SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY, MY COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
UH, SHOULD I JUST CONTINUE THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF MY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE REMAINDER OF THE ITEMS? IT'S YOUR, IT'S YOUR CHOICE.
UM, FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX, THIS REGARDS PUBLIC REQUESTS AND THE CP C'S RESPONSE TO, UH, PUBLIC REQUESTS OR COMPLAINTS.
UM, AND I ACTUALLY ENCOUNTERED THIS, UH, OR HAVE SOME COMMENTS RELATED TO MY OWN EXPERIENCE FILING A COMPLAINT RELATED TO THE SHOOTING OF ANTHONY WILLIAMS II, WHICH I'LL SPEAK MORE ABOUT IN A MOMENT.
UM, I KNOW WHEN PEOPLE HAVE COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION BEFORE AND, UH, SAID THAT THEY HAVE A COMPLAINT, UH, OR HAVE SOME ITEM OF CONCERN, UM, THAT THE, UH, FREQUENT THING THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED OF 'EM IS TO FILE AN A COMPLAINT THROUGH THE A PO WEBSITE, UM, WHICH I THINK IS USEFUL.
YOU HAVE A, A COMPLAINT NUMBER THAT YOU CAN REFER TO.
UM, BUT WHEN LOOKING THROUGH THIS MYSELF, I FOUND THAT THAT
[00:05:01]
STRUCTURE, THAT SORT OF, UH, A PO WEBSITE FORM WAS NOT REALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE KIND OF COMPLAINT THAT I WANTED TO FILE.BUT THAT THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF COMPLAINT IN THE ORDINANCE IS JUST ANY WRITTEN OR VERBAL COMMUNICATION IDENTIFYING SOME COMPLAINT.
A COMPLAINT IS JUST SOMEONE WHO COMMUNICATES WITH COMMISSION OR WITH A PO SAYING THAT THEY HAVE A PROBLEM OR SOME SORT OF CONCERN.
SO PER THE ORDINANCE, IF SOMEONE KNEW WERE TO SIT UP HERE AND NOT HAVE FILED ANYTHING WITH A PO, NOT HAVE ANY FORMAL NUMBERS OR TRACKING ASSOCIATED WITH IT, BUT EXPRESSED TO YOU SOME SORT OF PROBLEM THAT DOES PER ORDINANCE CONSTITUTE A COMPLAINT.
UM, AND I THINK THAT THAT IS, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING TO KEEP IN MIND, IS THAT THE, UH, SORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPARATUS THAT KELPS KEEP TRACK OF COMPLAINTS THAT FORMALIZES THEM IS USEFUL FOR TRACKING THEM, BUT IS NOT PER MY READING OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED FOR THEM TO BE A COMPLAINT FOR, TO ENABLE DIRECT RESPONSE BY THE CPRC.
UM, SO I THINK THAT THAT'S ONE THING I WANT TO ESTABLISH HERE IS COMPLAINT IS VERY BROADLY DEFINED.
UH, AND I'M, I'VE BEEN VERY PLEASED WITH HOW MUCH THIS COMMISSION HAS BEEN RESPONSIVE TO AND COMMUNICATIVE WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHEN THEY'VE COME UP TO SPEAK, WHEN THEY'VE SPOKEN WITH INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS OUTSIDE OF DAIS.
UM, AND, UH, I, I THINK THAT COMPLAINT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD VERY BROADLY GIVEN HOW IT IS WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE.
UM, SO I THINK YOU ALL SHOULD FEEL EMPOWERED TO PURSUE BASICALLY ANYBODY WHO COMMUNICATES A PROBLEM TO YOU, UM, PER, PER HOW THAT'S DEFINED.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE FORMALIZED OR WRITTEN IN, IN ANY PARTICULAR FORMAT.
UM, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS ON ITEM NUMBER SIX.
UH, NOW FOR ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, I WANNA SPEAK ABOUT, THIS IS A, THE DISCUSSION OF THE SHOOTING OF ANTHONY WILLIAMS II, WHICH HAPPENED ON JULY 24TH.
UM, HE WAS AN UNARMED BLACK BOY IN AUSTIN.
UH, AND I, I DID FILE A COMPLAINT WITH A POI SENT A COPY OF THAT COMPLAINT TO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS.
UM, AND I WANTED TO IDENTIFY SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT I'M, WHAT I WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT IN THAT CASE.
AND WHAT I BELIEVE IS, IS ESPECIALLY PERTINENT TO CPRC AND THE WORK THAT YOU ALL DO, WHICH IS THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT TWO THINGS IN THIS CASE.
UM, ONE OF THEM IS POLICY VIOLATIONS.
AND I THINK THAT YOU ALL HAVE, HAVE BEEN COMING TO GRIPS WITH THE GENERAL ORDERS.
AND EVALUATING WHETHER OR NOT A POLICY VIOLATION HAS HAPPENED IS IMPORTANT.
LIKE WE NEED TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE ARE FOLLOWING POLICY.
UH, BUT, AND WHAT I SEE AS AN IMPORTANT MISSION OF THE CPRC, AND PART OF MY COMPLAINT WAS WE CAN ALSO HAVE COMPLAINTS THAT EVEN IF POLICY WAS FOLLOWED, SOMETHING WAS WRONG.
AND I THINK IN THE CASE OF THE SHOOTING OF ANTHONY WILLIAMS, SOMETHING FELT WRONG TO ME.
I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A CASE THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
SOMEONE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BE SHOT LIKE THAT, AN UNARMED PERSON, NOT A THREAT TO ANYONE, UM, KILLED VERY QUICKLY AFTER OFFICERS ARRIVED ON SCENE.
UM, IF ALL POLICY WAS FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE, THEN I THINK THE ORGANIZATION THAT MOST IMMEDIATELY NEEDS TO SAY THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE AND SOMETHING IS WRONG, IS THIS COMMISSION IS THE CPRC, THAT IF POLICY WAS FOLLOWED TO A T AND THAT POLICY LED TO THIS OUTCOME, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS A STATEMENT OF JUDGMENT.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS A STATEMENT THAT SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG AND NEEDS TO CHANGE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT IS A CORE FUNCTION OF THE COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION, IS TO NOT JUST IDENTIFY ON THE ONE HAND POLICY VIOLATIONS, BUT ALSO TO IDENTIFY CASES IN WHICH POLICY FOLLOWING HAS LED TO OUTCOMES THAT SEEM CONTRARY TO OUR DESIRES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMMUNITY WELLBEING.
UM, NOW IN THE CASE OF ANTHONY WILLIAMS, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT I THINK THERE WAS, UH, POLICY VIOLATIONS.
AND, UH, I KNOW THAT FOR EXAMPLE, THE, UH, THERE ARE VARIOUS PEOPLE WHO ARE, HAVE GREATER EXPERTISE ON THE GENERAL ORDERS THAN MYSELF, AND I'M SURE YOU ARE DEVELOPING THAT AS WELL.
WHO CAN IDENTIFY WAYS IN WHICH OFFICERS DID NOT, FOR EXAMPLE, TACTICALLY OR DEFENSIVELY DEPLOY THEMSELVES, UM, ON SCENE WHEN THERE WAS A REPORTING OF A FIREARM PRESENT.
UH, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO CONSIDER IS BOTH POLICY VIOLATIONS AND EVEN IF POLICY WAS FOLLOWED.
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAPPEN AT ALL? THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
UH, AND THEN I WANTED TO CLARIFY, AM I ABLE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 19? THAT'S A DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM.
I CAN, I CAN SPEAK ON THAT ONE.
UM, THIS IS ITEM 19, WHICH IS A, UH, ACTION ITEM, I BELIEVE FOR THE COMMISSION TO, UH, APPROVE A REQUEST TO A PO AND A PD FOR DOCUMENTS AND BRIEFINGS RELATED TO THE SHOOTING OF ANTHONY WILLIAMS AND THE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS.
UM, I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU COMMISSIONERS TO VOTE YES TO APPROVE THIS NOTICE TO FORMALLY REQUEST ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THIS CASE, ANYTHING THAT A PO OR A PD CURRENTLY HAS, AND ANYTHING THAT THEY PRODUCE IN THE COMING MONTHS TO BE GIVEN SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE CPRC WHEN IT IS MADE AVAILABLE TO THOSE INSTITUTIONS.
UM, I KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SEQUENCING CONCERNS WITH, DOES A PO AND A PD DO THEY NEED TO FINISH THEIR INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETELY BEFORE THEY WILL HAND ANYTHING OFF TO THE CPRC, PER THE, THE ORDINANCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN PURSUING A COMMUNITY COMPLAINT, WHICH IN THIS CASE, YOU ALL HAVE SEEN MY COMMUNITY COMPLAINT RELATED TO SHOOTING OF ANTHONY WILLIAMS. UM,
[00:10:02]
THAT IS, IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT YOU WAIT UNTIL THEY FINISH AN INVESTIGATION TO HAND OFF MATERIALS TO YOU OR UNTIL YOU CAN BEGIN YOUR OWN REVIEW.UM, SO IN THIS CASE, I, I FULLY AM FULLY SUPPORT YOU ALL SENDING THIS NOTICE TO A PO AND A PD SAYING, HEY, PLEASE GIVE US THIS INFORMATION.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO VOTE FOR THAT AND TO INCLUDE IN THAT, THAT IT IS ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE CASE, THAT IT IS ALL MATERIAL THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO, YOU WILL ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO.
AND THAT, AS FOR THE MATERIAL IS PRODUCED, THAT IT IS ALSO HANDED OVER TO YOU ALL AS WELL, SO THAT YOU CAN SEE IT CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH A PO AND A PD.
THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS ON THAT.
IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
BUT NO, I APPRECIATE YOU, UH, SITTING IN THAT, UM, COMPLAINT.
UM, IT MAKES US LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, HOW WE DEAL WITH IT MOVING FORWARD AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, WHEN SOMEONE BRINGS IN A COMPLAINT FROM THE COMMUNITY.
AND, UH, I APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT.
NEXT, WE'D LIKE, UH, JEAN PALERMO.
DID I SAY THAT, LIKE, HOPE I PRONOUNCE THAT RIGHT? YES.
YEAH, YOU CAN SPEAK FOR EACH MICROPHONE.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, UM, I WANT TO KICK THIS OFF WITH A LITTLE BIT OF GRATITUDE.
I'VE NEVER BEEN TO ONE OF THESE MEETINGS BEFORE.
I, I, FORGIVE ME, I DON'T EVEN KNOW YOUR NAMES OR ANYTHING, BUT I'VE HEARD THAT YOUR VOLUNTEERS, PEOPLE FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE LITERALLY JUST DONATING HOURS OF THEIR TIME TO REVIEW POLICE CASES THAT INCLUDE FOOTAGE AND GRAPHIC DETAILS.
'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S A BURDEN THAT NOT EVERYONE CAN TAKE ON, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
UM, THE SECOND HALF OF WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY IS I JUST, I JUST WANT THINGS TO GET BETTER.
AND I THINK A BIG PART OF THAT IS HAVING A CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT BODY.
AND I KNOW, OR AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE, LIKE, TRADITIONAL TEETH WHERE YOU CAN CARRY IT AND STICK THE POLICE.
LIKE, WE REVIEWED THIS CASE AND YOU ACTUALLY HANDLED IT REALLY WELL.
WE THINK YOU SHOULD GET ACCOMMODATION.
OR, YOU KNOW, THIS CASE THERE WERE ISSUES AND, YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE TO DO SOMETHING THAT WILL ENCOURAGE YOU TO BE BETTER NEXT TIME.
I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT'S NOT IN PLACE YET.
A COUPLE THINGS I WANNA RECOMMEND, AND I'M GONNA ECHO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER JUST A LITTLE BIT.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WERE POINTS IN THE ANTON WILLIAMS CASE WHERE OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT DID NOT FOLLOW POLICY.
THEY DIDN'T GO IN, IN DEFENSIVE FORMATION WITH THE SPECIAL SHIELDS THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO PURCHASE THAT PROTECTS THEM FROM GUNFIRE.
THEY DIDN'T PAUSE AT ALL TO ASSESS THE SITUATION, WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS ACTUALLY MENTAL HEALTH OR WHAT WAS GOING ON.
AND APPARENTLY THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO BOTH OF THOSE THINGS.
UM, THE FIRST THING I WANT TO COMMENT BEFORE I, IT JUMPS RIGHT OUTTA MY HEAD, IS THAT THERE ARE MORE CASUAL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE NOT POLICE AND NOT TRAINED ON THESE THINGS THAT DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THOSE POLICIES TO BEGIN WITH.
THIS MIGHT JUST BE MY OWN IGNORANCE, BUT THERE SHOULD BE A REALLY EASY TO ACCESS PLACE ONLINE THAT LITERALLY HAS THEIR POLICIES.
SO SOME NERD CAN SIT THERE AND READ 200 PAGES OF POLICE POLICIES THAT THEY WANT TO, SO THEY CAN FIGURE OUT LIKE, HEY, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOMETHING WENT WRONG IN THIS CASE? JUST SO THEY DON'T WALK BY AND ARE IGNORANT, OR ARE LIKE, WELL, I CAN KIND OF SEE THIS ARGUMENT.
I CAN KIND OF SEE THAT ARGUMENT AND NOT REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE SHOWS THEM THE POLICE POLICY.
LIKE, HEY, THIS WAS WRONG, THIS WAS WRONG, THIS WAS WRONG.
SO THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC SO WE CAN BE MORE EDUCATED.
UM, NEXT, UH, SOME THINGS THAT SOME PEOPLE POINTED OUT, OTHER PEOPLE POINTED OUT TO ME, UM, THE EXPLANATION THAT'S KIND OF BEING PUT OUT THERE RIGHT NOW FOR THIS CASE IS THAT THIS WAS A SUICIDE BY POLICE.
AND THE ASSUMPTION THERE IS, THERE'S, THERE'S NEXT ITEM.
UM, GOSH, UH, THE ASSUMPTION BEING THAT THERE IS, THANK YOU, UM, THAT YOU CAN TRICK THE POLICE INTO ENDING YOUR LIFE AND THAT SHOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE.
LIKE, I DIDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT THAT WAY UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE POINTED OUT TO ME.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT DOES SOUND LIKE A POLICY ISSUE.
SO SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE'S BROUGHT UP IS THAT A LOT OF THESE MEETINGS ARE JUST REVIEWING, DID THEY FOLLOW POLICY OR NOT FOLLOW POLICY? MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD.
[00:15:01]
IN THAT PIECE WHERE WE'RE ALSO REVIEWING WHAT THE POLICIES ARE.CAN THEY BE BETTER? 'CAUSE I THINK YOU'RE WITH ME ON THIS PART, AT LEAST I WANT THINGS TO BE BETTER.
AND SOMETIMES THAT MEANS CHANGING POLICIES, ASSESSING THEM AND CHANGING THEM.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I GUESS, IS, I KNOW YOU GUYS DON'T TECHNICALLY HAVE THE TEETH YET WHERE YOU CAN PUNISH AND COMMEND AND WHATNOT, BUT I THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE THE ANTONINO WILLIAMS CASE.
OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN'T DO THAT ALL THE TIME, OR YOU'LL JUST BE SKIPPING THE LINE FOR EVERY CASE THAT MAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, EVEN IF THERE'S MORE WORTHY CASES.
BUT THIS IS A KEY MOMENT, AND YOU CAN USE IT TO LEVERAGE YOUR HYPOTHETICAL COMMUNITY POWER, EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY IMPOSE A DEADLINE ON THE POLICE TO MAKE THE FOLLOW FOLLOWING POLICY CHANGE OR THE FOLLOWING PENALTY WILL HAPPEN.
STILL WRITE THAT UP AND STILL PRESENT IT AS IF YOU CAN, JUST TO SEE WHAT THE RESPONSE IS.
BECAUSE THE GOOD RESPONSE IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY AND WE ARE GONNA TRY TO WRITE A WRITTEN RESPONSE BY SIX MONTHS TIME.
UM, AND WE WILL DELIVER IT IN THE FOLLOWING FORMAT.
EITHER THEY OBEY IT OR THEY DON'T OBEY IT.
BUT THROWING YOURSELF OUT THERE, FORGIVE THE INFORMAL SPEECH, BUT LIKE A BIG OLD DUDE AND SAYING IT AND SEEING IF THEY DO IT ANYWAYS MIGHT HELP YOU ON THE PATH TO HAVING THAT KIND OF POWER.
UM, FORGIVE ME, I'VE GOT NOTES.
UM, AND YES, JUST TO REITERATE, TAKE ON THE TASTE.
TAKE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT IS AVAILABLE.
I PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN THE TAPE THAT IS BEING CIRCULATED ONLINE, AND YOU DO WITNESS THE END OF A LIFE THAT IS SERIOUS.
AND I DO HOPE YOU GUYS HAVE ACCESS TO APPROPRIATE CARE FOR YOURSELVES AS WELL.
BUT GET ALL THE INFORMATION YOU CAN AND JUST MAKE A GOOD DECISION.
PUT YOUR POLICY IDEAS OUT THERE, WHAT WENT RIGHT, WHAT WENT WRONG, AND GIVE THE POLICE YOUR HONEST OPINIONS OF WHAT MIGHT MAKE THINGS BETTER.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN AN ISSUE AROUND TRAINING THAT THEY'VE IN THE PAST HAVE TURNED DOWN TRAINING, FOR EXAMPLE, ON SUICIDE BY COPS SPECIFICALLY.
YOU KNOW WHAT? TELL THEM, HEY, YOU NEED TO TAKE THAT TRAINING BY THE END OF THE YEAR, OR WE'RE GONNA HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT THERE'S NO INCREASE IN POLICE BUDGET IN THE NEXT BUDGET.
EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT HOLDING POWER, YOU CAN STILL DO IT AND KIND OF ESTABLISH YOURSELVES.
I'VE BEEN BABBLING, BUT I DID MY BEST.
UH, I, I DO WANNA ASK, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, UH, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, IF THEY, IF WE GIVE OFFICER SHIELDS, WE COULD DO THAT, BUT IT MIGHT COST MONEY.
AND I KNOW THAT STARTS A BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT WE'RE SPENDING MONEY ON.
BUT I MEAN, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT POLICE OFFICERS USING BALLISTIC SHIELDS MORE OFTEN? WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE THOSE SHIELDS.
THEY WERE ALREADY PURCHASED, THEY JUST WEREN'T USED.
THEY WEREN'T IN THE CAR, THEY WEREN'T USED.
NOW, I COULD BE WRONG ON THAT, BUT IF THEY HAD THE SHIELDS AND WE BOUGHT THEM 'CAUSE WE DID BUY THEM BECAUSE WE PAID TAXES, THEN THEY SHOULD BE USING THEM.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE FOR, TO KEEP THEM SAFE AND TO GIVE THEM A COUPLE EXTRA SECONDS TO ASSESS A SITUATION, EVEN IF IT IS MORE DANGEROUS.
YOU TAKE COVER, YOU PUT UP YOUR SHIELD.
UM, IF THEY DON'T HAVE THEM, I THINK, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED ON HOW WE ADDRESS THAT.
I HAVE SEEN SITUATIONS WHERE POLICE WERE GIVEN JUST ABSOLUTELY WAY TO KIND OF DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO AND MAYBE DIDN'T MAKE THE BEST SPENDING DECISIONS.
SO I'M NOT GONNA SAY, HEY, WE NEED TO GIVE THEM MORE FUNDING KIND OF BLINDLY, BUT SOMETHING STRATEGIC, LIKE A SHIELD THAT'S NOT GONNA HURT A PERSON THAT'S PROTECTING PEOPLE THAT COULD BE USED REASONABLY.
WE CAN HAVE A DECENT CONVERSATION AROUND THAT.
AND YEAH, I GUESS THE MAIN THING IS, YOU KNOW, WE OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANT POLICE SHOOTINGS.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE WON'T WANT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO GO INTO SITUATIONS WHERE THERE AREN'T MANY OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, BUT MM-HMM
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S QUESTIONS.
NEXT IS KATHY, UH, CATHERINE MITCHELL.
UM, I HAVE I THINK FOUR ITEMS THAT I'M SPEAKING ON.
UM, ITEMS, ITEM FIVE IS A LITTLE HARD TO INTERPRET, SO MAKING A COMMENT PRIOR TO UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT IS THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED, UM, IS
[00:20:01]
DIFFICULT.BUT I'LL, I'LL TAKE A STAB AT IT.
UM, POTENTIAL LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF CPRC, NON CONCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, IF THE CPRC DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE STANCE TAKEN BY A PD, I PRESUME THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME LAWYER OUT THERE WHO'D WANT TO USE THAT INFORMATION.
BUT CPRC RECOMMENDATIONS, AND YOU ALL SHOULD KNOW THIS, HAVE ALWAYS BEEN FULLY PUBLIC.
UH, I USED TO KEEP A BINDER OF THEM IN MY KITCHEN.
UH, I'VE READ UP UNTIL YOU ALL STARTED AND THIS WHOLE PROCESS STARTED OVER.
UH, AND THEY WERE INCREDIBLY VALUABLE, EVEN BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN THIS BOARD HAD FAR LESS AUTHORITY, FAR LESS POWER, AND FAR LESS ACCESS TO INFORMATION.
UH, THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME OUT WERE AMONG THE VERY FIRST THINGS THAT LAUNCHED THIS COMMUNITY'S DIALOGUE ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH FIRST RESPONSE.
THAT BOARD SAW SOME CASES THAT I WOULD LIKE THIS ONE CALL NEVER EVENTS, THINGS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN, UM, AND REALLY LIKE TOOK CARE TO GIVE SOME GRANULAR DETAIL ABOUT ALL THE THINGS THAT NEEDED TO CHANGE.
UM, AND I WOULD EXPECT NO LESS FROM THIS BOARD.
UH, YOU HAVE MORE CLARITY IN THIS ORDINANCE THAN THE PRIOR COMMISSION DID.
AND SO I HOPE THAT THIS ITEM DOESN'T INDICATE THAT THERE'S SOME HESITATION ABOUT DISAGREEING WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THE POLICE CHIEF, OR EVEN THE OFFICE OF POLICE OVERSIGHT.
UM, AND I'LL GO TO THE NEXT ADMINISTRATIVE ONE, UH, DISCUSSION OF HANDLING COMMUNITY MEMBERS DIRECT REQUESTS.
YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY, AS SOMEBODY WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CRAFTING OF THIS ORDINANCE, UH, AND THERE WERE A LOT OF LAWYERS AND NON-LAWYERS AND DISCUSSION, UH, OVER MANY MONTHS, UM, DO I WISH THE AND OR CLAUSE WAS WORDED BETTER? SURE I DO.
UH, BUT THE AND OR CLAUSE IS STUCK ON AT THE END AS A SEPARATE ITEM.
AND IT WAS THE INTENT OF THOSE OF US WHO WERE CRAFTING THIS INITIALLY TO HAVE A WAY FOR PEOPLE TO COME DIRECTLY TO YOU AND FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO, IN THE COURSE OF AN INVESTIGATION, BE ABLE TO HAVE YOUR EYES ON THAT INVESTIGATION.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETE.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT WAS VERY SIMPLE.
ONE OF THE OTHER TOP ITEMS THAT CAME OUT OF THOSE LETTERS FROM THE PRIOR BOARD WAS THAT THE COM, THEIR CONCERNS DEVOLVED TO NOBODY ASKED THAT QUESTION.
NOBODY TALKED TO THAT WITNESS.
THEY WOULD BE STYMIED ON THEIR ABILITY TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF GENERAL ORDERS BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT GOOD.
AND SO THIS LITTLE SORT OF SIDE NOTE WAS REALLY AN ATTEMPT TO ENSURE THAT WHEN NECESSARY, AND WE DON'T EXPECT YOU ALL TO DO IT VERY OFTEN, WHEN NECESSARY, YOU STEP IN AT THE BEGINNING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INVESTIGATION IS FULL, COMPLETE, AND CONDUCTED CORRECTLY.
UM, AND THEN YOU'LL BE ABLE TO COME TO A SOLID CONCLUSION WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD DECIDE TO AGREE WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR THE OFFICE OF POLICE OVERSIGHT.
DO I WISH IT WAS WORDED BETTER? SURE.
I WISH WE ALL, I WISH THIS THING DIDN'T HAVE A TYPO TOO
SO I AM, UM, I'M, I'M ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT MAY NOT BE PERFECT, BUT IT IS INTENDED TO GIVE YOU THE AUTHORITY TO STEP IN AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON.
UM, AND NOW I'LL JUMP TO THE ITEMS ABOUT THE WILLIAMS CASE.
AND EXCUSE ME FOR TAKING OFF MY GLASSES AND LOOKING AT MY NOTES.
UM, THIS CASE IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, NOT JUST BECAUSE IT IS THE, UM, YOU KNOW, IS THE BIG HIGH PROFILE CASE RIGHT NOW.
UH, BUT I AM VERY CONCERNED BY THE TENOR OF APDS COMMENTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH.
AND I BELIEVE IT WILL BE CRITICAL FOR THIS BODY TO PARTICIPATE DURING AND NOT AFTER THE INVESTIGATION.
[00:25:02]
AND I WANNA START WITH A COMMENT FROM OUR PREVIOUS, FROM THE PREVIOUS TESTIMONY.UH, SUICIDE BY COP IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
WHEN I WAS WORKING FOR CONSUMER REPORTS, I WORKED ON A LOT OF MEDICAL ERROR ISSUES.
AND BACK IN THE EARLY PART OF THIS MILLENNIUM, UH, MEDICINE DECIDED THAT A LOT OF, UH, MEDICAL ERRORS, SERIOUS MEDICAL ERRORS THAT HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO GO ON WITH A SORT OF, UGH, MISTAKES HAPPEN APPROACH NEEDED TO BECOME NEVER EVENTS, AND THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE POLICY APPLIED TO ALL SURGEONS IN ORDER TO PREVENT THEM FROM CUTTING OFF THE WRONG LEG.
UM, THAT KIND OF ATTITUDE IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IN A CASE LIKE THIS.
SUICIDE BY COPS SHOULD BE A NEVER EVENT, AND IT IS PREVENTABLE.
AND THAT BRINGS ME TO THE, THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
UM, OFFICERS TOLD BY 9 1 1 THAT SOMEBODY ALONE IN A PARK MIGHT HAVE A GUN AND MIGHT BE BRANDISHING, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE MARCHED RIGHT UP TO THE GUY AND SAID SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, HEY, BRO, THIS WAS NOT A STRATEGIC POLICE APPROACH TO SOMEWHERE, SOMEWHERE, AND SOMEONE WHO THEY WERE TOLD MIGHT HAVE A GUN AND MIGHT BE PLANNING ON USING IT.
SO RIGHT FROM THE JUMP, THIS WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOOK.
UM, OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE AND COULD HAVE TAKEN POSITIONS OF COVER.
THERE ARE SEVERAL OBVIOUS POSITIONS OF COVER, EVEN IN THE TINY SNIPPET OF VIDEO THAT HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED.
AND I KNOW THAT THERE IS MORE VIDEO BEFORE AND AFTER THAT YOU ALL SHOULD BE ABLE TO REVIEW.
UM, AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT IS FROM THAT POSITION OF COVER, THEY CAN COMMUNICATE, AND THAT IS WHEN THE DEESCALATION SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE.
SO I WANNA SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO TRAINING, AND I KNOW I'M GONNA RUN OUTTA TIME HERE, SO I'M SORRY.
UH, MANY OFFICERS ON OUR FORCE AND APPARENTLY APDS PR DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN TRAINED IN WHAT IS CALLED THE MOMENT OF THREAT DOCTRINE ONCE HELD IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, TO MEAN THAT THE ONLY THING TO FACTOR INTO A REVIEW OF A POLICE OFFICER SHOOTING ARE THE SECONDS PRIOR TO PULLING THE TRIGGER AD'S.
CAN I GET THREE MINUTES ON ITEM 19? I DID SIGN UP FOR IT.
UM, APDS PRESS COMMENTS SEEM TO INDICATE THAT THEY CONTINUE ONCE AGAIN TO ASK US ALL TO FOCUS ON THOSE SECONDS.
THEY GAVE US THAT LOVELY VIDEO THAT WAS VERY SHORT AND THE BIG RED CIRCLE AROUND THE VICTIM'S, UM, MIDDLE WHERE HE WAS, YOU KNOW, DOING SOMETHING.
UM, LAST YEAR, AND I'M SURE YOU ALL HAVE BEEN TRAINED IN THIS, IN A HARRIS COUNTY CASE, BARNES V FELIX SCOTUS OVERTURNED THE MOMENT OF THREAT DOCTRINE IN A NINE ZERO DECISION.
RETURNING TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE, THAT THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE A BROADER TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD EXPLICITLY INCLUDE A LONGER TIMELINE BEFORE.
AND A, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT DID NOT OPINE ON THE SEPARATE QUESTION OF ACTIONS THAT CREATE A DANGEROUS SITUATION.
SCOTUS CASES SHOULD CREATE AN OUTER BOUNDARY TO PROTECT US ALL AGAINST VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.
THOSE DECISIONS, WHETHER OR NOT A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OCCURRED WILL BE MADE BY THE COURTS WITHIN THAT BOUNDARY.
WHAT SHOULD BE MADE MUCH MORE CLEAR AND MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE ARE THE GENERAL ORDERS WHICH CAN PREVENT OFFICER CREATED JEOPARDY.
SO IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT OFFICERS WHO JUST SORT OF WALKED IN TO A SITUATION WHERE THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN COVER AND HAD THEY TAKEN COVER, THE ENTIRE THREAT SITUATION WOULD'VE UNFOLDED DIFFERENTLY.
SO THE GENERAL ORDERS ARE MORE SPECIFIC, OFFICERS ARE REQUIRED TO DEESCALATE, THERE IS A SHALL IN THERE SOMEWHERE.
UH, THE GENERAL ORDERS SHOULD BE AND MUST BE NARROWER THAN THE SCOPE OF WHAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY SCOTUS.
IT IS UP TO YOU NOT ONLY TO REVIEW THE GENERAL ORDERS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WERE VIOLATED IN THIS CASE, BUT ALSO TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE GOOD ENOUGH TO PROTECT US FROM OFFICER CREATED JEOPARDY.
[00:30:02]
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A PD IS TRAINING OFFICERS TO MARCH IN A BUNCH INTO A SPACE WHERE A CALLER HAS TOLD THEM THAT THERE MIGHT BE AN ARMED AND DANGEROUS SUBJECT.THAT BEHAVIOR, THAT BEHAVIOR JEOPARDIZES THE SAFETY OF THE OFFICERS AS WELL AS THE SUBJECT TAKING COVER AND COMMUNICATING BEFORE BULLETS START TO FLY, IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH TRAINING AND COMMON SENSE.
HAD THEY DONE THAT, IT SEEMS LIKELY THEY WOULD'VE FIGURED OUT THAT THIS WAS A KID IN CRISIS AND NOT SOME RO ROVE KID KILLER.
SO, FOR YOUR PROCESS, IT SIMPLY DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE KID APPEARED TO BE TRYING TO FAKE PULLING A GUN TO GET HIMSELF SHOT TO DEATH.
YOUR PROCESS SHOULD FOCUS ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING THE PERIOD BEFORE, AND WHAT THE GENERAL ORDERS SHOULD BE TO PREVENT THIS FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN.
A QUESTION, WHAT WAS THE CASE YOU QUOTED AGAIN OF THIS, THE CASE YOU QUOTED AS THE SUPREME COURT DECI DECISION? UH, FELIX.
IT WAS OVERTURNING THE FIFTH CIRCUIT DOCTRINE.
NEXT, UM, MARY, YOUR LAST NAME, COULD YOU, UH, TELL US YOUR LAST NAME AGAIN? COMPLETE FULL NAME.
MY NAME IS MARY MIDDLE INITIAL M ELIZABETH.
AND, UM, I'LL BEGIN WITH, UH, ITEM SEVEN, THE INVESTIGATION OF THE SHOOTING OF ANTHONY NEIL WILLIAMS. THE SECOND IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INVESTIGATION YOU'LL BE INVOLVED IN THIS YEAR, AND PROBABLY FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO COME.
IT WILL SET THE TONE FOR EVERY CASE THAT FOLLOWS.
ANTHONY NEIL IS DEAD BECAUSE OF THE FAILURES OF THE OFFICER INVOLVED IN THE SYSTEMS THAT PUT THEM THERE.
ANTHONY WAS A BOY LIKE TAMIR RICE, LIKE EMMETT TILL, AND MANY OTHERS.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO REMEMBER THEM AS YOU LOOK INTO THIS CASE AS THOROUGHLY AS YOU CAN.
YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO PUT OUR COMMUNITIES IN A CITY'S ATTENTION WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE AND MOVE JUSTICE FORWARD.
THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WITH GREAT RESOURCES HERE TO SUPPORT YOU IN THIS.
WE BELIEVE YOU CAN MAKE A MUCH NEEDED DIFFERENCE.
I'M ENCOURAGING YOU TO VOTE YES TO REQUEST INFORMATION AND BRIEFINGS FROM A PO AND A PD.
MAKE SURE THAT THE INFORMATION YOU RECEIVE INCLUDES ALL CAMERA FOOTAGE AND OTHER INTERNAL DOCUMENTS.
DEMAND THAT THE MATERIAL BE PROVIDED TO YOU PRIOR TO YOUR NEXT MEETING.
I THINK THAT ENDS OUR PUBLIC COMMENT.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
MOVE ON TO MORE, UH, COMMITTEE, UH, BUSINESS.WE'LL TRY TO START WITH THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
I'D LIKE, UH, CALL FOR THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 17TH, 2026.
UH, I CAN SECOND THAT IF THAT'S A FIRST OR A SECOND THAT I SECOND.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 17TH 20, UH, 17, 20 26.
LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE SIX AND THIS ONE ABSTAIN.
NEXT, WE'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS, UH, ANY, IF THERE ARE ANY UPDATES ON THE STAFF BRIEFING ON THE POLICE TECHNOLOGY UNIT FOR THE CPRC DRIVE CHAIR.
SO NEXT, NEXT WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM
[3. Staff briefing by Director Gail McCant regarding updates related to Austin Police Oversight (APO), including an overview and key highlights; administrative and operational updates; commission support and follow-up; community engagement; policy highlights; and upcoming items and priorities.]
NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS, UH, STAFF BRIEFING FROM THE DIRECTOR, UH, OF CPC OF THE POLICE.UM, GAIL MCCANN, DIRECTOR AUSTIN POLICE OVERSIGHT.
I WANNA START WITH OUR MOST SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS.
ON JULY 31ST, A PO CONDUCTED A, A PRE UH, PRESS CONFERENCE TO KICK OFF THE KNOW YOUR RIGHTS PROGRAM.
UM, COUNCIL MEMBER JOSE VELAZQUEZ ALSO ATTENDED THE CONFERENCE WHERE HE AND I SPOKE AND STAFF RESPONDED TO A FEW QUESTIONS FROM THE MEDIA.
A PO AND A PD INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION HAD THEIR MONTHLY LEADERSHIP MEETING ON AUGUST 13TH TO DISCUSS HIGH LEVEL POLICY
[00:35:01]
PROCESSES AND OPERATIONAL TOPICS.A PD IS MOVING FORWARD WITH PURCHASING A NEW INTERNAL AFFAIRS, UH, DIVISION CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
IT'S CALLED IA PRO, UH, WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL ALLOW A PO TO COMMUNICATE WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN A MORE TIMELY AND TRANSPARENT WAY.
UH, THE NEW PLATFORM IS DESIGNED TO INCLUDE A WEB BASED PUBLIC FACING PORTAL FOR, UH, COMPLAINANTS, UM, WHICH WILL ALLOW COMPLAINANTS TO HAVE, UM, GREATER, UH, REAL TIME ACCESS TO THEIR COMPLAINTS TO, TO GET A STATUS RELATED TO THEIR COMPLAINTS.
UH, OUR 2025 ANNUAL REPORT IS IN DRAFT FORM AND HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, UH, STAFF FOR REVIEW AND FEEDBACK, AND THEN WE'LL UPDATE YOU AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE RELEASE OF THAT REPORT.
UM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, UH, KEVIN MASTERS AND I ATTENDED SEVERAL COUNCIL MEETINGS, UM, AND WORK SESSIONS, UM, RELATED TO THE BUDGET IN THESE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS.
UH, A PO DID NOT REQUEST ANY ENHANCEMENTS, SO WE DID NOT ASK FOR ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN TERMS OF OUR BUDGET FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR.
THE BUDGET WAS ADOPTED ON AUGUST 17TH, AND, UM, THERE WERE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OPOS BUDGET.
UM, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE OUR NON BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND MOVE FORWARD WITH FUTURE PROJECTS AND, UM, PROGRAMS AS PLANNED.
UPCOMING, UH, ACTIVITIES INCLUDE THE POLICY AND RESEARCH ALONG WITH THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STAFF.
MET WITH SEVERAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW AND EDUCATION REGARDING THE OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING DASH MORE BOARD, AND, UM, MORE MEETINGS ARE SCHEDULED OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.
ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, A PO WILL HOST AN EXPO.
IT WILL BE FROM 9:00 AM TO 2:00 PM RIGHT HERE AT CITY HALL.
THE EXPO WILL GIVE, UM, COMMUNITY MEMBERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE ENTIRE STAFF AND DISCUSS APOS PROCESSES AND PROGRAMS. THERE WILL BE A, UM, FIRESIDE CHAT WITH MYSELF, THE DIRECTOR, AND SOME OF THE MANAGERS AND OUR MEDIATION CONSULTANT FOR THE DIS FROM THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER.
UH, WE ARE SUPER, SUPER EXCITED ABOUT THE EVENT, AND WE INVITE ALL THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO JOIN US FOR THIS EVENT THAT IS HAPPENING ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 9:00 AM TO 2:00 PM HERE AT CITY HALL.
I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR COMPLETING THE WORKING SAFELY AI, UH, TRAINING AND THE KNOW BEFORE YOU, UH, KNOW BEFORE TRAINING, UM, THE CITY IS A HUNDRED PERCENT IN COMPLIANCE.
SO THANK YOU ALL FOR TAKING THE TIME TO JUMP ON YOUR LAPTOPS AND FINISH THAT, UM, THAT, THAT, UH, TRAINING, UM, THE TIMELINE, OF COURSE, WE SELECTED OUR NEW ALTERNATES FOR THE CPRC, THE TIMELINE FOR MOVING FORWARD.
UH, THEY HAVE WORKING ON THE STATE MANDATED BACKGROUND CHECKS, SO STILL WORKING ON THAT.
UH, THE CITY MANAGER WILL APPOINT THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND WE'LL PROVIDE A NOTICE TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHEN THE, THE TRAINING WILL HAPPEN FOR THOSE NEW, UH, ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS.
SO AT THE JULY MEETING, UM, THE COMMISSION REQUESTED THAT FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS FORWARDED TO THE BOARD AND A SEPARATE DOCUMENT, SO YOU SHOULD HAVE THOSE IN YOUR PACKET.
ALSO, AT THE JUNE MEETING, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON ASKED ABOUT A PD PRINTED REFERRAL INFORMATION AND ABOUT A PO ON THE TICKETS.
AND SO WE DID FOLLOW UP WITH THAT, AND WE LEARNED THAT A PD DOES HAVE THE REFERRAL INFORMATION ON THE TICKETS AND THE, UM, SUMMONS, UH, REFERRING TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS, REFERRING THEM TO THE POLICE MONITORS OFFICE.
SO THE NAME JUST NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED, AND SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM TO CORRECT THE NAME.
UH, I THINK THE DIGITAL, UM, DOCUMENT HAS BEEN UPDATED.
THERE'S A, A EMAIL ADDRESS AS WELL ON THE PRINTED MATERIAL THAT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED.
SO IT'S GONNA TAKE A LITTLE LONGER FOR THE PRINTED MATERIAL SUMMONS TO BE UPDATED, BUT THEY DO HAVE POLICE MONITOR AND THE CORRECT PHONE NUMBER IS THERE.
SO WE'RE JUST UPDATING THE PHONE, UM, THE EMAIL ADDRESS AND THE NAME ON THOSE DOCUMENTS.
SO THIS IS PURELY A CURIOSITY, BUT I IMAGINE YOU HAVE SOME DOCUMENTS YOU LOOK THROUGH AND YOU'RE LIKE, OH, IT SAYS POLICE MONITOR ON IT, YOU KNOW,
WHEN WE FIND THOSE, WE TRY TO MAKE THOSE, UM, CORRECTIONS.
SO THE ECI THE ECITATIONS THOUGH, THEY, THEY HAVE BEEN CORRECTED SINCE YOU BROUGHT THAT TO OUR ATTENTION.
IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, UH, AGAIN, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.
A PO LAUNCHED THE PROGRAM AT A PRESS CONFERENCE ON JULY 31ST AT 9:00 AM HERE AT CITY HALL WITH COUNCIL MEMBER JOSE VELAZQUEZ.
UH, THE TEAM IS INITIATING A PHASE TWO PLANNING, AND THAT'S GONNA BE A TRAINING COMPONENT RELATED TO THE KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.
AND SO WE'LL GIVE YOU MORE INFORMATION
[00:40:01]
AS WE, UM, PROCEED WITH DEVELOPING THAT TRAINING.THE A PO EXPO, A PO NEXT OPEN HOUSE EVENT WILL BE ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, UH, FROM 10:00 AM UH, TO TWO HERE AT CITY HALL.
AND THEN AGAIN, OUR ANNUAL REPORT RELEASE.
UM, AND WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO RELEASING THAT, UH, REPORT SOME OF THE UPCOMING EVENTS THAT WE ATTENDED.
AUGUST, UM, THIRD, THE DISTRICT 10 BUDGET TOWN HALL, UM, UH, AUGUST 3RD AS WELL, THE IMMIGRATION AFFAIRS COMMISSION.
AUGUST 4TH, THE AFRICAN AMERICAN RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION.
AUGUST 6TH STAFF, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND MEDIA TRAINING WITH A TXA.
AND, UH, AUGUST 13TH, WE DID AN INTERVIEW WITH LRU, UH, AUGUST 18 WITH VOCAL TEXAS.
AUGUST 19, THERE WAS A POPUP RESOURCE CLINIC WITH, UM, A TCA AUSTIN, UH, EMS. AND THEN ON TOMORROW WE WILL BE DOING AUSTIN PRIDE.
THE TEAM WILL BE THERE FROM 10 TO FOUR, UM, TOMORROW.
SO IF YOU HAVE TIME, AND YOU CAN STOP BY THERE.
WE HAVE TWO TABLES AT AUSTIN PRIDE ON TOMORROW, SO WE'LL BE THERE MOST OF THE DAY ON TOMORROW.
AND THEN ON AUGUST 25TH, UM, THE HISPANIC QUALITY OF LIFE COMMISSION WILL BE THERE.
JUST AS A REMINDER, UH, THE COMMUNICATION ENGAGEMENT EVENTS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO ALL OF YOUR CALENDARS, SO YOU SHOULD SEE THOSE EVENTS THERE.
SO IT GIVES YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THOSE AND DETERMINE WHICH ONE OF THOSE EVENTS YOU CAN MAKE IN TERMS OF POLICY AND RESEARCH.
THE POLICY AND RESEARCH ATTENDED THE PROFESSIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, A MEETING AT THE A PD ACADEMY TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE, UH, CRITICAL INCIDENT TRAINING CURRICULUM.
OUR MANAGER, UH, CRYSTAL KIMBRO, UH, HAS ALSO TEAMED UP WITH, UH, SARAH PERATO IS ANOTHER, UM, MANAGER AT OUR OFFICE TO CONDUCT OIS DASHBOARD PRESENTATIONS TO SEVERAL OF THE BOARDS AND THE, AND THE COMMISSIONS REGARDING THE COMPLAINTS DIVISION.
THE COMPLAINTS DIVISION IS CURRENTLY, UH, RECRUITING FOR, WE HAVE A VACANT COMPLAINT INVESTIGATOR, AND NOW WE HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, SPECIALIST POSITION THAT WAS VACANT JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
UM, INTERVIEWS FOR THE INVESTIGATOR POSITION WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE UPCOMING WEEKS.
AND THEN THE SOLICITATION FOR THE SPECIALIST POSITION IS IN DRAFT AS WE WORK WITH HUMAN RESOURCES TO GET THAT POSITION POSTED.
BETWEEN JULY 17TH AND AUGUST 10TH, UH, EIGHT FORMAL COMPLAINTS WERE FORWARDED TO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION FOR INVESTIGATION.
UM, WE CURRENTLY HAVE FOUR CASES, FOUR CASES THAT, UH, ARE PENDING DOWNLOAD.
AND SO WE HAVE YOUR LIST OF ITEMS, UM, PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS. I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE.
I THINK WE'VE BEEN PROVIDING THOSE IN FOR YOU IN YOUR PACKETS, UH, EVERY WEEK.
I THINK THAT WAS A REQUEST FROM, UM, COMMISSIONER EUGENE.
AND SO WE HAVE PROVIDED ALL YOUR, UH, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS THERE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE LIST TO READ.
I GUESS I KNOW YOU, THERE'S A LOT TO GO THROUGH THERE.
I CAN DEFINITELY GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM IF YOU'D LIKE.
UH, BEFORE WE, WE END THIS, UM, I WAS WANT TO, UH, TAKE THE CHANCE TO TALK TO MENTION SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED, UM, ON OUR JULY 17TH, 2026 MEETING.
PRIOR TO TO THAT MEETING, WE WERE INFORMED THAT THE CITY REQUIRED THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR TO COMPLETE A, UH, SURVEY OF THE YEAR IN REVIEW OF THE CPRC.
SINCE WE HAD A WORKING GROUP WORKING ON A DE A DETAIL, UM, THING, I, I GUESS UNILATERALLY DECIDED THAT WE WERE GONNA MEET THAT DEADLINE, THAT JULY 31ST DEADLINE.
I WAS GONNA COMPLETE THAT, AND WE WERE GONNA PROCEED IN THE DETAILS OF THE YEAR REVIEW FOR LATER IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT CHAIR DECIDED TO, THAT INCLUDED IN AS INCLUSIVE IN SOME OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE, I OPTED TO BE INCLUSIVE RATHER THAN BE, UM, UH, SILENT ON SOME ITEMS. AND THE, THE OPTION I CHOSE WAS ANY COMPLAINT THAT I'D RECEIVED FROM, OR THAT FROM E AT LEAST ONE COMMISSIONER WAS ADDED TO THAT.
THE CONF THE, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ANYBODY THAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE SOME OF THOSE ITEMS WERE A UNANIMOUS OR MAJORITY OF COMMISSIONERS.
SO I WANT TO CLARIFY, WHOEVER YOU LOOK AT THOSE, THOSE ARE, I, I DECIDED I'D RATHER NOT SILENT ANY ONE VOICE AND AT LEAST MENTION THOSE.
[00:45:01]
KNOW, WHEN WE HAD OUR, WHEN WE HAD OUR LEADERSHIP MEETING, VICE CHAIR, AND MYSELF AND THE AP O UH, DIRECTORS, DIRECTOR, AND THE DIRECTOR, ET CETERA, IT, IT'S SURFACED AND I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, DIRECTOR HAS VALID REASONS TO BE A LITTLE, MAYBE UPSET ABOUT HOW THAT MAY BE PERCEIVED.SO I WANT TO GIVE HER A CHANCE TO, TO TELL, YOU KNOW, TELL THE REST OF THE TEAM FROM WHAT YOU TOLD US, WHICH WAS, PLEASE DON'T WAIT TILL A YEAR IN REVIEW TO SHARE OUR CONCERNS, UH, WITH, WITH HER.
AND I'LL LET YOU GIVE YOU A SECOND TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.
AND SO THE CONVERSATION WAS RELATED TO ACTUALLY THE ANNUAL REVIEW AND OUR REQUEST WOULD BE OF THE COMMISSION.
AS YOU ARE DOING YOUR WORK THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, AND WE ARE IDENTIFYING GAPS THAT THE AUSTIN POLICE OVERSIGHT CAN ADDRESS, WE WANT TO ASK THAT YOU PROVIDE THOSE, THAT INFORMATION TO US EARLY ON THROUGHOUT THE YEAR SO WE CAN ADDRESS WHATEVER YOUR CONCERNS ARE CHALLENGING FOR US AT THE END OF THE YEAR WHEN WE FIND OUT THINGS.
AND THEN WE HAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT.
SO WE ARE JUST ASKING THE COMMISSION AS YOU ARE IDENTIFYING GAPS THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE AUSTIN POLICE OVERSIGHT CAN ADDRESS FOR YOU, THAT YOU PROVIDE THOSE THINGS TO US IN REAL TIME AS OPPOSED TO THE END OF THE YEAR.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
NEXT, UM, WE WILL NOW BE MOVING INTO ITEMS. LET DOUBLE CHECK ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE OF THE AGENDA.PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 5 51 0.0 71 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
THE COMMISSION WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ITEM FOUR DISCUSSIONS REGARDING HANDLING OF CONFIDENTIAL AND PUBLIC INFORMATION TO ENSURE THE COMMISSION MAINTAINS APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS WHEN INTERACTING WITH THE PUBLIC.
AND ON ITEM FIVE, DISCUSSIONS OF ORDER, UH, OTHER LEGAL QUESTIONS, INCLUDING POTENTIAL LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF CPRC, NON CONCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO A PD AND THE RELEASE OF BODY WORN CAMERAS FOOTAGE BY THE CPRC.
IF THERE ARE ANY OBJECTIONS TO GOING INTO CLOSED SESSIONS OF THIS, UM, ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS THEN? NO.
OKAY, THEN WE WILL, UH, ADJOURN AND GO TO CLOSED SESSIONS, CLOSED SESSION, AND IN CLOSED SESSION, WE DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE.
WE'LL NOW PROCEED WITH THE REST OF THE MEETING.
[6. Discussion of the CPRC’s Process for Handling Community Members’ “Direct Requests” for CPRC Action and Adding Current Events and Issues of Public Concern to Future Agendas.]
IS ITEM NUMBER SIX, UH, DISCUSSIONS, DISCUSSION OF THE CPRC PROCESS FOR HANDLING COMMUNITY MEMBER DIRECT REQUESTS FOR CPRC ACTION AND ADDING CURRENT EVENTS AND ISSUES OF PUBLIC CONCERN TO THE AGENDA.I GUESS, UM, I CAN SPEAK, I CAN START OUT, START THE DISCUSSION BY SPEAKING TO THE DEFACTO.
UM, THE DEFACTO BEHAVIOR OF THE CPRC HAS BEEN TO REQUEST ANYONE THAT HAS A CONCERN OR SEE SOMETHING TO GO AND USE THE SYSTEM THAT'S IN PLACE, WHICH IS THE APOS COMPLAINT SYSTEM.
THERE ARE SOME PRACTICAL REASONS FOR THIS.
ONE OF WHICH IT HAP IT HAPPENS JUST BY VIEWING MULTIPLE PEOPLE COMING UP AND PLACING A VALID COMPLAINT.
THE PROBLEM IS, THERE'S NO DIRECT PROCESS OF FIGURING WHICH ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS IS GONNA TAKE THAT UP AND GO FILE A, A A A COMPLAINT THEMSELVES.
AND SO THUS, THERE'S A BIG CHANCE FOR THAT TO FALL ON A CRACK CRACK.
WHEREAS IF SOMEBODY, ESPECIALLY SOMEBODY WHO'S FIRSTHAND HAS EVIDENCE OF OR, OR WATCHES, IS PROBABLY THE BEST PERSON TO ACTUALLY MAKE A COMPLAINT, IT ADDS TO THE STRENGTH OF THE COMPLAINT RATHER THAN, I HEAR YOU SAID, AND I SAID, I GO AS A COMMISSIONER TO DO THAT.
IN, IN PRACTICE, IT WAS, IT'S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT AS IN NOBODY HAS ACTUALLY TAKEN IT ON HIMSELF AND, AND SUBMITTED ONE.
AND IN, IN, UH, IN PRACTICE, AGAIN, THE, UH, THE, WE HAVE ENOUGH COMPLAINTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY BEING REVIEWED ALREADY AND DISTRIBUTING THOSE AND HAVING THOSE DISCUSSED.
SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY IT WAS ASKED FOR THAT.
THE OTHER PRACTICAL REASON WHY IS ONCE THERE'S A NUMBER, ONCE THERE'S A COMPLAINT, THERE'S A NUMBER, IT BECOME VERY EASY TO GO TRACK AND ASK FOR THAT.
SECONDLY, SOMETIMES MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS CAME FROM THE CITY.
ONE, ONE THING, AND I KNOW A PO AND A AND A ED DO IT DOES, IS THAT THEY CAN MERGE THOSE.
SO RATHER THAN ME STARTING, RATHER THAN ONE OF US STARTING
[00:50:01]
A COMPLAINT ON OUR OWN, IT WAS NOT SAY DECIDED, BUT WE DECIDED IT JUST KIND OF WORKED OUT FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IS ENCOURAGE THE USE OF THE A PO UM, COMPLAINT SYSTEM.I THINK IT'S UNDERUTILIZED, AND I THINK I HEARD THE COMMENT, UH, ABOUT IT'S NOT, MAYBE NOT SET UP FOR SOME TYPES OF COMPLAINT, THAT IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO, RECOMMEND TO HAVE THOSE HAVE IT CHANGE AND MODIFY SO THAT OTHER TYPES OF COMPLAINTS COME IN.
AND, AND FINALLY THE LAST THING I'LL SAY, I MEAN, UH, ABOUT IT WAS IT WAS MADE, UH, CLEAR TO ME ALMOST BY ACCIDENT.
AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, BY, IN DISCUSSING WITH THE DIRECTORS OF A PO, THAT IF ONE OF US AND SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE NOT THOUGHT CONSIDERED, WHEN ONE OF US GOES AND FILES A COMPLAINT, WE BECOME ALMOST PART PARTY TO IT.
THE ONE WILL QUESTION IF WE CAN THEN CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THAT WE, WHICH YOU HAVE TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM IT.
AND SO, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THERE'S SOMETHING YOU REALLY STRONGLY BELIEVE, UH, ABOUT YOU GO FILE THIS COMPLAINT RATHER THAN MAKING THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ACTUALLY, WHO WERE FIRSTHAND, UM, FIRSTHAND, UH, EV UM, UH, WITNESSES OF IT DO THE COMPLAINT.
AND THEN THE, THE, THE, A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF IT COULD BE YOU OR DISENFRANCHISED.
YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE AS PART OF THE COMMISSION BECAUSE YOUR NAME IS IS ON THERE AS ONE OF THEM.
SO THAT'S A MORE PRACTICAL ONE.
AND I, I HAD NOT CONSIDERED THAT.
I THINK IT'S SEALED FOR ME, BUT I WANTED TO LEAVE IT UP OPEN TO THE REST OF YOU JUST TO DISCUSS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE, WE HAD THIS TOPIC ON THERE, UM, UP THERE.
SO, UH, MAY I BE RECOGNIZED? YES.
WELL, WELL, I WOULD UH, I WOULD BE CAREFUL THOUGH.
UM, SO I GUESS WE WOULD BE WAITING ON IT TO GO THROUGH A PO FIRST AND THEN WE WOULD BE, UH, PICKING WHAT WE THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT.
IS THAT, AM I INTERPRETING THAT CORRECTLY? NO, WHAT, WHAT I'M SAYING IS ANYBODY, ANY CITIZEN OF AUSTIN, INCLUDING ONE OF US, CAN GO AND PUT IN A COMPLAINT, RIGHT? BUT PERHAPS THE MOST PRUDENT WAY OF, OF HAVING THIS HAPPEN IS FOR THE FIRSTHAND WITNESSES OF IT TO BE THE ONES PUTTING THE COMPLAINT.
ONE OF US AS COMMISSIONERS CAN THEN CHAMPION IT EASILY ONCE THERE'S A NUMBER AND SILVER, IT MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DO THAT.
AND, AND, AND I SAID I DID NOT CONSIDER THAT WHILE AS A COMMISSIONER OR A CITIZEN OF AUSTIN, I CAN BOTH FILE A COMPLAINT.
I HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT BEING PART OF THAT COMPLAINT MAY LIMIT MY ROLE AS A COMMISSIONER ON THAT CASE.
BUT YOU KNOW, YOU COULD THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE SOME VESTED INTEREST AND MAYBE YOU SHOULD NOT, YOU SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE, WHICH WILL MAYBE WEAKEN THE SITUATION.
SO THAT'S JUST, I'M PUTTING IT OUT THERE FOR YOU TO, YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER.
'CAUSE I'M NOT, SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS ONCE THE COMPLAINT IS FILED, A COMMISSIONER CAN PULL THAT COMPLAINT UP TO THE AGENDA OF THE CPRC.
IT, IT MAKES IT VERY EASY AS A MATTER OF FACT.
AND YOU GUARANTEE ALMOST THAT IF THERE ARE OTHER CO COMPLAINTS THAT ARE ON THE SAME CASE THAT YOU WOULD GET THEM, BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN.
BUT A PO HAS VISIBILITY AND, AND A PD HAS MORE VISIBILITY TO SEE IF SOME OF TWO OR THREE THINGS WERE, IT'S REFERRING TO THE SAME INCIDENT.
AND ONCE THERE'S A, IT IS TRACKED, I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN IN SOME OF YOUR REVIEWS, BUT I'VE SEEN ONE, UH, THIS IS RELATED TO INCIDENT A, B, C AND MENTIONED TWO OR THREE OTHER INCIDENTS RELATED.
BUT, YOU KNOW, SO, AND I GENUINELY IS NOT, I'M GONNA ADMIT IT, I DON'T WANT TO BE LOADING THE COMMISSION WITH EVERYBODY COMING HERE AND THINKING THIS IS THE EASY WAY OF DOING IT.
I COME UP, MAKE A COMPLAINT, AND THEN THE SOMEBODY IN THE COMMISSION IS GONNA' GONNA TAKE IT ALL.
BECAUSE IN PRACTICE THAT'S NOT WORKED.
I MEAN, WE HAVE, I REMEMBER SITTING HERE AND HEARING THINGS THAT I THOUGHT, WELL, THAT'S TOUCHING AND LOOKING LAYERS AT, IS THAT, IS THAT YOUR JOB? IS THAT YOU KNOW, EUGENE OR HARRISON? NO.
AND SO IT FALLS IN THE CRACK FURTHER SO YOU CAN EMPOWER, UH, AND GET ACTION BY DOING THAT.
I THINK THERE'S SOME GOOD EXAMPLES OF WHERE THAT PROCESS IS, IS, IS WORKING.
NO, I DEFINITELY THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, A PO HAS THE BANDWIDTH AND, AND THE, AND THE PERSONNEL TO, UH, DEAL WITH MOST COMPLAINTS.
AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE REVIEWING BODY, SO WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T DO WHAT THEY CAN.
UH, WE'RE JUST REVIEWING IT AND, YOU KNOW, MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED OFF THAT.
I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THERE'S A, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT A, A WAY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SAY, HEY, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN ONLY REVIEW WHAT'S THERE, BUT WE WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THIS.
YEAH, I, I WANNA MAKE SURE I CLARIFY.
I WANT, I MEAN, THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST THINGS THAT HAPPENED FOR ME AT LEAST, HAS BEEN HEARING THE,
[00:55:01]
THE COMMUNITY'S PERSPECTIVE.WE JUST WANT TO ARM THE COMMITTEE WITH ANOTHER WEAPON, WHICH IS GO FILE A PO CASE.
YOU WILL, IT'S THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE WAY.
AND PLUS WE'RE USING A TOOL THAT'S UNDER SERIOUSLY UNDERUTILIZED.
THERE ARE A LOT OF, WE'VE HEARD IT HERE TOO, THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT ARE SKEPTICAL AND ARE THINKING, THIS IS CONCLUSION WITH THE, WITH AP PD, I'M GONNA GET IN TROUBLE.
AND SO WE, PART OF WHAT WE CAN BE DOING IS, IS ENCOURAGING THE USE OF THAT.
AND, AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP TRANSPARENCY AND HELP.
AND SO IT'S, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT THEY THINK THAT SHOULD BE DONE.
AND IT'S UP TO US TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMPLAINT, UH, WEBSITE OR WHETHER IS WORKING APPROPRIATELY.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO.
MAY I BE RECOGNIZED? IS THERE A MECHANISM FOR OTHER ISSUES TO SURFACE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT AREN'T COMPLAINTS? LET'S SAY SOMEONE WANTS US TO LOOK AT TRAINING.
WHAT SHOULD THEY USE? SHOULD WE HAVE OR DO WE HAVE A MECHANISM FOR THE PUBLIC TO GET OTHER ISSUES ON OUR AGENDA THAT ARE NOT COMPLAINTS? WELL, LIKE I SAID, I I, I'M ONE OF THOSE THAT BELIEVES THAT WITH ALL THE AI AROUND THERE, THAT STILL THE PAST IS SOMETIMES THE BEST PREDICTOR OF THE FUTURE.
LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST IS THAT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT ONE OR TWO COMMISSIONERS WILL CHAMPION SOMETHING AND WE, WE INVITE THAT.
BUT TO THE DEGREE THAT MOST COMPLAINTS ARE GOING TO A PD, IT, IT PROBABLY FREES YOU UP MORE TO TAKE ON THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NOT QUITE CLARIFIED, MAY NOT HIT THE HIT THE EMERGENCY.
LIKE A, YOU KNOW, LIKE A, THE SHOOTING OF A, OF A YOUNG MAN THAT, LIKE SOMEBODY HAVE MENTIONED BEFORE, DON'T, DON'T, THIS DON'T DISMISS THINGS LIKE POLICE SHOUTED AT SOMEBODY AND WAS RUDE TO THEM.
BUT THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE LEFT, LEFT SOME OF THOSE UP.
I STILL THINK SOME OF THOSE SHOULD BE FILED 'CAUSE IT'S A FIRSTHAND, BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW THE PROCESS ALLOWS FOR YOU TO, AS A COMMISSIONER, TO PROACTIVELY TAKE ON ANYTHING YOU WANT, JUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT TO THE DEGREE THERE'S A FILE THAT SOMEBODY ALREADY FILED IT, IT MAKES OUR JOB MORE EASIER.
AND THAT'S WHY I PUSH AND STRONGLY RECOMMEND TO KEEP OUR PROCESS, WHICH IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO FILE TO COME, YOU KNOW, TO, TO, TO USE THE A PO UH, COMPLAINT.
I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, A PO AS FAR AS I CAN TELL DOES A PRETTY GOOD JOB INVESTIGATING.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT STAFFED IN THE SAME WAY.
WE'RE NOT ABLE TO INVESTIGATE, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO, UM, DO EVERYTHING A PO CAN DO.
WE ARE JUST KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WE, WE REVIEW IT AND WE CAN HAVE OUR OWN OPINIONS AS TO WHAT HAPPENED OR EVEN BROADER THINGS THAT GO BEYOND JUST A SINGLE INCIDENT.
SO ANY FURTHER MORE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS? OKAY.
YEAH, I HAD A, YES, I HAD A THOUGHT.
SO IF THE QUESTION IS HOW CAN THE, HOW CAN WE GET COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY SUBMIT A REPORT AND YOU KNOW, I GET A COMMISSIONER, FLO AND I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE ALL OF THOSE REPORTS AND WHAT'S BEING WRITTEN AS THE SUMMARY.
AND A LOT OF IT IS MANY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO INCLUDE.
THEY KNOW, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT INFORMATION IS MISSING THAT FACILITATES THE REPORTING PROCESS.
SO WHY DON'T WE TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS INTO ONE OF OUR COMMUNITY EVENTS IN HELPING THE PUBLIC MAKE THOSE REPORTS HOW TO, WHAT MIGHT THEY NEED? UH, IMAGINE IF YOU'VE HAD BEEN IN A SITUATION WITH A PD INVOLVED, IT'S EASY TO FORGET TO ASK FOR A PD BATCH NUMBERS OR TRACK OF THE TIME AND THE DATE.
SO I THINK IF WE CAN MAYBE DO SOME SORT OF INFORMATIONAL SESSION, EVEN TEAM UP ON THE SEPTEMBER 26TH EVENT AND HAVE A LITTLE TABLE AND AS THOSE COMMUNITY INDIVIDUALS COME UP, WE CAN SAY, HEY, THIS IS HOW WE MAKE OUR REPORTS.
IT'S YOU CAN TELL US, BUT IF YOU MAKE THIS REPORT AND THIS IS SOME INFORMATION THAT IS GONNA BE USEFUL IN THOSE INVESTIGATIONS, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.
AND I'LL GO ONE MORE STEP AND SAY THAT ONE OF MY GOALS AS THIS YEAR WAS TO HAVE AT LEAST THREE, THREE SUCH EVENTS I'M GOING TO VOLUNTEER TO, TO HELP PUSH THAT.
THAT'S, THAT SEEMS LIKE A GREAT IDEA FOR FRANCO.
UH, WOULD THEY FEEL, IS THAT, IS THIS SOMETHING FEASIBLE? COULD WE TEAM UP HAVE A TABLE AT YOUR SEPTEMBER 26TH EVENT? ABSOLUTELY.
SO I MEAN, IF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE AVAILABLE NOW THAT IT'S GONNA BE SET IN STONE SEPTEMBER 26TH TO HELP US SPREAD OUT AS ONE OF OUR FIRST COMMUNITY EVENTS KIND OF JUST HAPPENED.
IF YOU'RE ABLE TO SHOW UP, I BELIEVE IT'S ON A SATURDAY.
FROM, IF I REMEMBER THAT IS CORRECT.
VICE YEAR NINE, I'LL ASK TOMORROW.
SO THE MORE PEOPLE WE CAN HAVE BRING YOUR LAPTOPS, WE CAN KIND OF GIVE THEM, UH, COMMUNITY MEMBERS A HOW TO, HEY, THIS IS WHERE YOU GO, THIS IS WHERE YOU CLICK.
THIS IS THE TYPE OF REPORTS YOU CAN MAKE THE INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
UM, THAT'S GONNA HELP US LATER ON REVIEWING THOSE CASES WITH THE MORE INFORMATION AS WELL AS INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND A PD, THE A PO.
[01:00:01]
GREAT.DO WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT QUORUM AT SOME, AT SOME EVENT LIKE THIS? WE'RE IN THE PUBLIC.
SO I BELIEVE WE ARE, WE DO HAVE TO BE CAREFUL OF QUORUM.
SO WE CAN HAVE NO MORE THAN SIX, I BELIEVE.
UH, WE CAN ALL SHOW UP FOR PUBLIC EVENT.
BUT I THINK A LOT OF IT'S GONNA COME DOWN IF WE'RE DISCUSSING OFFICIAL BUSINESS.
AND SO SINCE THIS IS GONNA BE OUR FIRST COMMUNITY EVENT, I PERSONALLY SUGGEST NO MORE THAN FIVE OF US SHOW UP BECAUSE IT IS EASY TO CONGREGATE AND START TALKING ABOUT, OH, DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS CASE? THERE'S THREE OF US, THERE'S FOUR OF US, FIVE, SIX OF US HAVE A CONVERSATION.
SO I PERSONALLY WANT TO KEEP IT LESS THAN FIVE.
IF WE'RE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT DISTANCE, PRACTICE SAFE DISTANCE, AND NOT CONGREGATE AND TALK AMONGST EACH OTHER ABOUT CASES, IT SHOULD BE FINE.
SO JUST TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE STAYING ON TOPIC IN TERMS OF THE AGENDA, WE WILL DEFINITELY REACH OUT TO THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR RELATED TO THE EVENT THAT'S HAPPENING ON SEP SEPTEMBER 26TH.
WE CAN ACTUALLY DETERMINE MAYBE TWO SESSIONS.
YOU BREAK IT UP IN TWO SESSION SESSIONS.
SO MANY COMMISSIONS COME THE FIRST PART OF THE, THE EVENING, AND THEN ANOTHER SET THE SECOND.
BUT WE'LL REACH OUT TO YOU RELATED TO THAT.
[7. Discussion of the July 24, 2026, Shooting of Anthoneil Williams II and the Police Oversight Roles of Austin Police Oversight and the Community Police Review Commission.]
I'LL, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON TO, UH, ITEM 10.ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, UH, DISCUSSION OF THE JULY 24TH, 2026 SHOOTING OF ANTONIO WILLIAMS II AND THE POLICE OVERSIGHT ROLE OF AUSTIN POLICE OVERSIGHT AND THE COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION.
WHAT ARE OUR ROLES AND WHAT ROLE, WHAT CAN WE DO, UH, REGARDING THIS INVESTIGATION? WE, WE ALREADY HEARD SOME OF THE COMMUNITIES, UH, UH, PERSPECTIVE ON IT.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR SOME OF YOUR MEMBERS.
I CAN, I, I CAN START AND SAY THAT I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, WE DEFINITELY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT WHATEVER IS COMING IN AS SOON AS WE CAN.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THE LOGISTICS OF ALL THAT.
I JUST KNOW THAT AS SOON AS WE WERE ABLE, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T INVESTIGATE IT OURSELVES.
UH, WE ARE REVIEWING BODY, BUT AS SOON AS THE INFORMATION IS IN, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AND BE WILLING TO MAKE OUR OWN RECOMMENDATION, UM, WHEN IT'S FEASIBLE.
UH, I WATCHED, UH, EVERYTHING THAT WAS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ON THE YOUTUBE, UH, CHANNEL, UM, UH, AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION.
I, I MEAN, I DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE AN INTEREST IN, UH, SEEING ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE IF WE COULD SEE, UM, UH, BODY CAM FOOTAGE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UH, I, I WAS HAVING SOME VISIBILITY ISSUES, UM, WITH THE FOOTAGE THAT I SAW, UM, BECAUSE OF THE, IT WAS A SURVEILLANCE CAMERA, AND, UM, UNFORTUNATELY THERE'S A TREE KIND OF OBSTRUCTING WHERE, UM, WHERE THE, THE YOUNG MAN IS.
UM, BUT, UM, SO THAT WOULD BE MORE INFORMATIVE TO SEE SOME OF THAT.
UH, HAS IT BEEN, UH, IS IT STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
UM, I APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE EARLIER.
THIS INCIDENT IS CERTAINLY A DISTURBING ONE.
AND, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT PUBLIC SAFETY IS CRITICAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF A HEALTHY, ORDERLY, AND PROGRESSIVE SOCIETY, AND THAT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIALS SHOULD BE CELEBRATED FOR THE SACRIFICES THEY'RE PREPARED TO AND OFTEN HAVE TO MAKE.
HOWEVER, THE EVENTS OF JULY 24TH, 2026 REVEAL A DARK SIDE OF OUR SOCIETY'S NEED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND ORDER.
IT REVEALS THAT WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL ARE CALLED ON TO DO MORE FOR MORE THAN THEIR ROLE OFTEN CALLS FOR OR SUGGESTS.
WE LOOK TO THEM AS THE LAST RESORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, FOR HOUSING SERVICES, AND FOR SOCIAL SERVICES.
HOWEVER, IT ALSO REVEALS THAT WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE I CAN NEVER BE UNARMED BECAUSE THE COLOR OF MY SKIN IS PERCEIVED AS A WEAPON.
THESE ARE PROBLEMS THAT ARE LARGER THAN POLICING.
THESE ARE SOCIETAL PROBLEMS. AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION IS HERE TO CHAMPION AND TO INVESTIGATE AND TO RAISE THE BANNER OF HOW WE CAN MAKE THIS ISSUE A NEVER AGAIN.
AND I HOPE THAT WE'LL FOCUS ON DOING THAT AS WE GO FORWARD.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, I, AGAIN, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU GUYS COMING UP HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS.
I DID ALSO WATCH THE STUFF THAT WAS PUBLICLY AND MADE AVAILABLE.
I, I DO WANNA SAY THAT, UM, I KNOW THAT IT'S NO EASY JOB TO BE A LAW ENFORCEMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, OFFICER, BUT IN THIS
[01:05:01]
SITUATION, I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE POLICIES THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ARE MANY THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO PREVENT THIS SORT OF THING HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.
SO I LOOK FORWARD TO US AS A COMMITTEE GETTING TOGETHER AND WORKING ON SOME POLICY TO ADDRESS THAT.
AND SO EVEN IF WE NEED TO FORM A WORKING GROUP SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS CASE, I, I WOULD LIKE TO BE A PART OF THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING MORE BROADLY.
I KNOW WE DID A CASE BEFORE WHERE WE HAD MULTIPLE OFFICERS DOING THE SAME THING, AND IT WAS LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW, I, I WANT TO, WE ARE OBVIOUSLY GONNA HOLD INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THEY DEVIATE FROM POLICY, BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE HAVE A POLICY OR SOMETHING THAT'S MAKING MULTIPLE OFFICERS DO THE SAME THING? IS THERE A WAY TO ADDRESS THAT THAT PROTECTS THE PUBLIC AND THE OFFICERS? YOU KNOW, UM, I THINK THAT IF YOU HAVE, I THINK THAT WHEN YOU HAVE MULTIPLE OFFICERS DOING THE SAME THING AND BECOMES, WE SEE IT OFTEN AND MORE OFTEN AND MORE OFTEN, THAT STARTS IN THE BEGINNING.
SO THAT'S AN ACADEMY PROBLEM BECAUSE THE ACADEMY TEACHES OFFICERS CERTAIN THINGS TO, WHEREAS WHEN THEY COME TO THE STREET, THIS IS THE MINDSET THAT THEY HAVE.
UM, AND ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I HAVE WITH THAT IS THAT IN THE ACADEMY, OFFICERS ARE TRAINED, WHEN YOU SHOOT, YOU SHOOT TO KILL, YOU ARE NOT TRAINED TO SHOOT TO WOUND.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES, BECAUSE OFFICERS ARE TRAINED TO SHOOT, TO KILL, NOT SHOOT TO WOUND.
WE CONSTANTLY SEE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHERE PEOPLE, BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE ARE BEING SHOT, WHERE YOU CAN SHOOT A PERSON ONE TIME AND POSSIBLY KILL THEM.
BUT WHY DO THEY HAVE TO BE SHOT 16 TIMES, 17 TIMES, 18 TIMES WHEN YOUR FINGER IS ON THE TRIGGER, YOU CAN STOP AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT.
BUT IT STARTS AT THE ACADEMY BECAUSE THE ACADEMY TRAINED THESE OFFICERS TO SHOOT TO KILL.
NO, I, I, I, I THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S DIFFICULT, YOU KNOW, UM, I, I KNOW ONE OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS CAME UP HERE AND TALKED ABOUT HAVING, GIVING OFFICERS A SHIELD, YOU KNOW, AND IF IT ALLOWS OFFICERS TO GIVE, YOU KNOW, MORE TIME TO LOOK AT WHAT A PERSON IS PULLING OUT OF THEIR BELT, MAYBE THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD THING.
UM, AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA MAKE IT TO WHERE OFFICERS, UM, JUST RUN AWAY FROM GUNFIRE.
UH, SO IT'S NOT AN EASY BALANCE SOMETIMES.
UM, I, I GUESS I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF.
UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I'M TRYING TO, FOR ME, THE THEME IS IF I'M SEEING MULTIPLE OFFICERS DOING THE SAME THING, THAT'S NOT JUST ONE OFFICER, THAT THERE'S SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GONNA DECIDE, IT'S SOMETHING WE DON'T WANT.
AND THAT'S WHY I SAY IT STARTS IN THE ACADEMY, IS HOW THEY'RE TAUGHT.
HOW THEY'RE TAUGHT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.
FORTUNATELY, THAT'S WITHIN OUR REALM OF THINGS THAT WE CAN DO, INCLUDING ALSO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE GENERAL ORDER.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I THINK IS ABOUT.
I, UM, I, I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT WE HAVE ITEM 20 THAT'S, UH, THAT'S COMING UP LATER.
THAT'S ABOUT APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION.
AND WE, WE'LL BE DISCUSSING WHAT MAYBE SOMETHING SPECIFIC WE CAN DO TODAY TO START THIS.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THIS DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER MR. P'S IDEA OF A WORKING GROUP THAT WOULD FOLLOW THIS INCIDENT, UM, FOLLOW INCIDENT CLOSELY AND REPORTING BACK TO THIS INCIDENT, THE MIC IS OFF, OH, I'M SORRY.
FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER PENA'S, UH, CONCEPT OF PUTTING TOGETHER A WORKING GROUP ON THIS INCIDENT THAT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TRACKING, MONITORING, AND FOLLOWING UP ON THIS INCIDENT.
YEAH, AND I GUESS I WOULD, WOULD SUGGEST LET'S WAIT TILL ITEM 19, BECAUSE THERE IS ALREADY GONNA BE A PROPOSAL ON PAGE AND SOMETHING WE CAN DO TODAY, AND WE COULD SEE IF THAT'S LACKING, THEN YOU CAN ALWAYS ACT ON THAT.
[01:10:01]
TO BE A, YEAH, I DO WANNA SHARE THAT THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION PASS A RECOMMENDATION TO IMPLEMENT STRINGENT PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR APDS RECRUITMENT EFFORTS AND TRAINING ACADEMY, AS WELL AS TO ORDER A THOROUGH AND INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF THE TRAINING ACADEMY, INCLUDING BOTH CURRICULUM AND OPERATIONS, AS WELL AS A REVIEW OF THE UNDERLYING CAUSES OF CADET AND RECENT GRADUATES UP TO TWO YEARS ON THE FOURTH ATTRITION.SO THIS MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TEAM UP WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION AS FAR AS POLICY, UH, POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS, IT IF IT DEALS WITH TRAINING OF THE POLICE ACADEMY.
SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO.
DO Y'ALL THINK IT'D BE A CRAZY IDEA TO BRING IN SOMEONE THAT TEACHES OUT THE A PD ACADEMY AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW.
I JUST, I WANT THAT AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW? OKAY.
[8. Discussion of a CPRC Recommendation to APD Regarding the Use of APD’s Limited Resources to Enforce the Ban on Hemp-Derived THC Products and the Impact on Prevention and Law Enforcement Efforts Concerning Other Crimes in the Community.]
MORE ANYTHING ELSE, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, UM, WHICH IS, UM, DISCUSSION OF CPRC, RECOMMENDATION TO A PD REGARDING THE USE OF AD'S LIMITED RESOURCES TO ENFORCE THE BAN DRIVE THC PRODUCTS, AND THE IMPACT ON PREVENTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS CONCERNING THE OTHER CRIMES IN THE COMMUNITY.AND I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S CHAMPION, THAT SHOULD LET HER SPEAK TO IT, PLEASE.
UM, RECENTLY THERE WAS A, A LAW MADE MAKING IT A FELONY TO PRODU TO POSSESS ONE GRAM OF A THC CONTAINING PRODUCT THAT WOULD BE LIKE MAYBE ONE GUMMY OR PART OF ONE GUMMY.
THIS LAW WAS NOT PASSED THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE.
IT WAS, IT WAS IMPOSED UPON THE STATE BY THE GOVERNOR, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, AND ATTORNEY GENERAL.
UM, I DON'T THINK THE LAWS, YOU KNOW, THE LEGISLATURE, OUR LEGISLATURE OPPOSED THIS LAW YET, OUR EXECUTIVE BRANCH JUST PUT IT INTO PLACE.
UM, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT A PD SHOULD BE ENFORCING THIS LAW.
UM, I WOULD GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT A PD SHOULD, UH, SHOULD DIVEST ITSELF OF ANY AND ALL LAB EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO ENFORCE THIS LAW THAT THEY SHOULDN'T EVEN BOTHER IF THEY SEE, YOU KNOW, UH, A THC VAPE OR SOMEBODY WITH A BAG OF THC GUMMIES THAT COULD SEND SOMEBODY TO JAIL FOR 10 YEARS OR MORE.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THIS WHATSOEVER.
WE HAVE BETTER THINGS TO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MUCH BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN PUT SOMEBODY IN JAIL FOR 10 YEARS FOR HAVING A COUPLE THC GUMMIES.
OTHER COMMENTS? I KNOW THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY A TOUCHY SUBJECT BECAUSE IT, IT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE, ARE REALLY AGAINST IT.
BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT WE ARE A COUNTRY OF LAW AND ORDER.
AND CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, WHAT IS ON THE BOOKS IS THE LAW.
AND SO WE AS THE COMMUNITY CAN GO AND ADVOCATE TO CHANGE THOSE LAWS.
BUT RIGHT NOW, WE NEED TO RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW AND UPHOLD THAT.
AND I THINK, IN MY OPINION, WHEN THEY'RE SPEAKING ABOUT THIS, POSSIBLY THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS THE ACTUAL STORES THAT ARE SELLING THESE PRODUCTS.
I DON'T SEE THAT THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT IS GONNA GO WALKING DOWN THE STREET ASKING PEOPLE TO CHECK THEIR VAPE.
SO I THINK IT'S MORE ABOUT THE STORES THAT ARE PROVIDING THESE THINGS.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE A NATION OF LAW AND ORDER, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE STILL NEED TO MAINTAIN THAT.
MOST OF THE STORES THAT USED TO CARRY THAT KIND OF STUFF HAVE STOPPED CARRYING IT BECAUSE OF THESE LAWS.
BUT YOU CAN STILL GET THC GUMMIES THROUGH MAIL ORDER.
UH, AND, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY FOUND IN POSSESSION OF THOSE, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, THAT A PD SHOULD NOT EVEN ENFORCE THIS LAW.
LIKE THEY DON'T ENFORCE BANK FRAUD LAWS.
YOU KNOW, A PD DOES NOT ENFORCE BANK FRAUD OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO I, I, I HEAR WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, BUT IN THE MATTER OF IT BEING SENT IN THE MAIL, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION.
AND SO I DON'T THINK A PD WOULD HAVE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT EITHER.
WELL, ONCE YOU HAVE THEM IN YOUR POSSESSION, THEN THEY'RE SUBJECT TO
[01:15:01]
THAT STATE LAW.SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE RULES OR LAWS AREN'T ALWAYS ENFORCED IN HOW THEY'RE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN, RIGHT? THIS IS, THIS IS HISTORICAL.
NOW WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO IS WRITE A RECOMMENDATION AND SAY MM-HMM
HEY, THIS SHOULDN'T BE ENFORCED.
I DO THINK BEFORE THAT, WE MIGHT CONSIDER HAVING SOMEONE FROM A PD COME AND TALK TO US AND FIGURE OUT HOW ARE THEY GOING TO ENFORCE, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO ENFORCE? WHAT IS THEIR PLAN OF ACTION, UM, TO FIGURE OUT IF THIS NEEDS TO BE A FULLY WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION OR IF WE WANNA GO AHEAD AND IF, IF YOU WANNA LEAD A RECOMMENDATION ON WHY THIS OR HOW THIS SHOULD BE HANDLED, WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A, UH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM HPD, PROBABLY CHIEF DAVIS, COME AND TALK TO US ABOUT HOW THEY'RE PLANNING TO ENFORCE THIS LAW.
I'VE READ ARTICLES IN THE PAPER THAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON ENFORCING IT AS A FELONY, YOU KNOW, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WRONG.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANNA MAKE THIS STUFF ILLEGAL, MAKE IT A MISDEMEANOR, YOU KNOW, POSSESSION OF A HANDFUL OF GUMMIES SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN LIKE A TRAFFIC TICKET, LIKE A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR.
IT SHOULD NOT BE IN FELONY TERRITORY.
PLUS THIS LAW WAS NOT, WAS NOT PROPERLY ENACTED.
IT WAS ENACTED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
IT WAS NOT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE.
IN FACT, THE LEGISLATURE REFUSED TO ENACT THIS.
LIKE, CAN I MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT? I, UM, I BELIEVE THAT WITHIN THE RIM OF WHAT THE CPRC CANNOT, CANNOT DO IS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS YES.
TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE ON CERTAIN THINGS, RIGHT? MM-HMM
I THINK IN APPROPRIATE THAT YOU CAN'T, WE CAN'T TELL THEM TO BREAK THE LAW.
SO WHAT I WILL SUGGEST IS, UM, IF, IF YOU WOULD MAYBE THINK ABOUT WORKING AND MAYBE CARVE IN A RECOMMENDATION TO THE POLICE, THAT COULD INCLUDE SOME THINGS ALONG THE LINES OF, I THINK I, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT WE, THE, THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT IS UNDER MAN RIGHT NOW.
I HEAR THE STATISTICS CONSTANTLY.
AND, UH, AND WHEN WE WERE THINKING ABOUT HOW TO GO ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT OF ICE MM-HMM
ONE THING THAT CAME UP THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, BEFORE YOU GO AND DO THIS, GO UP THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S THE BEST USE OF YOUR, YOUR RESOURCE OF YOUR TIME.
MAYBE SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF THAT, SOMETHING YOU COULD CONSIDER MAYBE, UH, DRAFTING.
AND THEN COULD WE, AND BRING, PUT IT ON.
WE, YOU COULD DRAFT SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF THAT.
LET'S BRING UP THE AGENDA AND SEE IF WE COULD MAKE A RE RECOMMENDATION AS A COMMISSION TO THE POLICE TO PRIORITIZE ALL THE CRIMES THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE CITY AND THE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT.
AND PUT THIS ONE WHERE IT BELONGS, WHICH IS AT THE VERY, VERY BOTTOM.
WE CAN'T CHANGE IT AS A FELONY OR NOT, BUT WE CAN STRONGLY GUIDE THE POLICE.
AND MAYBE, MAYBE, AND THIS IS JUST MY ONE SUGGESTION ABOUT, ABOUT THOSE LINE, BECAUSE I THINK MR. PENA DOES THAT, RIGHT.
AND WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T ASK POLICE NOT TO ENFORCE NOT TO, NOT TO OBEY THE LAW, BUT IT IS ALSO ANOTHER PRACTICAL DECISION THAT, THAT CHIEF DAVID HAS TO MAKE IS HOW SHE USE HER RESOURCE, HER LIMITED RESOURCES.
AND US, US RECOMMENDING THAT SHE USE THEM IN WAYS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, MEANS THE CRIME AND DEEMPHASIZE OTHERS.
THERE'S NOTHING, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT, BUT THAT'S A, THAT'S A THING.
CAN WE INVITE CHIEF DAVIS TO COME TO OUR NEXT MEETING AND ANSWER THIS? YEAH.
YOU, YOU, YOU CAN, YOU CAN CHAMPION THIS.
AND, AND, AND PROPOSE THAT, AND WE COULD, WE COULD SEE HOW WE GO.
BUT I SAID I WOULD RECOMMEND, ONCE AGAIN, HISTORY HERE IS THAT SOMETIMES WE JUST TALK AND THERE'S NOTHING.
IF YOU CRAFT SOMETHING ON PAPER, YOU, YOU, YOU ANCHOR IT DOWN A PROPOSAL, IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR THE REST OF THE COMMISSION AND OTHERS TO DISCUSS AND DISAGREE OR AGREE.
AND THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE MODUS OF BRAND.
THAT'S THE, THE METHOD I WANT TO PUSH FORWARD IS THAT DRAFT A RECOMMENDATION.
IT MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO, UH, OKAY.
TO GET SUPPORT OR THAT, AND, AND I WOULD JUST, IF I COULD, UM, I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T ALWAYS AGREE OF ALL THE STATE LAWS.
I I, YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH THEM.
IT'S JUST, I, I'D BE CAREFUL NOT TO MAKE IT WHERE YOU'RE, WE'RE FLAUNTING AGAINST STATE LAW BECAUSE IT APPEARS THEY, THEY LIKE IT, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S STARTS WELL TALK THE RED STATES.
WELL, NOT ONLY THAT, THE LAW KIND OF CONTRADICTS ITSELF.
I'M NOT, TO BE HONEST, BECAUSE THE STATE OF TEXAS GIVES LEGAL, UH, MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARDS.
I WAS JUST TRYING, SO HOW CAN YOU GIVE SOMEBODY A LEGAL MARIJUANA MEDICAL CARD, BUT THEN FOR HALF A GUMMY YOU CAN GET 180 DAYS IN JAIL THAT IT CONTRADICTS ITSELF.
[01:20:01]
WITH LETTING CHIEF COME IN AND, AND TRY TO EXPLAIN TO US EXACTLY WHAT THE POLICY IS.I MEAN, 'CAUSE I READ THE LAW.
WELL, I WOULD JUST TRY TO, AND IT, IT DOES CONTRADICT ITSELF.
NO, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SAYING IT PROBABLY IS WEIRD.
I'M JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, TRY TO MAKE IT TO WHERE, UM, IT'S KIND OF SOFT HANDED, YOU KNOW, IN A WAY THAT IT, IT STILL PURSUES ITS PURPOSE.
AND IT'S NOT FLAUNTING AGAINST, I WOULD JUST, I WOULD CONSIDER IT.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT I BELIEVE THAT AT ONE POINT, UM, OUR CITY COUNCIL ORDERED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO DEPRIORITIZE MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT.
I MEAN, THAT'S ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
DON'T, I, I WOULD BE CAREFUL NOT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, IGNORE THIS STATE LAW.
JUST BE LIKE, HEY, IT'S BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE, WE, I KNOW THE DEPARTMENT HAS A LOT MORE THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT THAN GUMMIES.
SO, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A LOT THAT YOU CAN USE TO MAKE A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION, UH, BRING IT FORTH.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A DISCUSSION.
IT'S A DRAFT FOR A REASON THAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT'S BEST WORDED, UH, THAT WE VOTED AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
BUT I THINK BECAUSE FOR ITEM NUMBER 19, THAT WILL PROBABLY HAVE CHIEF DAVIS COMES OFF TO US.
IT MIGHT BE DEPRIORITIZED SINCE THIS CASE THAT WE'RE GONNA BE REVIEWING, UH, MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME SENSITIVE THAN THAT.
BUT I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN ASK CHIEF DAVIS TO SPEAK ON.
[19. Approval of a CPRC notification to APD and APO requesting briefings and information regarding the investigation of the July 24, 2026, shooting incident resulting in the death of Anthoneil Williams II.]
TO MOVE ON TO THE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS. I AM GOING TO MOVE, UM, ITEM NUMBER 19, APPROVAL OF CPRC, NOTIFICATION TO A PD AND A PO REQUESTING BRIEFING AND INFORMATION REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE JULY 24TH, 2026 SHOOTING INCIDENT RESULTING IN THE DATE OF AN ANTONIO WILLIAMS. SECOND.AND WE ARE GONNA BE DISCUSSING THAT NEXT.
UH, LEMME JUST PASS SOME OF THESE UP.
THIS IS, YOU GUYS HAVE THE CHAIR.
UH, NO, THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NOT, THERE'S SHARED, UM, YOUR HONOR, UM, AS, UH, THESE, NO, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH THERE.
SO YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO LISTEN TO IT.
SO IF I WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME OKAY, COOL.
PRE, A PRE, UH, THING ABOUT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
AS YOU KNOW, WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT ON THE PUBLIC SPECIFICALLY REQUESTING US.
AND, AND BY THE WAY, THIS WAS ALSO FILED UNDER A PO, IT WAS DONE BOTH WAYS.
IT WAS DONE A PO, UH, COMPLAINT OFFICIALLY, AND IT WAS SENT TO US AS COMMISSIONERS REQUESTING CERTAIN THINGS TO BE DONE ON HOW WE CAN ADDRESS, UH, THE, THE, THE PRESENT CASE.
AND I GUESS IT ALL, I WOULD SUMMARIZE, THE GOAL BOILS DOWN TO, DO YOU, DO WE, WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR ALL THE INVESTIGATION TO BE COMPLETED OR WHATEVER.
TO START DOING SOMETHING IS ONE, ONE WAY I WOULD, I WOULD'VE WORDED IT.
THIS, THESE REQUESTS WERE FORWARDED TO THE, OUR, UH, OUR CITY DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY TO MAYBE GIVE SOME ADVICE OF WHAT, TO WHAT LATITUDE, UH, HOW MUCH COULD THE CPRC STRETCH OR MAYBE PUSH ITS INVOLVEMENT IN THIS? AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT RESULTED FROM THERE, LIKE, YEAH, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO GO ASK A PD AND A PO TO GIVE US A BRIEFING IMMEDIATELY ON WHERE THINGS ARE AND CON AND CONSTANTLY THROUGH THE CASE AND SO FORTH.
UM, AND, UH, WHAT, UM, I DONE, I'VE DONE, AND I'M ASKING THE REST OF YOU TO, TO, TO CONSIDER IS, UM, LISTEN THROUGH THIS, MY DRAFTED RECOMMENDATION THAT I WOULD, IF POSSIBLE, LIKE TO GET APPROVED TODAY.
SO WE COULD IMMEDIATELY SEND THIS RECOMMENDATION TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND THE DIRECTOR OF A PO SO THEY CAN START ACTING UPON IT, UM, TO BE, UH, UM, YEAH.
SO THE BIG PICTURE WOULD BE WE DECIDED TO TRY TO FOLLOW EVERY SINGLE SUGGESTION THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SUGGESTED IS CLEARLY WITHIN OUR REALM THAT HE FEELS COMFORTABLE, AND MAYBE SOME, THAT IT'S MAYBE A LITTLE MORE PUSHING THE ENVELOPE.
AND I, I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO, TO MAYBE BE COURAGEOUS AND REMEMBER THAT ALL WE DO, ALL WE CAN DO IS ASK, ALL WE CAN DO IS RECOMMEND.
IT'S EVEN IN THE, IN THE, IN THE BEST OF OUR RECOMMENDATION, THAT IT'S STILL THE BUCK STOPS.
THEIR CHIEF OF POLICE AND THE DIRECTOR GET TO DO WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THE BEST INTEREST OF THEIR DEPARTMENTS.
BUT I WANT TO ENCOURAGE US TO MAYBE PUSH THE ENVELOPE TO, TO FIND OUT WHAT ELSE, HOW
[01:25:01]
CAN WE GET INVOLVED.NOW, WHAT I MEAN TO SAY BY THAT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.
BUT THERE ARE THINGS DURING AN INVESTIGATION THAT ONCE IT'S COMPLETE, LIKE THE QUESTIONING, WHEN WE RECEIVE IT AFTER, ESPECIALLY IF WE GET IT AFTER THE POLICE HAVE ALREADY ISSUED THEIR RULING, IT'S DEFLATING.
BECAUSE WHEREAS YOU MAY HAVE OBSERVED, AS IN YOUR READING OF THE CASES THAT THEIR QUESTIONS THAT WEREN'T ASKED OR PEOPLE WEREN'T INTERVIEWED, YOU WISH THAT YOU COULD HAVE HAD MAYBE AN OPPORTUNITY EARLIER TO INFLUENCE THAT PROCESS.
AND SO, SOME OF THIS, LIKE I SAID, WHEN, WHEN RED, WHEN RED, MAY, MAY PUSH THAT ENVELOPE, AND JUST BEAR IN MIND, I SAID, THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN, UH, WE SHOULD DO.
SO I'M GONNA READ IT VERBATIM RIGHT THERE, CHIEF DAVID AND DIRECTOR MCCANN.
WHEREAS THE COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION IS DEDICATED TO PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY AND INSURANCE, CIVIL OVERSIGHT, CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT A PD.
AND WHEREAS THE COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION IS TASKED WITH REVIEWING POLICE CONDUCT POLICIES AND OVERSIGHT MATTERS OF SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC CONCERN, INCLUDING INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION AND RELATED MATERIAL PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY UNDER APPLICABLE C CODES.
AND WHEREAS THE C PRCS RESPONSIBILITY REQUIRES THE REVIEW OF SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME OF RECORDS, INCLUDING INVESTIGATE INVESTIGATIVE FILES, BODY-WORN CAMERAS, FOOTAGE, AND POLICY DOCUMENTATION NECESSITATE SUFFICIENT TIME AND COORDINATION TO CONDUCT THROUGH A THOROUGH AND INFORMED EVALUATIONS.
AND WHEREAS THE CPRC RECOGNIZES ITS OBLIGATION TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIAL PRIVILEGE AND LEGALLY RESTRICTED INFORMATION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PERSONAL RECORDS, INTERNAL AFFAIRS, INVESTIGATIVE MATERIAL, AND INFORMATION PROTECTED UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, INCLUDING TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT.
AND WHEREAS THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION CONSIDERS THIS JULY 24TH, 2026, SHOOTING AND KILLING OF ANTONIO WILLIAMS II BY THE A BY APDS OFFICERS, AN INCIDENT AN ACTIVITY OF PUBLIC CONCERN.
WHEREAS THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT PURSUANT TO CITY ORDINANCE 2 15 4 D ONE STATING THAT THE COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION MAY REVIEW ANY INVESTIGATION OF DEATH IN CUSTODY, SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OR OTHER SERIOUS MISCONDUCT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ANY INVESTIGATION AND PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF DISCIPLINE, AND OR IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW BY A COMPLAINANT AND ORDINANCE 2 15 4 DASH ONE, STATING THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO ALL NECESSARY RECORDS OF DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING RECORDS CONCERNING INVESTIGATION, DATABASE OF FORCE, INCIDENT REPORTS, AND ALL RETAINED VIDEOS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, POLICE, BODY WORN CAMERAS, POLICE VEHICLE DASH CAMERAS, HALO CAMERAS AS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES IN PART D OF THIS SECTION.
THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO NECESSARY INVESTIGATION AND EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS OF THIS INCIDENT AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.
AFTER ALL, REVIEWING ANY INVESTIGATION AFTER ITS COMPLETION WITH ACCESS TO ALL NECESSARY DIRECT RECORDS, DOES NOT PRECLUDE HAVING ACCESS TO SOME RECORDS BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETE.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE, THE COMMISSION COULD NOT CARRY OUT ITS RESPONSIBILITIES IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW BY A COMPLAINANT.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THAT WE WISH TO NOTIFY A PD AND ALL REQUESTS, UH, OF ALL REQUESTS FOR BRIEFING ON APDS ACTIVITIES TO DATE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVE THAT WE FURTHER REQUESTS FROM A PD AS WELL AS FROM A PO REGULAR ONGOING UPDATES TO THE COMMISSION ON THE PROGRESS OF THE INVESTIGATION, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT WE INTEND TO RECEIVE APDS BRIEFING ON PUBLIC INPUT ON APDS POLICIES TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CHIEF OF TO CHIEF ON POLICE ON ANY POLICY CHANGES WE DETERMINE ARE NEEDED, AND BE FURTHER RESOLVED THAT WE ARE REQUESTING THAT A-P-D-A-P-O SHOULD ON UPLOAD TO THE AUSTIN POLICE OVERSIGHT CPRC CASE REVIEW, FILE, SHAREPOINT, ALL NECESSARY INVESTIGATION AND EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS OF THIS INCIDENT AS SOON AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE, BE IT FURTHER
[01:30:01]
RESOLVE THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE POLICE BODY WORN CAMERAS, FLEET CAMERAS, PHOTOS, AND OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING QUESTIONS AVAILABLE, PREFERABLY BEFORE THE OFFICER'S INTERVIEW, BECAUSE THIS WOULD ENSURE THAT SOME COMMUNITY AND COMPLAINANT'S CONCERNS REGARDING THE INCIDENT WILL BE ADDRESSED SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.AND HOPEFULLY BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION IS FULLY COMPLETED, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT WE WOULD STILL EXPECT TO HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE COMPLETED INVESTIGATION AFTER ITS COMPLETION AND PRIOR TO THE CHIEF MAKING ANY DECISIONS ABOUT THE DISCIPLINE.
AND BEFORE I INVITE FOR, FOR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS AS WE WANTED TO, TO REMIND YOU GUYS OF ONE THING, IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE THAT WHITE FACE WITH PROPOSALS, WE HAVE EDITED AND AMENDED AND EVENTUALLY POSTPONED TO LATER SOME OF THESE ACTIONS, UH, IF THIS HAPPENS TODAY, CAN WELL BE, YOU KNOW, WE RUN THE RISK OF DELAYING HOW MUCH WE CAN DO TO AFFECT THIS CASE.
SO I, I, I WILL, I SAID WE ARE, I'M INVITED FOR CO INVITING FOR COMMENTS, BUT I'M ASKING YOU AS YOUR CHAIR TO STRONGLY CONSIDER, UH, PASSING, UH, SUCH A RECOMMENDATION AND IN HOPES THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO AFFECT THIS CASE OR BE INVOLVED IN THIS AND, AND IN RESPONSE TO, OBVIOUSLY THE COMMUNITY'S, UH, REQUEST SOONER THAN LATER.
THAT BEING SAID, UH, COMMENTS, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS IS BY THE CHAIR.
SO SHOULD WE VOTE ON THIS DISCUSSION? UM, YEAH, I, I, I SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE WORKING GROUP.
AND WHEN I, UH, WHEN I OFFERED UP THAT IDEA, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT CARLOS HAD DONE SUCH A WONDERFUL JOB DRAFTING THIS OUT.
AND I THINK THAT HE'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT WE GET ON THIS IMMEDIATELY.
SO I RESCIND MY OPINION ON WANTING TO DO A WORKING GROUP.
UH, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'LL GET UNTIL WE ASK.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST ASK AND AND FOLLOW AS CLOSELY AS WE CAN.
SO WE'RE DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE.
AND, AND I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER EUGENE, DID YOU SAY TO AMEND, TO ADD TO, YEAH, TO ADD A WORKING GROUP TO HIS RESOLUTION TO JUST SAY, IN ADDITION TO ALL THINGS HE'S ASKING, THAT WE FORM A WORKING GROUP TO FOLLOW THIS? I DON'T NECESSARILY, I HAVE A DIFFERENT BELIEF.
I THINK BECAUSE EACH ONE OF US HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THESE CASES.
THE WORKING GROUPS ARE JUST MEANT TO VIEW THE 60, 70 CASES, YOU KNOW, AS THEY COME AVAILABLE TO, UM, AVAILABLE TO REVIEW TO, FOR US TO SORT THROUGH THOSE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
I THINK BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A HIGH PRIORITY CASE, I DISAGREE, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC WORKING GROUP.
I THINK WE SHOULD ALL MAKE THE EFFORT TO REVIEW THE CASE AND HAVE AS MANY COMMISSIONERS TO REVIEW AS POSSIBLE.
A A WORKING GROUP DOESN'T MEAN PEOPLE CAN'T REVIEW THE CASE.
IT JUST MEANS THAT CERTAIN COMMISSIONERS ARE GONNA FOCUS ON REVIEWING THE CASES, WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE, MONITORING WHEN, YOU KNOW, WE MONITORING WHAT AP O IS DOING, MONITORING WHAT A PD IS DOING, REPORTING BACK TO US, ET CETERA.
I THINK IT'S A WAY OF CHANNELING AND MAKING SURE SOMETHING GETS DONE.
BECAUSE IF EVERYBODY'S RESPONSIBLE, USUALLY THEN THAT MEANS NOBODY'S RESPONSIBLE, WHICH MEANS THE TERROR IS RESPONSIBLE.
WHAT THEY HAVE
WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO AND MAKE IT BETTER AS WE, AS WE START RECEIVING, I WANT EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN THIS THAT WE START RECEIVING.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND DO THAT.
SO I THINK RIGHT NOW THE CALL FOR WORK WILL BE, MAY BE PREMATURE.
AND SO I'M, I'M HOPING THAT, THAT, THAT THE, THE, THE, THE RESOLUTION THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER MENTIONED, WE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND, AND, UH, VOTE ON IT AND THEN, UM, SEE WHAT, SEE WHAT WE CAN GET.
SO I, I HAVE A SUGGESTION AGAIN, AS I SAID, I PUT, I PUT A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO GO AHEAD AND ADOPT AS IS.
AND I THINK WE GO AHEAD AND ADOPT AS IS AND THEN WE CAN BRING UP ANOTHER RESOLUTION FOR US TO WORK ON THAT PARTICULAR WORKING GROUP.
THAT WAY WE CAN DO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
BUT KEEP IT OUTSIDE OF THIS ONE SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PASS IT.
NOW WE CAN'T TODAY 'CAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA, BUT WE DO IT IN THE FUTURE.
I THINK WE COULD UNANIMOUSLY AGREE RIGHT NOW AND MOVE TO ADOPT THAT.
WELL, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THIS, WE CAN ADOPT THIS TODAY BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S ON THE AGENDA AND WE CAN VOTE ON THIS AND NEXT MEETING, WE COULD
[01:35:01]
THEN DO THE, THE WORKING GROUP.I THINK THAT'D BE THE APPROPRIATE WAY OF DOING IT.
SO I'M GONNA ASK, UH, FOR A SHOW OF HANDS, UM, UH, WHO THIS, UM, I MEAN, JUST RE SAY IT APPROPRIATELY, APPROVAL OF THE CPRC NOTIFICATION TO A PD AND A PO REQUESTING BRIEFING AND INFORMATION REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF JULY 27TH, 2026, SHOOTING INCIDENT RESULTING IN THE DEBT OF ANTONIO WILLIAMS. SECOND, THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
I THINK MAY BE NOTED THAT WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION ON THE SIDE OF THE, OF THE COMMISSION.
SO I, I THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH.
[9. Summary, deliberation, and action regarding a recommendation from Commissioner Review Working Group A for Case 2026-01018.]
ON, CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM SECTION.UH, HERE WE HAVE, UM, MULTIPLE CASE REVIEWS THAT THE WORKING GROUPS A, B, AND C HAVE, HAVE REVIEWED SOME CASES.
AND WHAT WE WILL DO IS, AS WE'VE DONE BEFORE, WE'LL GO THROUGH YEAH.
CAN WE TAKE THE SUGGESTION EARLIER OF FOCUSING ON THE TWO THAT WHERE THE COMMISSION BRILLIANT HAS NOT, WHERE THE, WHERE THE CHIEF HAS NOT GIVEN THAT RECOMMENDATION AND THEN MODIFY THE REST AND HAVE EACH WORKING GROUP ONLY DISCUSS ONE CASE AND TABLE THE REST? WELL, I WOULD, THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DO.
I WANT, WE WILL, UM, PRIORITIZE THE TWO CASES.
BUT I WOULD WANT THEM TO TAKE A CHANCE TO DISCUSS ALL THE OTHER CASES.
THE COMMISSION HAVE MADE AN EFFORT TO GO TO THIS AND COME UP WITH SOME RESOLUTION.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT ON RECORD.
BECAUSE WHAT CAN HAPPEN IS AFTER THIS, THE EXPECTATIONS, EVERY WORKING GROUP WOULD GO AND WRITE OUT THEIR OWN, THEIR, THEIR U UNIQUE RECOMMENDATION FOR EVERY CASE.
AND THAT WAY WE ENSURE A CHANCE THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE WILL GET NOT ONLY THE ONES THAT ARE, THAT SHE HAS A ACT CHANCE TO ACT AFTER BEFORE HER THE RESOLUTION, BUT EVEN THE THE OTHERS BECAUSE THEY WILL SERVE AS GUIDANCE TO SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT IN, IN, UH, IN MAKING OUR DECISION.
UM, SO ON THE CASE NUMBER 0 1 0 1 8, WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAD SAW A DECISION FROM A PO CAME AFTER THAT.
THAT'S ANOTHER GOOD REASON FOR REVIEWING ALL OF THEM.
BECAUSE IF IN THE, IN THE EVENT THAT'S ONE OF THOSE, WE, WE WILL BE SENDING ALL RECOMMENDATIONS AND SO YEAH, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST DO IT AS IS NO ORDER.
WELL, THE, THE, THE, I SAY COMMISSIONER EUGENE, UH, THE, THE ONES THAT WE, THAT WERE, WE DELIVER ARE PENDING ARE 22, WHICH IS THE SECOND ONE OF, OF GROUP, UH, A.
AND THEN 27, WHICH IS THE FIRST OF GROUP C.
SO, UH, IF WE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, THEN WE COULD JUST CONTINUE THE SAME ORDER.
THAT MAKES THINGS A LITTLE EASIER.
ANYBODY? SO ARE WE GOING TO LIVE IN ORDER OR YOU'RE GONNA FILE 'EM IN ORDER? OKAY.
THE CHAIR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SKIP.
YES, WE GO BACK AND I WAS GONNA FOLLOW COMMISSIONER JEAN, BUT AFTER LISTENING TO COMM PENA, I THINK IT'S, WE SHOULD JUST GO IN ORDER BECAUSE IT'S A POSSIBILITY TO THAT REMEMBER, SOME OF THESE OTHERS COULD STILL BE, UM, WE MAY HIT IT IN TIME.
SO WORK, UH, I ITEM, UH, WAIT A MINUTE.
SO NINE ITEM NINE, SUMMARY DELIBERATION OF ACTIONS.
ITEM NUMBER NINE, SUMMARY DELIBERATIONS OF ACTIONS REGARDING A RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMISSIONER REVIEW WORKING GROUP A ON CASE 20 26 0 1 0 1 8.
SO FOR CASE NUMBER 20 26 0 1 0 1 8, UM, THERE WAS TWO OFFICERS INVOLVED WITH THIS CASE.
THE POLICY THAT WAS LOOKED OVER WAS 901 1 901 0.1.
UH, THE RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND COMPLY ALSO 900.2 REQUIRED REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS, 900, HONESTY 903.2 ACTS BRINGING DISCREDIT UPON THE DEPARTMENT.
900 NEGLECTIVE DUTY, 900 SUPPORTING FELLOW OFFICERS, 900 POINT SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EMPLOYEES 914, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION AND POLICY 916 DRUG AND ALCOHOL FREE WORKPLACE.
[01:40:01]
AS I SAID, INVOLVED TWO OFFICERS.UM, FOR OFFICER ONE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING A WRITTEN REPRIMAND.
AND FOR OFFICER TWO, WE'RE RECOMMENDING A THREE DAY SUSPENSION PENDING A PSYCHOLOGICAL, ALL, ALL, UH, EVALUATION AND A MANDATORY DRUG AND ALCOHOL CLASS.
SO WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE IS, I GUESS THE OFFICER HAD A DEATH IN THE FAMILY, UM, AND ENDED UP, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS, HAVING TO DEAL WITH THAT.
AND IT ENDED UP, UM, USING A NON-PRESCRIBED DRUG, UM, AND THEN DISCLOSED THAT TO THIS OFFICER, THE OTHER OFFICER, WHICH WAS HER SUPERVISOR, AND SAID, AND THAT OFFICER TOLD HER TO NOT, UM, TO NOT TAKE THE DRUG TEST.
AND SO I THINK THE BIGGEST THING IN OUR GROUP THAT WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WAS THE FACT THAT, UM, THE OFFICER WHO INGESTED THE, THE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS THAT WERE NOT THEIRS CLAIMED THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
AND I HAVE A HARD TIME, AND WE HAD A HARD TIME BELIEVING THAT AN OFFICER UNDER THE LAW WOULD NOT KNOW THE SUBSTANCE THAT THEY WERE TAKING WAS ILLEGAL.
AND SO THE FACT THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO COVER THAT UP WAS PRETTY BIG TO US.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE SAID THAT WE THINK SHE NEEDS TO HAVE A THREE DAY SUSPENSION PENDING A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION BECAUSE THERE ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, MORE, MORE CONCERNS ABOUT HER MENTAL WELLBEING AND THEN ALSO DOING THAT MANDATORY, UM, SOME SORT OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL CLASS.
QUESTIONS? SO THE, THE, UM, CAN YOU, CAN YOU AGAIN, CAN YOU REPEAT THE, THE, DO YOU KNOW PA DO YOU KNOW THERE WASN'T A DIS YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS WAS THIS, THERE WAS A DISPOSITION ALREADY MADE ON HERE, RIGHT? I DO NOT.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS, BUT, AND, AND YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS POSITION IS AGAIN, WHAT? SO FOR THE OFFICER THAT HAD TOLD HER TO NOT DISCLOSE, INGESTING THE, THE DRUGS, A, A WRITTEN REPRIMAND, WRITTEN 'CAUSE WE WANT ON PAPER, AND THEN FOR THE OFFICER WHO DID THAT, WE WANT A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION PENDING, UM, A THREE DAY SUSPENSION PENDING THAT IN A MANDATORY DRUG AND ALCOHOL CLASS OF SOME SORT.
ALL THE QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, WE THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD THE RECOMMENDATION AND THINK SO, UM, THIS POINT, DO WE WANNA GO AHEAD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM GROUP, UH, WORKING GROUP? WAIT, BASICALLY, BY THE WAY, IT'S PETER MAN PENA DE PASS WORKING GROUP.
SO I THINK ALL IN FAVOR IN FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION OF WORKING GROUP A ON CASE 20 26 0 1 0 1 8.
OKAY, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S, UH, UNANIMOUS.
OKAY, SO WE APPROVE THAT RECOMMENDATION.
[10. Summary, deliberation, and action regarding a recommendation from Commissioner Review Working Group A for Case 2026-00277.]
REPORT OF RECOMMENDATION BY COMMISSION WORKING GROUP.A SAME GROUP ON TO CASE 20 26, 0 0 2, 7 7.
AND I BELIEVE THIS IS, UH, ANOTHER ONE THAT THEY HAVEN'T MADE A FINAL DELIBERATION ON.
UM, THE POLICIES THAT ARE GONNA BE LOOKED AT FOR THIS ONE IS 800.31, CHECKING OUT EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES FROM A PROPERTY CONTROL OFFICE, 949.7 0.5 LIMITATION ON LERE HOURS WORKED AND 955.2 DIGITAL TIMEKEEPING SYSTEMS. UM, THIS WAS A, A, A PRETTY EASY CASE.
BASICALLY WHAT THE OFFICER WAS GOING THROUGH WAS MAYBE NOT, UM, FOLLOWING THE, THE PROPER PRO PROTOCOL FOR CLOCKING IN AND OUT.
AND THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ON IF HE WAS WORKING LONGER HOURS THAN WAS REQUIRED IN THE POLICY.
AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT A WRITTEN REPRIMAND ON PAPER WOULD BE SUFFICIENT UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF HE DOES IT AGAIN, IT COULD LEAD TO TERMINATION.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE REST OF THE COMMISSION? UM, COMMISSIONER ELPA, YOU HAVE NOT SAID ANYTHING.
I, ANY, ANY, WERE THEY UNANIMOUS? YOU WERE? ANY DESCENDANT? ANY, OKAY.
THANK, THAT'S WHAT I MAKE SURE
I, BY THE WAY, I CLARIFY, EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THE CHARGE.
UNDERSTOOD WHAT, WHAT WE ARE, UH, HOPEFULLY RECOMMENDING CORRECT.
WE THIS WRITTEN, WRITTEN REPRIMAND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION OF WORKING GROUP A.
PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND ONCE AGAIN.
OH, UH, SO THAT'S, UM, AND YOU IN FAVOR? YES.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S UNANIMOUS.
[11. Summary, deliberation, and action regarding a recommendation from Commissioner Review Working Group A for Case 2025-2324.]
UM, REPORT, UH, RECOMMENDATION ON WORKING GROUP A FOR CASE 2 25 23 24.[01:45:03]
I HAVE CASE NUMBER 22 6 0 0 2 7 7.DID I MAKE A MISTAKE ON THE TRANSPOSING NUMBER? YEAH.
YEAH, SO I DON I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT THAT, OH YES, YOU'RE RIGHT.
I PUT THE WRONG NUMBER DOWN HERE, RIGHT? YOU'RE RIGHT.
SO, UM, FOR THIS ONE, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN, UM, CONCLUDED BY A PO AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
2 0 2 FIREARM DISCHARGE SITUATION.
OFFICER ARRIVED ON THE SCENE, SUSPECT FIRED AT OFFICER, OFFICER FIRED BACK.
UM, WE AGREE WITH THE DECISION.
CAN YOU, WHAT WAS THE, WHAT WAS THE CONCLUSION OF THE OFFICER FIRING BACK? WAS IT, UM, IT WAS LIKE JUSTIFIED? OKAY.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT, HOW THE, IN WHAT HAPPENED IN THE INCIDENT ITSELF? I LIKE TO JUST, YEAH, THEY JUST, THEY, THEY ARRIVED ON THE SCENE AND THEY WERE GOING TO ENGAGE THE SUSPECT.
THE SUSPECT STARTED FIRING AT THE OFFICER.
THERE WAS NO BODILY HARM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT WAS JUST THE DISCHARGE OF THE WEAPON.
DOES ANYBODY ANY QUESTIONS THAT WOULD, ONCE AGAIN, I'LL ASK THOSE W WE WOULD DECIDE TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF WORKING GROUP A ON CASE 25, 20 25, 23 25, WHICH IS SUSTAIN, SUSTAINED.
SUSTAIN THOSE IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND.
LOOKS LIKE ONCE AGAIN, IT'S UNANIMOUS.
[12. Summary, deliberation, and action regarding a recommendation from Commissioner Review Working Group B for Case 2026-00555.]
WE WORK, WE'LL WORK, UM, TO WE MOVE ON TO SOME REPORTS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN, UH, REVIEWED BY WORKING GROUP B.IT WILL START WITH CASE 20 26 0 0 5 5 5.
AND WORKING GROUP, UH, B IS REMINDERS COMPOSED OF COMMISSIONER HARRIS, COMMISSIONER RUSSELL AND COMMISSIONER EUGENE.
EUGENE, I WAS GONNA LET YOU TAKE THE FIRST ONE.
UM, INVOLVED SEVERAL OFFICERS AND IT WAS THE SHOOTING ON MARCH 1ST, 2026, A MALE SUBJECT ARMED WITH A RIFLE INDISCRIMINATELY OPEN FIRE ON SEVERAL PEOPLE AT BUFORD'S BAR, UH, ON SIXTH STREET.
OFFICERS RESPONDED TO THE SCENE.
UH, FIRST OFFICERS ON THE SCENE BROADCASTED THAT MULTIPLE PEOPLE HAD BEEN SHOT AT THE LOCATION.
AS THESE OFFICERS ARRIVED ON SCENE, THEY HEARD MORE GUNSHOTS COMING FROM THE WEST OF THE LOCATION THAT WAS IN FRONT OF BUFORT.
THEY IMMEDIATELY EXITED THEIR MARKED PATROL UNIT AND RESPONDED ON FOOT TOWARD THE SOUND OF GUNFIRE.
SIMULTANEOUSLY, UH, THESE OFFICERS, UH, THAT WERE ON THE SCENE, HEARD THE GUNFIRE AND WENT TO THE BACK OF THE BUFORD'S BAR.
UM, OFFICERS OBSERVED THE MALE SUBJECT AS HE OPENED FIRE IN THEIR DIRECTION WITH THE RIFLE.
THESE OFFICERS ENGAGED THE MALE SUBJECT WITH GUNFIRE STRIKING HIM.
MALE SUBJECT FELL TO THE GROUND AND WAS LATER PRONOUNCED DECEASED.
UM, THE MALE SUBJECT WAS PRONOUNCED DECEASED.
THREE CIVILIANS WERE KILLED, 15, OTHERS WERE WOUNDED IN THE ATTACK.
UH, A PD WE DID NOT SEE IN OUR FILE.
WELL, WE DID FIND THAT A PD FOUND NO VIOLATIONS.
WE COULD NOT FIND AN OPO RECOMMENDATION.
AND OUR FINDING WAS, UH, EXONERATED AND THAT THE OFFICERS SHOULD BE COMMENDED.
MAKE, CAN MAKE COMMENDATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TOO.
SO, ANY DISCUSSIONS, ANY QUESTIONS, DETAILS? OKAY, WELL, I'LL, I'LL WAIT.
IS THIS A RECOMMENDATION FOR ALL THREE OFFICERS INVOLVED, OR ANY OFFICER? ALL THREE OFFICERS INVOLVED.
WE'D LIKE TO, UH, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY YAY.
IF YOU, IF YOU APPROVE OF, UH, WE'RE GONNA RECOMMEND, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION OF OUR GROUP B ON CASE 2 2 6 0 0 5 5 5.
IF WE WANT TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND ONCE AGAIN.
OH, AND I GUESS ONCE AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S UNANIMOUS.
[13. Summary, deliberation, and action regarding a recommendation from Commissioner Review Working Group B for Case 2026-01125.]
NOW WE'RE MOVING TO, UH, ITEM 25, REPORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON COMMISSION REVIEW WORKING GROUP B FOR CASE 20 26 0 1 1 2 5.SO THIS IS A, UM, SO THERE ARE TWO OFFICERS, OR SORRY, ONE OFFICER SERGEANT PULLED OVER A CAR, UH, HAD, UM,
[01:50:01]
SOME SORT OF DEFECTIVE TAILLIGHTS.UM, SO IT WAS A LEAST THAT REGARD, A VALID STOP.
HOWEVER, UM, SO THE, THE SERGEANT WAS ASKING FOR ID WAS TRYING TO GET ID FROM THE LADY.
SHE GAVE ID, UH, OFFICER'S JUST GONNA GIVE HIM THE LADY A WARNING.
AND THERE WAS A SECOND OFFICER THAT ARRIVED ON SCENE AND APPEARED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A, YOU KNOW, HE, HE WAS TRYING TO SEEK OUT CRIME, I GET THAT.
BUT HE CAME OFF AS A BIT UNPROFESSIONAL AND, UM, UH, BASICALLY WAS ASKING THE PASSENGER FOR HIS ID.
UH, I DID SOME, UH, READING ON STATE LAW.
UH, BUT, UH, WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO THAT.
THE, THE COMPLAINT WAS THAT THAT SECOND OFFICER, UH, WAS BASICALLY, UM, MAKING COMMENTS THAT ALTHOUGH THEY WEREN'T THE MOST BRASH COMMENTS I'VE EVER HEARD, THEY WERE A BIT UNPROFESSIONAL.
AND, UM, I THINK ALL OF US HAVE HAD INTERACTIONS WITH THE POLICE.
AND WHEN THE OFFICERS, YOU KNOW, UH, A MATTER OF FACT IT'S PROFESSIONAL, IT REALLY, UH, SUCH A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR OTHER, FOR THE DEPARTMENT REALLY.
AND, UH, THE SECONDARY OFFICER WAS MAKING SOMEWHAT BELITTLING, UM, COMMENTS DEPENDING ON WHO YOU ASK, BUT I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD AGREE THAT HIS COMMENTS WERE, UH, UNPROFESSIONAL.
AND, UM, OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT THE, UH, SORRY, TRIPPING UP ON MYSELF A LITTLE BIT HERE.
IT WOULD, IT WOULD APPEAR IT UNPROFESSIONAL.
AND, UH, OUR RECOMMENDATION HERE, UH, I FORGET WHAT THE A P'S RECOMMENDATION WAS.
I THINK IT WAS LIKE A WRITTEN REPRIMAND OR SOMETHING.
UM, I BELIEVE IT SAID CLASS B.
INTERNAL AFFAIRS RECOMMENDED A CLASS BOPO SUBMITTED AN OBJECTION, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, I COULDN'T FIND WHAT THE NATURE OF THE OBJECTION WAS.
WE RECOMMENDED A ORAL REPRIMAND.
THE RE, UH, OBJECTION WAS RELATED TO THE CLASSIFICATION WITHOUT SU UH, FINDING, UH, IT TO BE SUSTAINED.
ORAL, ORAL OR REPRIMAND WAS OUR RECOMMENDATION.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATION, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT, UH, WAS BASICALLY AN ORAL REPRI MAN.
UM, IT WAS, IT WASN'T THE MOST EGREGIOUS VIOLATION, BUT IT WAS UNPROFESSIONAL HOW HE WAS TALKING.
WE THINK ORAL REPRIMAND SUSTAINED.
UM, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT IS.
I JUST HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
WHEN YOU SAY, UM, CLASSIFICATION B OR WHATEVER YOU SAYING LIKE A MISDEMEANOR OR WHAT, WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? NO, THE VIOLATIONS OF GENERAL ORDERS AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
SO WE CONCUR WITH OPOS SUSTAINED ORAL REC.
ORAL REPRIMAND, AND YOU JUST DISCUSSIONS.
THAT OFFICER HAD NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO ASK A PASSENGER FOR ID UNLESS THEY WERE PART OF THE TRAFFIC STOP.
IF THE BASIS OF THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS A BROKEN TAILLIGHT PASSENGER HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
AND THAT IS A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION IN MY OPINION.
I THINK MORE THAN A ORAL REPRIMAND SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS CASE.
WELL, UM, MAYBE GIVE US SOME MORE, UH, DETAILS OF WHY YOU GUYS BELIEVE THAT ORAL REPRIMAND SHOULD BE, SHOULD BE THE, THE COMPLAINT YEAH.
THE COMPLAINT WAS ONLY ABOUT THE COURTEOUSNESS OR THIS COURTEOUSNESS OF THE OFFICER.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT THE COMPLAINT WAS ABOUT.
I MEAN, WE CAN LOOK AT IT MORE THAN WHAT THE COMPLAIN WAS, BUT, UM, I WAS LOOKING AT IT TOO AND I WAS TRYING TO FIND, YOU KNOW, UM, HOW DID THE OFFICER GET THE PERSON OUT OF THE CAR? I KNOW AN OFFICER CAN ASK YOU TO LEAVE YOUR CAR.
UM, I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN, UH, TO SEE WHAT OCCURRED FIRST, WHETHER IT WAS THE ID OR ASK HIM TO GET OUT OF THE CAR BECAUSE IT, UM, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE MIGHT HAVE TO COME BACK TO.
BUT THE, THE COMPLAINT WAS, UH, UNC COURTEOUS BEHAVIOR.
AND THAT'S, ARE WE, ARE WE QUESTIONING THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ADDRESSING WAS THE COMPLAINT? YEAH.
UM, I I THINK THERE'S CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN THIS CASE.
WELL, I'M WHAT SHOULD, WHAT SHOULD BREAK MORE THAN JUST A SLAP
[01:55:01]
ON THE WRIST? I'M DEFINITELY OPEN TO EXPLORING IF THAT WAS A, IF THERE WAS A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION, WHO WOULD THAT QUESTION BE DIRECTED TO? WELL, UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ALSO GET TO INTERPRET WHAT PARTS OF THE GENERAL ORDERS WE THINK THAT WERE VIOLATED.AND SO I THINK WE COULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO ADD THAT, UM, ON THERE AS WELL.
YEAH, I THINK THIS IS A, A GREAT EXAMPLE OF A CASE WHERE BASED ON WHAT WAS, UM, THE GENERAL POLICY ACCUSED OF VIOLATIONS, LIKE, WELL, NO, BUT WE SAW SOMETHING ELSE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST STEP IS TO SEE WAS THIS IN VIOLATION? LIKE DID THIS HAPPEN? WAS IT VIOLATED? WHAT'S THE RESULT OF THAT? AND ALSO, DID WE SEE ANY OTHER GENERAL, UH, GENERAL ORDERS THAT WE THINK MIGHT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED? AND WHAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THAT? SO THE, THE DUALITY ONCE AS WE'VE GATHER MORE EXPERIENCE, REALIZE, OH, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT WHAT WE ARE TOLD TO HAPPEN.
LIKE, OH, THE NEXT STEP IS WE CAN ADD ON TO THIS IS OUR RECOMMENDATION.
WE SAW SOMETHING HAPPEN, NOT JUST WHAT WAS REPORTED.
WE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK OPO, DO THEY HAVE ANY OPINION ON THAT ASPECT OF THE, OF THE FILE, WHETHER, WHETHER IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR A PERSON THAT WAS A PASSENGER TO BE INTERROGATED BY THE POLICE
I MEAN, IN SOME CASES, AN OFFICER, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE A PASSENGER IN THE VEHICLE, IT'S NOT AGAINST A LAW FOR AN OFFICER TO ASK YOU FOR ID, NOW THEY CAN ASK YOU FOR ID, BUT IF, IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
BUT IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW AND IT, I DON'T THINK IT'S A VIOLATION OF ANYONE'S CIVIL RIGHTS FOR AN OFFICER TO ASK FOR QUESTION ASK FICATION.
AND THAT THAT WAS WHERE I WAS GONNA ASK IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WERE YOU THINKING THAT THERE WAS LIKE THEY DIDN'T HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO STOP? OR IS THAT, IS THAT, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAD TO GET INTO SOME LEGAL INTERPRETATION, SO WE MIGHT HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS BECAUSE I DON'T, Y'ALL GUYS CAN TELL ME.
I MEAN, I, YOU OF COURSE THE OFFICER CAN TALK TO YOU, THEY CAN ASK FOR ID, YOU CAN REFUSE IT.
WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY AS FAR AS HAS A PASSENGER IN A VEHICLE, LEGAL TRAFFIC STOP? CAN A PASSENGER REFUSE THE ID? I GUESS THAT'S THE QUESTION.
AND SO I GUESS IF, BUT HE DIDN'T REFUSE.
BUT THEN EVENTUALLY DID, HE DID COMPLY EVENTUALLY.
AND THEN THAT'S WHEN HE GOT, WHEN IT WOULD LOOK UP AND FOUND THERE WAS A WARRANT.
BUT IF HE HAD NEVER APPLIED, UH, COMPLIED, SO HE CONSENTED MORE OR LESS.
WHAT IS THE CASE NUMBER ON THIS? I'D LIKE TO REVIEW THIS MYSELF.
YEAH, IT'S UH, 2 0 2 6 0 1 1 2 5.
UH, IT, I, I DO THINK WE, WE HAVE TO, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO SPLIT HAIRS A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THAT, UNFORTUNATELY IT JUST APPEARS TO BE WHAT THE LAW IS.
IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE OFFICER CAN ASK YOU FOR SOMETHING.
IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT TO THEM, BUT AT WHAT POINT DID IT ALMOST BECOME COERCIVE? THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT HE WAS ASKED? AND IT, IT DEFINITELY SEEMED LIKE THE OFFICER ASKING WAS, WAS IMPLYING THAT THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES IF YOU DON'T COM IF YOU DON'T COMPLY.
AND THE OFFICER CAN, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, YOU THE OFFICER CAN'T ASK YOU TO LEAVE YOUR CAR AND YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO COMPLY WITH THAT UNLESS THERE'S SOME OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES I'M UNAWARE OF.
UH, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
BUT THE OFFICER CAN ASK YOU TO LEAVE YOUR CAR EVEN IF YOU'RE A PASSENGER.
SO I, I WOULD WANNA LOOK AT THE VIDEO AGAIN, SEE WHAT SERIES OF EVENTS HAPPENED THERE.
WE WERE LOOKING AT THE UNPROFESSIONAL ASPECT OF IT, MORE THAN THAT.
AND, BUT IT DID POP UP IN MY MIND AND I, WE WERE WRESTLING WITH IT.
IT'S LIKE, WELL, OFFICER CAN ALWAYS ASK YOUR ID AS A PASSENGER IN THE OFF AS IN A CAR.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT TO 'EM.
OFFICERS CAN ASK YOU THREE OR FOUR TIMES.
AND THEN WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, ASK BROADER QUESTIONS LIKE, IS IT COERCIVE? OR, YOU KNOW, IS IT, AND THEN WE NEED TO LOOK AT GENERAL ORDERS FIRST.
'CAUSE IT, HOW DOES THAT APPLY TO GENERAL ORDERS BECAUSE, SO CHAIR, WHY DON'T WE TABLE THIS TO NEXT MEETING? AND THOSE INTEREST, I CAN LOOK AT THE CASE AND THEN KIND OF HAVE A BIGGER DISCUSSION.
'CAUSE IT'S ALREADY THIS CASE ALREADY CLOSED.
UH, BUT IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO, YOU KNOW, THE EXPERIENCE IS NEEDED TO FIND THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON.
AND ONCE AGAIN, I WANTED TO RE REMIND YOU ALL WHAT COMMISSIONER FRANCO SAID IS THAT WHEN WE REVIEW THESE, UH, GOOD PRACTICES, LOOK AT WHAT THE, IT'S THE, THE VIOLATION THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN, UM, ACCUSED HERE AND GO TO THE GENERAL ORDER AND LOOK AT THOSE, BUT ALSO SIT BACK AND SAY, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT, THAT'S WRONG HERE? BECAUSE WE DO GET TO, TO, TO MAKE, UH, UH,
[02:00:01]
RECOMMENDATIONS ON OTHER THINGS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT.AND, AND JUST TO MAKE A POINT, INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND APPEAL IS REALLY GREAT AT REVIEWING THE GENERAL ORDERS THAT ARE ACCUSED OF VIOLATION AND THAT'S THEIR FUNCTION.
SO THEY DID A GREAT REVIEW BASED ON WHAT WAS REPORTED.
BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THEY'RE LIKE, WELL THAT WASN'T PART OF THE REPORT.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CHIME IN ON.
[14. Summary, deliberation, and action regarding a recommendation from Commissioner Review Working Group B for Case 2025-01175.]
CONTINUE THEN THAT WE LEAVE THAT ONE TO GO TO ITEM 26, WHICH IS, UH, REPORT RECOMMENDATION OF COMMISSIONER REVIEW WORKING GROUP B CASE 20 25 0 1 1 7 5.IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT THE ONE WE JUST WERE TALKING ABOUT? THAT'S, THAT'S THE NEXT ONE.
THE WILLIAM CAN, THAT'S THE NEXT ONE.
IT'S UH, ON MAY 17TH, 2025, APPROXIMATELY NINE 50 IN THE MORNING.
UM, AN OFFICER RESPONDED TO A HOTSHOT CALL OF A MAN IN A WHEELCHAIR WITH A GUN IN THE AREA OF WILLIAM CANNON, UH, SOUTH.
THIS OFFICER ARRIVED ON THE SCENE AND CONTACTED THE MALE SUBJECT WITH REPEATED VERBAL COMMANDS TO STOP AND PUT DOWN THE WEAPON.
AFTER CONTINUING TO DISOBEY THE OFFICER'S COMMANDS, THE MALE SUBJECT TURNED TOWARD THE OFFICER AND POINTED HIS WEAPON AT OFFICER JACKSON.
UM, OFF AT THE OFFICER BELIEVING THAT HIS LIFE AND THE LIFE OF OTHERS WAS IN DANGER.
HE DISCHARGED HIS PATROL RIFLE SEVEN TIMES, STRIKING THE MALE SUBJECT RESULTING IN THE MALE SUBJECT'S DEATH.
UM, A PD ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED THIS OPO UH, FOUND THAT THEY WERE EXONERATED THAT, THAT THE OFFICER WAS EXONERATED WAS ONE OFFICER.
AND OUR WORKING GROUP CONCURRED WITH EXONERATED.
IT WAS, UM, YEAH, UNFORTUNATE THIS IT WAS, YEAH.
WE DID HAVE SOME TROUBLE WITH OUR COMPUTERS SEEING THE GUN ON CERTAIN BODY CAMS, BUT I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT EVERYTHING PRESENTED AS, UH, THEY BASICALLY WAS THE GUY WITH A GUN BECAUSE WHEN WE SAW OTHER VIDEO OF WHEN THE OFFICERS WENT UP TO THE PERSON WITH THE WHEELCHAIR, YOU COULD CLEARLY SEE THERE'S A GUN IN THE WHEELCHAIR.
AND, UH, YES, VERY UNFORTUNATE AND VERY GRAPHIC, UM, THE SUBJECT.
OKAY, WELL I DON'T WANNA GO INTO THE GRAPHICS OF IT, BUT IT WAS, IT WASN'T FUN TO WATCH.
SO, UH, WE LIKE, LIKE TO VOTE WHETHER WE FOLLOW THE, FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION ON WORKING GROUP B ON CASE 20 25 0 1 1 7 5, WHICH IS EXONERATE.
SO SEVEN AGREE AND ONE ABSTAIN.
SO I JUST WANNA, I JUST FEEL LIKE IF THERE'S, THERE'S A DEATH THAT WE SHOULD ALL REVIEW THE CASE, LIKE GOING FORWARD FROM NOW ON.
LIKE, SO WE SHOULD BE TOLD WHEN ONE OF THESE CASES INVOLVES AN OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING WHERE THE SUSPECT DOES PASS AWAY THAT WE ALL BE GIVEN ACCESS TO THAT FILE AND ALL REVIEW IT BEFORE MAKING THE DECISION.
CAN, CAN I MAKE A MODIFICATION THAT AT LEAST IT'D BE NOTED ON THE LIST OF CASES THAT THERE WAS A DEATH INVOLVED? AND THEN WE CAN CHOOSE WHETHER YOU WANNA REVIEW IT OR NOT, BUT AT LEAST IT'S NOTED.
AND I, AND I, AND I'LL TRY TO SEE IF WE CAN PUT SOMETHING IN THERE TO NOTE, BECAUSE WHEN WE DISTRIBUTE, SOMETIMES I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT I DON'T LOOK, I DON'T LOOK AT THE DETAILS OF THE CASE.
SO ONCE AGAIN, I THINK WHAT WE SAID HERE THAT IT WAS, IT, WE, THEY'RE APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION WITH TO ABSTAIN IS WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
IT WAS APPROVED WITH TO ABSTAIN.
[15. Summary, deliberation, and action regarding a recommendation from Commissioner Review Working Group C for Case 2026-00636.]
LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM 27, WHICH IS THE REPORT OF RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMISSIONER REVIEW WORKING GROUP C ON CASE 20 26 0 0 6, 3 6.UM, IF IT WOULD BE OKAY, I WOULD LIKE TO COMBINE THIS WITH, UH, ITEM 28, UH, REVIEW OF 2020.
RIGHT? UH, 2025 WHAT ON TWO SIX? SIX THREE.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE VERY SIMILAR, UH, UH, ISSUES.
RIGHT? IN THE FIRST CASE, THERE IS A, EXCUSE ME, MIC THE MIC.
I WOULD LIKE, LIKE TO BE ABLE TO COMBINE UH, 20 26, 6 3 0, 0 6, 3 6 AND 20 25, 2, 6 6 3, BECAUSE THEY HAVE VERY SIMILAR, UM, ITEMS, WHICH ARE BOTH ITEMS OF CONCERN.
UM, IN THE CASE OF, UH, CAN I, CAN I, UH, MAKE A, A SMALL OBJECTION? I,
[02:05:01]
I WOULD, I THINK I'M IN WORKING GROUP C TOO, SO I I KNOW WHERE SHE'S GOING.WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS LET'S GO TO THE CASE AND, AND RE EXPRESS IT, THE CASE OF 0 0 6 3 6, AND THEN DISCUSS THE 0 0 2 6, UH, 2, 6, 6 3.
AND THEN WHEN WE VOTE, WE CAN, THEN, WHEN WE ACTUALLY VOTE, WE CAN THEN VOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, OF THE FOLLOW RECOMMENDATION.
ON BOTH OF THOSE, BECAUSE WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THERE ARE JUST SIMILAR CASES AND SO FORTH, SIMILAR, UH, UH, ACTIONS, BUT IT'S, I WANT TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF A DOUBT TO REVIEW EACH CASE SEPARATE SO YOU HEAR THE EVIDENCE ON EACH CASE, SO YOU CAN THEN DECIDE TO, IF IT'S, IF IT'S, UH, ACTUALLY THE SAME BECAUSE ONE OF THEM ACTUALLY HAS BEEN ALREADY DISPOSED AND THE OTHER ONE IS NOT, SO, OKAY.
UM, IN, UM, IN THIS CASE, UH, THERE WAS, UM, OBSERVED A GENTLEMAN WHO HAD APPARENTLY, UH, PLACED SOME SUSPECTED NARCOTICS, UH, BETWEEN HIS BUTT CHEEKS, PARDON MY LANGUAGE HERE.
UM, IN THIS CASE, UH, THE OFFICER THAT WAS, WAS INVOLVED PHYSICALLY STUCK HIS HAND, UM, UNDERNEATH THE, THE MAN'S UNDERWEAR AND UP BETWEEN HIS BUTT CHEEKS, UH, HE EVENTUALLY DID FIND NARCOTICS.
THERE, UH, WAS CRACK COCAINE, I BELIEVE, AND, UH, EXCUSE ME.
AND HE, HE FOUND CRACK COCAINE, UH, THE, THE, THE, THE SUSPECT HAD STUFFED IN BETWEEN HIS BUTT CHEEKS, BUT NOT IN HIS ANUS.
UM, THE PLACE WHERE I FOUND THIS CASE OBJECTIONABLE, AND I BELIEVE THAT CHARGES SHOULD BE SUSTAINED AGAINST THIS OFFICER.
UH, I BELIEVE THAT THIS OFFICER CONDUCTED A DEFACTO STRIP SEARCH.
UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT POLICE OFFICERS, YOU KNOW, POLICE OFFICERS CAN FRISK SOMEBODY.
THAT MEANS A PAT DOWN ON THE OUTSIDE OF CLOTHING.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY OFFICER SHOULD BE STICKING THEIR HANDS IN THE GENITAL OR ANUS AREAS OF ANY PERSON AT ANY TIME.
THAT, TO ME, IS A DEFACTO STRIP SEARCH.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN'T DO MUCH BECAUSE IT WASN'T REALLY THAT MUCH OF A VIOLATION OF THE GENERAL ORDERS.
THEREFORE, I WOULD LIKE TO, I WOULD LIKE US TO RECOMMEND THAT, UM, 3 0 6 POINT 11 ON STRIP SEARCHES BE REWRITTEN TO INCLUDE, UH, UH, PLACING HANDS UNDERNEATH CLOTHING, ESPECIALLY IN, YOU KNOW, IN DEEPLY PERSONAL AND INTIMATE AREAS LIKE THAT.
YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE, IN MY OPINION, TAKE THE SUSPECT TO THE TRAVIS COUNTY JAIL, HAVE THE MEDICAL PERSONNEL DO A STRIP SEARCH IF THAT'S WHAT IS NEEDED.
BUT, UM, HE SHOULDN'T, THE OFFICER SHOULD NOT BE STICKING HIS HANDS IN THERE.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE 3 0 6 POINT 11 REWRITTEN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
AND, UH, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE 3 0 6 POINT 11 REWRITTEN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
AND, UH, WE HAD ALSO DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF MAYBE COMING UP WITH A VAN WHERE THIS CAN BE DONE, YOU KNOW, IN A MORE SECLUDED PRIVATE AREA IF NECESSARY.
UH, YOU KNOW, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOW A COMMON, A COMMONPLACE, UH, INCIDENT THAT, YOU KNOW, MANY, UH, UH, DRUG
[02:10:01]
DEALERS AND SUCH WILL DO.UM, BUT YOU KNOW, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OFFICER COMMISSIONER PUTTING HIS HANDS ON GENITAL OR A**L AREAS.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, WAS THERE A FINDING BY EITHER A PD OR OPO THAT YOU CAN RELATE TO US? YEAH, AND I WAS, I WAS GONNA ADD SOME MEAT TO THIS, TO THIS, 'CAUSE I'M IN THIS WORKING GROUP.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, UM, WELL, MY, MY QUESTION, I'M GONNA ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
I'M GONNA ADDRESS FOR, I'M, I'M IN HER WORKING GROUP TOO, SO I WANNA ADD THIS, RIGHT? YEAH.
OFFICER CANTU STATED THAT HE BELIEVED HE VIOLATED A PD POLICY, UH, 3 0 6 SEARCH AND SEIZURE.
UM, IT ALSO CALLS FOR STRIP SEARCHES THAT, THAT THE OFFICER CONSULT WITH A SUPERVISOR, AND HE DID NOT OKAY.
RIGHT? THAT'S THE ONLY PART THAT WE CAN REALLY FIND ANY, ANY, ANY ACTION ON.
SO I'D LIKE TO ADD SOME, SOME MEAT TO THIS, RIGHT? UM, THE OFFICER, UM, THERE WAS, THEY WERE, THEY WERE CONDUCTING SOME, SOME SURVEILLANCE, AND HE WAS DIRECTED TO SOMEBODY WHERE THAT THEY NOTICED THERE WERE SOME DRUGS INVOLVED.
AND SO HE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO, TO ARREST THEM.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE WAY THE SEARCH WAS DONE, IT WAS DONE IN HIS CAR, WITH THE CAR DOOR OPEN WITH SOME PRIVACY, BUT NOT THAT, THAT MUCH AS COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WOULD SAY, THAT SEARCH, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, IS UNQUESTIONABLY INTRUSIVE.
AND SHE DID NOT GO TO DETAILS, BUT IT WAS LIKE, NO SEARCH, A LITTLE FURTHER SEARCH.
BUT, UH, UH, THIS, IN THIS DISCUSSION, WE HAD FOR A LONG TIME, TWO, UM, COMMISSIONERS WHO STRONGLY BELIEVED THAT IT, IT SHOULD BE SUSTAINED, AND THEN WE HAD A MINORITY OPINION.
OKAY? AND I WANNA SHARE WITH YOU GUYS SOME OF, OF THIS.
WHAT WERE THE A PD AND O PS SUSTAINED, SUSTAINED.
IF, IF YOU'RE PATIENT WITH ME, YOU'LL SEE WHAT, YOU'LL SEE WHERE, WHERE I'M GOING.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE FOLLOWING, RIGHT? 3 0 6, 3 0 6 0.9 DESCRIBES WHAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
AND, AND THAT'S, WE SAID WITH THE GENERAL ORDER IN GENERAL, THE GENERAL ORDER, THESE, THE DESCRIPTION OF THESE THINGS, WE FIND IT VERY CONFUSING AND NOT CLEAR.
AND IT'S, IT'S EASY FOR OFFICERS TO BOTH OFFICERS TO BE, TO GO TO, TO TWO, TWO DIFFERENT OFFICERS TO LOOK AT THIS AND THINK, THIS ISN'T, THIS MAY BE INTRUSIVE, THIS NOT IN THE CASE OF, OF THIS OFFICER, WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM WAS, AND HIS TESTIMONY SAYS THAT WHILE HE WAS CONDUCTING THE SEARCH, HE DID NOT BELIEVE IT WAS, UH, A VIOLATION OF THE STRIP, UH, OF A STRIP SEARCH BY DEFINITION OF STRIP SEARCH THAT SOMEBODY WOULD THINK A STRIP SEARCH IS TAKING CLOTHES OFF, WHATEVER, AND THAT IS IT.
BUT WHEN HE, HE, FIRST OF ALL, THIS WAS THE WAY THIS CASE CAME ABOUT, I SHOULD HAVE STARTED, WAS SOMEBODY IN REVIEWING THESE, UH, THE, THE VIDEOS AUDITING THE VIDEO SAID, WAIT A MINUTE, WE SEE SOMETHING HERE SUSPICIOUS.
AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS, WAS REPORTED ORIGINALLY.
SO IT CAME TO SOMEBODY JUST REVIEWING IT, SAID, THIS LOOKS LIKE A LITTLE TOO MUCH.
AND IT WAS BROUGHT, AND THE PROCESS THAT THE OFFICER WAS CONFRONTING WITH, LOOK AT THIS, THIS LOOKS LIKE TOO MUCH.
AND HE SAID, WELL, I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT I SEEN IN THE VIDEO, OKAY, SO I'M IN VIOLATION.
AND ONE OF THE RESTRICTIONS ABOUT A STRIPER, IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS SAID, WELL, MAYBE IT IS A STRIP SEARCH.
I THINK SO, BUT WHAT OF THE THINGS OF A STRIP SEARCH, IT REQUIRES STRIP SEARCH REQUIRE YOU, UM, INFORM YOUR SUPERVISOR.
SO ONCE YOU DIDN'T INFORM YOUR SUPERVISOR AND YOU, AND IT DETERMINES A STRIP SEARCH, THAT'S A DOUBLE VIOLATION THERE TO BEGIN WITH.
IF, IF IT WAS NOT DETERMINED TO BE A, A STRIP SEARCH, THEN IT WOULD'VE BEEN OKAY.
SO THAT A LOT GOES TO THE, THE DEFINITION OF WHAT STRIP SEARCH.
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN YOU GO AND READ 600.6, AND I'M GONNA READ TO MY, THEY DESCRIBE FIRST A FRISK, WHAT, WHAT'S A PHRASE? 'CAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AND SAY, WHAT IS THIS? WELL, WHAT IS, WHAT IS IT NOT? THE FIRST IS 3 0 6 0.9 SAYS FRISK FOR WEAPONS.
SO FRISK AND PAT DOWN FOR WEAPONS.
THERE'S NO DETAIL HERE IN A FRISK AND PAT DOWN FOR DRUGS.
AND THE FRISK IS, THERE'S THE SKY LIMITED PATTERN OF THE OUTSIDE SURFACE OF A PERSON'S CLOTHING IN AN ATTEMPT TO FIND WEAPONS.
A FRISK CAN ONLY BE USED BY OFFICERS WHEN THEY JUSTIFIABLY STOP SOMEONE AND HAVE REASONABLE FEAR FOR THE SAFETY AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC.
WHEN YOU GO TO SEARCH 6 0 3, 0 6 POINT 11, RIGHT, THIS GOES STRIP SLASH BODY CAVITY SEARCH.
THEY'RE THEIR, FIRST OF ALL, THEIR LUMP.
AND IT STARTS BY SAYING STRIPPED AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES ARE SOMETIMES NECESSARY FOR THE SAFETY IN PERSON AND OR, UM, SECURE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL
[02:15:01]
ACTIVITY.HOWEVER, SUCH SEARCHES ARE HIGHLY INTRUSIVE AND MUST BE CONDUCTED ONLY WHEN JUSTIFICATION CAN BE CLEARLY ARTICULATED AND THEN DONE ONLY WITH A PROPER REGARD FOR HUMAN DIGNITY AND PRIVACY.
OKAY? A THE CASE, A STRIP SEARCH AND CAVITY SEARCH WILL BE DOCUMENTED AND, AND A REPORT SHOULD BE FILED.
BUT HERE, SWIFT SEARCH AND SEIZURE, IT SPECIFICALLY WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OF A SUPERVISOR.
SO NOWHERE HERE DOES IT ACTUALLY DEFINE THE STRIP AND SEARCH.
IT JUST SAYS, IF A STRIP AND SEARCH IS PERFORMED, A, B, C, AND THESE THINGS, SO TO BEGIN WITH, THE LACK OF CLARITY PUTS A, A CERTAIN, UM, UH, AMBIGUITY, AMBIGUITY AND UNFAIRNESS AND, AND POLICE.
AND SO NO SURPRISE THAT WE SEE ONE CASE.
AND THEN THE OTHER CASE, AND THEN BOTH OF BOTH OF THEM, ONE OF THEM SAID, YEAH, I GUESS I'M, I AM IN VIOLATION.
I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A STRIP SEARCH.
AND THE OTHER ONE SAYS, NO, IF YOU GO BY THE WORD, AND HE AND HIS LAWYER WOULD SAY, AND WE, I'M, I'M JUMPING AROUND.
SO, SO IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THIS VERY AMBIGUOUS, AND I THINK MAYBE PURPOSELY AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE IT LEAVES A WEAPONS FRISK AND A STRIP SEARCH, WHICH IS, UH, CLEARLY STRICT, BUT NOTHING IN BETWEEN.
AND THEY DON'T WANT PURPOSELY DEFINE WHAT'S IN BETWEEN.
I THINK THEY, THEY NEED TO, AND I THINK WE STRONGLY AGREE TO IT.
SO WHILE, WHILE THE MAJORITY, BY ALL OF US, BELIEVED THAT THAT WAS DEFINITELY INCREDIBLY INTRUSIVE AND SO FORTH, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF WHETHER TECHNICALLY BY THE WORD OF LAW THAT'S A STRIP OR NOT.
BUT AT THE END, THE, UH, MINORITY OPINION WENT WITH THE MAJORITY IN MAKING IT UNANIMOUS BECAUSE IT WAS DECIDED WE'RE BETTER OFF PROTECTING THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE POLICE HAS IN THEIR POWER, THE, THE, THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO AND CHANGE THE GENERAL ORDER AND MAKE THINGS CLEARER.
SO THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S HOW WE, WE CAME ABOUT THIS.
SO, SO I, I'M JUST WANT TO BACK UP FOR A MINUTE.
SO THEY, THEY DID SEE SOMETHING THAT MADE THEM BELIEVE THAT THAT PERSON HAD SOME TYPE OF CONTRABAND ON THEM.
OH, THE PERSON IN, ON THE PERSON WAS WHAT IF THERE WAS, THERE'S A INTERESTING ARGUMENT DISCUSSION WHERE THE POLICE IS SAYING, OPEN YOUR LEGS, STOP, YOU KNOW, UM, CONSTRAINING YOUR, YOUR CHEEKS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT WAS, THEY THOUGHT MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING.
AND HE GOES TO TRY TO DO A, YOU KNOW, MORE INTRUSIVE SEARCH, AND SURE ENOUGH FINDS 3.8 GRAMS OF COCAINE, OF CRACK COCAINE.
SO THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE AND EVENTUALLY FOUND SOMETHING.
BUT IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING, AND I GIVE THAT KUDOS TO THE A PO AND UH, AND A PD WHEN THEY GO AND SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, THAT SEARCH LOOKS SUSPICIOUS, AND THEY FLAGGED IT.
AND IN FLAGG IT, HE SAID, WELL, I GUESS I DIDN'T THINK SO, BUT I GUESS IT WAS, SO HE GETS THIS AND IT WAS SUSTAINED.
THEN OF COURSE, WHEN, WHEN THE OFFICER SAYS, AND IT CLEARLY WAS MORE THAN JUST A MERE FRISK FOR WEAPONS, THIS NO, THIS IS CLEARLY HANDS IN GROINED, AND I'M, I'M DESCRIBING THIS LANGUAGE IN THE THING, GROIN, BUTT CHEEKS AND SO FORTH, YOU KNOW, AND BETWEEN THE CRO AND THE ANUS, YOUR HANDS ARE IN THERE TO TRY TO FIND EVIDENCE OF, OF, UH, OF CRACK COCAINE.
OKAY, BUT THE QUESTION IS THE INTRUSIVENESS OF THIS AND, AND WHAT WAS THE LEVEL OF DISCIPLINE? THE LEVEL OF DISCIPLINE WAS, UH, REPRIMAND, ORAL OR WRITTEN? I THINK IT WAS ORAL REPRIMAND.
NOW I WILL ALLOW, UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON TO GO TO DESCRIBE THE, THE FOLLOWING CASE BEFORE WE, UM, WHICH IS, UM, VERY SIMILAR THING.
IT'S A DIFFERENT, IT'S A CASE 20 25, 26 63, 20 63.
IN THIS CASE, IT WAS BASED ON A HELLO CAMERA.
YOU WANT TO, UH, CHAIR GREAVES, IF I CAN BEFORE WE MOVE ON? IT WAS ACTUALLY A, A WRITTEN, WRITTEN REGARD OKAY.
AND THE CASE CAME ABOUT BECAUSE THE AUSTIN POLICE OVERSIGHT ORDINANCE PROVIDES THAT WE DO RANDOM BODY-WORN, UH, AUDITS.
AND DURING ONE OF THE RANDOM BODY-WORN AUDITS, WE FLAGGED THIS AS AN ISSUE DURING THAT TIME, AND THEN SEND IT OVER TO A PD TO LOOK AT.
AND THAT STARTED THE INVESTIGATION.
THAT'S, THAT'S COMMON THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO, SO,
[16. Summary, deliberation, and action regarding a recommendation from Commissioner Review Working Group C for Case 2025-2663.]
UM, THE, THE NEXT CASE, WHICH IS 26 63, DO YOU WANT ME TO SUMMARIZE IT? UH, GO AHEAD.UM, IN THIS CASE, OFFICER WAS, UM, UP LOOKING AT, UM, HALO, WHICH IS
[02:20:01]
HIGH ACTIVITY, LOCATION OBSERVATION, AND IN A, IN A HIGH CRIME AREA.AND THEY OBSERVE A SUSPECT THAT, UH, PASSING SOMETHING THAT THEY THOUGHT WAS MAYBE, UH, CRACK COCAINE TO A CLIENT.
AND SO THE OFFICER ASKED FOR THIS PERSON TO BE DETAINED BEFORE HE COULD GO DOWN THERE.
HE AND HIS PARTNER GO DOWN AND ACTUALLY CONDUCT A FULL SEARCH.
SO WHEN HE FIRST, WHEN, WHEN THE FIRST PERSON WAS FIRST DETAINED, THE INITIAL OFFICER JUST DID, YOU KNOW, JUST I GUESS WHAT YOU CALL A PAT DOWN, LOOKING AROUND IN GENERAL AND SAID, AND, AND HANDCUFF HIM FOR SECURITY.
AND THEN TO WAIT UNTIL THE OFFICER THAT OBSERVED THIS TO COME DOWN AND THEN DO A MORE, UH, DETAILED SEARCH.
UM, I'LL LET YOU DESCRIBE THE, THE, THE, WHAT YOU SAW IN THE SEARCH.
I THINK THAT, I THINK THIS IS THE ONE WHERE, UM, SHE WENT ACROSS THE WOMAN'S, IS THAT, WHAT AM I THE RIGHT ONE? YEAH.
THAT, THAT, THAT THAT'S THE, BUT YOU'RE DESCRIBING THE, THE, THE LADY THIS YEAH.
IN, IN THE PROCESS OF, OF DOING THAT, AT FIRST THEY SAW THE YOUNG LADY THAT WAS SUSPECT OF BEING THE, MAYBE THE CLIENT MM-HMM
AND SHE WAS PATTED DOWN WITH A PAD BY A MALE, UH, EXTERNALLY THAT WAS ALL EXTERNAL, BUT YEAH, YOU DIDN'T, AND THE WAY THAT HE WENT ACROSS HER BREAST YEAH.
UM, SO IT WAS, IT, IT WAS, THE BACK OF THE HAND THOUGHT IT WAS MORE, IT WAS THE BACK OF THE HAND, BUT IT WAS STILL OKAY, NOT RIGHT.
UM, AND SO WE, BUT THE MAIN, THE MAIN CLAIM THAT WE HAVE, THE, THAT THE ACCUSED OFFICER WAS ON THE GENTLEMAN, THE, THE GENTLE, YEAH.
ONE SEARCHED THE LADY AND ONE SEARCHED THE MAN.
RIGHT? SO WHEN THE MAN WAS BEING SEARCHED, HE WENT IN THE FRONT OF THE MAN'S PANTS AND WENT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO HIS SCROTUM LOOKING FOR DRUGS.
AND SO I, I THINK WHAT OUR BIG ISSUE WAS WITH BOTH CASES IS THAT THE SEARCHES WERE INTRUSIVE.
THEY WERE OUTSIDE IN THE OPEN, AND YOU LITERALLY TOOK YOUR HANDS AND WENT IN THESE PEOPLE'S CLOTHES.
I MEAN, WENT IN THEIR, NOT EVEN JUST IN THEIR PANTS, THEY WENT IN THE UNDERWEAR AND WE CAN SEE IT, YOU KNOW, ON THE BODY CAMERAS.
AND THAT WAS OUR BIG ISSUE BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, IT DOES BECOME A STRIP SEARCH, BUT THE GENERAL ORDER IS NOT, IT'S BROAD.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE WERE LIKE, YOU KNOW, DOES IT, IS IT REALLY A STRIP SEARCH OR IS IT NOT A STRIP SEARCH? WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WITH THE NAKED EYE SAYS IT'S A STRIP SEARCH, AND THEN YOU DID A STRIP SEARCH OUTSIDE.
BUT IN THE GENERAL ORDER, IT DOES NOT SAY THAT.
THE DEFINITION OF IT'S ALL BOIL DOWN TO DEFINITION OF STRIP SEARCH.
AND WHAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE IS THAT THIS SECOND CASE HAS NOT BEEN, UH, EDUCATED YET.
AND THE ARGUMENT THAT THE, THE, THE, THE OFFICER AND HIS ATTORNEY MAKE CLEARLY, IS THAT WHAT, BY THE DEFINITION OF STRIP SEARCH THERE, THAT IS NOT A STRIP SEARCH, BECAUSE WHERE ARE THEY GETTING NO, BECAUSE IF YOU GO TO, I JUST, I TRY TO READ TO YOU 3 0, 6 POINT 11, A STRIP SEARCH INVOLVES LITERALLY, AND YOU DEFINE IT HAS TO BE DONE IN A CONFINED PACE BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTUALLY TAKING CLOTHES OFF.
AND THE, THE, THE DILEMMA THAT WAS THERE IS THAT, WELL, ONE COULD ARGUE, I THINK MAYBE PERSUASIVELY THAT REGARDLESS OF HOW INTRUSIVE THAT SEARCH WAS, HANDS IN, CLOTHES IN, IN, IN UNDERWEARS CLOTHES WERE NOT REMOVED, ET CETERA.
AND BECAUSE CLOTHES WERE NOT REMOVED AND SO FORTH, IT'S NOT A STRIP SEARCH.
I DON'T NEED TO TO GIVE ANY, UH, ANY PRIOR, UM, OF A OFFICER, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
SO THIS CASE AND THIS OFFICER IS, IS FIGHTING FOR, YOU KNOW, TO THROW THE CASE AWAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT BY DEFINITION NOT, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'LL, THE ORDER FOR US, WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT THESE CASES WERE SOLD INTIMATELY, TIED IN TOGETHER.
WE, WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE THE GENERAL ORDER, SO THAT MEAN IT'S NOT CLEAR ENOUGH WHERE ONE OFFICER COULD SAY, YEAH, MAYBE I DID IT.
AND EVEN THOUGH I WAS, I WASN'T INTENDING, THE OTHER OFFICER SAID, NO, HELL NO.
THAT'S NOT A SEARCH, A STRIP SEARCH INVOLVED THIS.
AND, AND IT COULD BE THAT WHEN IT GOES TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, THEY MAY, THEY COULD SIDE ONE WAY, BUT, UH, WE UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT BASED ON INTRUSIVENESS OF THAT SEARCH, THIS SHOULD BE, UM, IT SHOULD BE SUSTAINED AND MAYBE, UH, UH, OR OUR, OR REPRIMAND BECAUSE THE OFFICERS OF COURSE ARE NOT, ARE VICTIM OR ARE, OR AT THE MERCY OF THIS GENERAL ORDER.
[02:25:01]
IS A PROBLEM.AND THAT'S MAYBE WHY WE MAY HAVE DECIDED, UH, ORAL REPRIMAND ONLY IN INSTEAD OF A WRITTEN REPRIMAND.
BUT FOR BOTH CASES, WE WOULD, WE BELIEVE BOTH OF THESE CASES, THE INTRUSIVE IS SUCH THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS FORCE THE, UH, THE POLICE TO CLARIFY AND MAKE THOSE.
AND I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS SUGGESTED THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A, A VAN IN THAT AREA THAT WHERE YOU COULD, IN A PRIVACY, DO THE, HAVE THE POLICE, THERE ARE ALL REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE GENDER TO GENDER, AND A PERSON'S TRANSGENDER, THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE WHICH ONE HAS TO BE DONE IN A STRIP SEARCH.
NOW, FULL TRIPS HAS TO BE DONE IN PRIVACY CAMERAS WITH EVIDENCE OF WHO'S THERE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF THINGS.
AND OF COURSE, CAVITY SEARCH IS A SLOWLY DIFFERENT THING.
THAT'S ACTUALLY BE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CARE, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN, SOMETHING RIPS AND THIS PERSON GETS, UH, OVERDOSED.
SO CAVITY, IT'S A SEPARATE THING, BUT THEY HAVE STRIPPED SLASH CAVITY IN ONE CATEGORY TO BEGIN WITH.
THAT SEEMS PROBLEMATIC AND ONLY, UM, I JUST, IT JUST MAKES IT HARD FOR THE, FOR THE OFFICERS TO TRY TO COMPLY.
AND THAT'S WHERE, UM, AFTER LOTS OF DELIBERATION, WE CAME TO AGREE THAT, UM, THE UNANIMOUS THAT THEY SHOULD BE FLAGGED AND IT SHOULD BE SUSTAINED.
AND BOTH OFFICERS SHOULD GET, UH, UH, THE SAME THING, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, AND, AND, UH, AND AT LEAST YOU KNOW, THE WRITTEN ORAL REPRIMAND TO, TO SEND A MESSAGE AND THEN RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE, THE, FOR AP, UH, FOR A PD TO ACTUALLY CLARIFY THE GENERAL ORDER.
YEAH, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I READ IN THE, IN THE REPORTS WAS IS THAT, THAT A PD ACADEMY DOES NOT HAVE ANY CLASSES ON STRIP SEARCHES.
UH, THERE IS NO TRAINING INVOLVED IN THIS.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT, UH, THAT SOMEBODY DEVELOPED SOME CURRICULUM FOR TRAINING OFFICERS IN STRIP SEARCHES ON WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO.
SO ARE YOU CONCURRING WITH OPOS RECOMMENDATION OR A LESSER, I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION WAS WRITTEN.
THE RECOMMENDATION WAS WRITTEN.
THERES IS WRITTEN, SUSTAINED, WRITTEN, AND WE ARE SAYING ORAL WRITTEN MOSTLY BECAUSE IN OUR VIEW, THOSE OFFICERS ARE PUT AT A DISADVANTAGE BY HAVING A GENERAL ORDER THAT'S NOT QUITE CLEAR.
BUT WE WERE CONVINCED THAT THOSE SEARCHES WERE CLEARLY BEYOND, BEYOND WHAT A COMMUNITY MEMBER OF OUR MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY SHOULD BE TO BE, UH, YEAH, SU SHOULD HAVE TO TOLERATE.
AND, AND I'M SORRY YOU GUYS MIGHT NOT LIKE WHAT I HAVE TO SAY RIGHT NOW, BUT I HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE THAT ARE SELLING NARCOTICS, AND THE OFFICER HAD, YOU KNOW, PROBABLE CAUSE TO KNOW THAT THERE WAS NARCOTICS THERE, WE'RE GETTING DRUGS OFF THE STREET.
I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR OFFICERS TO TAKE DRUG DEALERS OFF OF OUR STREETS.
AND IF YOU GO INTO ANY OF THE INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS, WE DON'T WANT DRUG DEALERS.
SO SITTING HERE TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR OFFICERS TO DO THEIR JOB IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DO.
WE NEED TO FOCUS ON GETTING DRUGS OFF THE STREETS SO THAT THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM.
ADDITIONALLY, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, YOU'RE TRYING TO GIVE THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT AN AN EXTRA WAY TO THEN GO AND DO THOROUGH SEARCHES.
I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS TOO THOROUGH.
I MEAN, YOU GUYS, I, I'VE GREW UP WITH DRUG DEALERS.
I SEE THIS EVERY DAY, AND YOU'RE SITTING HERE AND YOU'RE DEFENDING OFFICERS PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITY, AND I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
I GUESS THE OPPOSITE QUESTION HAS TO BE ANSWERED.
IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE OR A JUSTIFICATION TO GET A STRIP SEARCH, HOW DO WE DO, HOW DO YOU DO THAT PROPERLY? AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS, AND SORRY, VERY GOOD QUESTIONS.
AND THAT WAS SOMETHING WE WAS DISCUSSED.
AND YOUR POSITION, BY THE WAY, COMMISSIONER PENA WAS WHAT WAS ARGUED BY THE MINORITY, UH, OPINION, UH, EXHAUSTION.
BECAUSE THE, THE CONCERN IS WE DO SOMETHING AND WE DISEN ENABLED, BUT I, AND I, I'LL, I'LL SAY THAT THE, THE REASON WHY WE CAME TO A CONCLUSION WAS ONCE AGAIN, WHEN YOU HAVE TO WEIGH THE, THE, THE, THE SAFETY OF THE, OF THE, THE MAJORITY OF OUR COMMUNITY VERSUS WHAT POLICE CAN DO, WE ERRED AND THINKING THAT, THAT BASICALLY THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE GENERAL ORDER HAS THE CAPABILITY OF SEPARATING THE FRISK FOR WEAPONS, FRISK FOR DRUGS, UH, YOU KNOW, INTRUS SEARCH UNDER CLOSED SURGEON, STRIP SEARCH, AND SO FORTH.
AND THEY DID NOT, AND WE SHOULD PUT THE BURDEN ON THEM TO GO AHEAD AND CLARIFY THAT, BECAUSE WHAT I SAW THERE, I WOULD NOT WANT TO HAPPEN TO MY DAUGHTER OR MY, OR MY SON OR MYSELF
[02:30:01]
OR ANYBODY, BECAUSE THAT IS, AND IT IS, IT'S JUSTONE, ONE EXTRA COMMENT, AND I KNOW COMMISSIONER JOHNSON DIDN'T WANNA MENTION, BUT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A TERM THAT THEY CALL CREDIT WA CREDIT CARD SWEEP FOR TAKING YOUR, YOUR HANDS AND PASSING IT THROUGH THE TWO CHEEKS LIKE A CREDIT CARD, WHICH IS VERY DESCRIPTIVE AND UNDERSTANDABLE, AND I THINK IT'S PRACTICAL, BUT THAT WAS PART OF THE, THE INTRUSIVENESS OF IT.
SO IF, IF THAT IS A STRIP, A STRIP SEARCH, THEN FINE, BUT THE QUESTION IS, THE QUESTION IS, DEFINE STRIP SEARCH FOR US, AND THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHERE WE DELIBERATED.
SO I JUST WANNA CLARIFY ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
RIGHT THEN YOU SAID A MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY AND THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN TO YOUR DAUGHTER OR YOUR NEIGHBOR WAS REALLY SIMPLE.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT A MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY IS A DRUG DEALER.
BUT BASICALLY THE, IF, IF FOR WHETHER ONCE ONE ESTABLISHES, ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE'S A VALID REASON TO STOP SOMEBODY WHERE THE SEARCH GOES, CAN GO WHEREVER THE POLICE WANTS TO.
AND THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ME ON MY WAY HOME, ACTUALLY.
AND IT WAS ONE OF THE POINTS THAT THEY, THE MAJORITY BROUGHT OUT.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT OUR JOB IS, IS TO TRY TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY.
AND IF THAT ENTAILS SOMETIMES MAKING THE POLICE HAVE TO DEFINE THEIR SEARCHES, THAT'S PROBABLY, THAT'S A GOOD ROLE.
IF WE SACRIFICE THE SAFETY OF ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT GOT SEARCHED LIKE THAT INNOCENTLY, BY THE WAY, ONE THING THAT WE FORGOT TO MENTION IS, IN THE CASE OF A SECOND INDIVIDUAL, NOTHING WAS FOUND.
THIS PERSON, BY THE WAY, IT WAS ATTENTION.
THEY DETAINED HIM AND DID ALL THAT, AND THEN HE WAS RE THEY WERE BOTH RELEASED BECAUSE NOTHING WAS FOUND.
SO I, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, BEG TO, TO SAY THAT THAT IS, IF THAT'S THE CASE THAT'S HAPPENING CONSTANTLY, LET'S CLEARLY DEFINE, LET'S EMPOWER THE POLICE TO DO THINGS.
LET'S MAYBE A BIT ON OUR WAY OF SAYING THIS, GIVE THEM THE POWER TO DO THINGS, BUT CERTAIN GUIDELINES, AND THAT MAY BE THE ROLE THAT WE SEE OF OUR COMMISSION, AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE SAYING IS TO MAKE THE GENERAL ORDER.
ALL WE'RE SAYING IS TO MAKE THE GENERAL ORDER EXPLANATORY.
WHERE, I MEAN, I GREW UP WITH DRUG DEALERS.
I DON'T WANT DRUGS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THEY'RE THERE.
WHEREVER THEY'RE ALL OVER, WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
IF THEY GET TAKEN OFF THE STREETS, THEY GET TAKEN OFF THE STREETS.
ALL WE WANT IS FOR THE GENERAL ORDER TO BE EXPLAINED WHAT IS CONSIDERED A STRIP SEARCH, WHAT IS CONSIDERED A CAVITY SEARCH? WHAT'S CONSIDERED A FRISK SEARCH? JUST EXPLAIN IT.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THOUGH, IF WE, IF WE SPECIFY THAT AND WE WRITE IT DOWN, THAT CRIMINALS ARE GONNA GO LOOK AT THE POLICY AND DETERMINE, OH, IF I DO THIS, I CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.
AND SO THEN, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST GONNA, YOU'RE JUST ENABLING CRIMINALITY.
I WANNA, I WANNA PUT, MAY I, MAY I ADDRESS COMMISSIONER PENA COMMENTS, UH, THE SMALL AMOUNT OF DRUGS THAT WERE FOUND ON, YOU SAID IT WAS 3.5 GRAMS. YEAH, THAT'S NOT A SMALL AMOUNT, ESPECIALLY IN CRACK COCAINE.
THAT'S, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT.
THEY'RE PROBABLY DISTRIBUTING THE, THE SMALL AMOUNT THAT YOU COULD PUT BETWEEN YOUR BUTT CHEEKS IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEM.
IT'S A MEDICAL PROBLEM, NOT A CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUE.
WE DON'T NEED TO BE THROWING THESE PEOPLE IN JAIL WHERE THEY'RE JUST GONNA LEARN TO GET WORSE.
I THINK FOR OUR PURPOSES, IT'S, IT'S GOING TO BE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, UH, WHAT IS, I DON'T THINK WE'RE SAYING OUTRIGHT BAN ON STRIP SEARCHES.
THERE MAY BE SOME SITUATIONS WHERE OFFICERS HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE THEY'VE SEEN BULGES OR WHATEVER.
I GUESS WE'RE JUST ASKING A PD TO CREATE A POLICY TO WHERE PEOPLE'S DIGNITY IS PROTECTED.
BUT IF THERE'S, UH, A VALID REASON TO DO A STRIP SEARCH, IT'S DONE IN A WAY THAT IS AS PROTECTIVE OF DIGNITY AS POSSIBLE, I GUESS, IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
WHAT, WHAT I UNDERSTOOD WAS IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A WAY OUT OPTION BETWEEN THE WEIGHT OF GRAMS OR THE TYPE OF NARCOTICS VERSUS HAVING THE DUE PROCESS VERSUS HAVING THOSE LAWS THAT SAYS, HEY, THERE'S A PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO FOLLOW.
AND IT JUST TURNS OUT THAT THE SUPERVISOR WASN'T INFORMED.
THERE WAS THE, THE PROCESS WAS NOT FOLLOWED.
SO I THINK OFFICER COMMISSIONER PENA THINKS FOR SOMEONE THAT VALUES THOSE LAWS, I THINK THERE IS WHERE WE CAN FIND THAT COMMON, COMMON GROUND WHERE THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ADD ON, AND NOT FOR CRIMINALS OR ANYONE CARRYING NARCOTICS TO FIND A LOOPHOLE, BUT SAY, HEY, THERE'S STILL A PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED BY A PD TO GET THESE SUBSTANCES OFF THE STREETS.
AND I, AND I JUST WANTED TO, TO SAY A LITTLE THING, COMMENT
[02:35:01]
ON AND PREFACE YOU USED A LITTLE BIT MORE EARLIER ABOUT YOU'RE NOT GONNA LIKE WHAT YOU SAY.I THINK THAT WE NEED VOICES LIKE YOURS AND I, I DON'T, DON'T, PLEASE DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU, BECAUSE OTHERS I APPRECIATE, MAY NOT AGREE THAT I APPRECIATE.
IT'S, UH, I THINK THIS IS, UH, IT IS VERY MUCH THE CASE THAT WE HAVE TO BE LOOKING AFTER THE POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SO FORTH TOO.
SO I, I DON'T, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT NO.
ANYBODY HERE YOU HAD COMMISSION ME GET THE DRUG DEALERS OFF THE STREET
SO, UM, BUT ON DRUGS, SO ON THESE TWO CASES, I THINK I GOT PEOPLE WHO CAN FIX IT.
THE, THE, I HOPE THE, THE COMMISSION HAS GOTTEN A GOOD PICTURE ON THE REASON AND THE, THE WHAT, WHAT WE, WHAT THE GROUP SEESAW HERE AND, UH, AND WHY WE WANT TO RECOMMEND ON BOTH THESE TWO CASES, SUSTAIN FOR SURE.
AND I THINK WE SAID ORAL, WE LORD IT TO ORAL BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THESE POOR COPS, THESE POOR POLICEMEN ARE AT DISADVANTAGE OF HAVING A, A ORDER THAT'S NOT CLEAR.
AND WE COULD SEE HOW THEY COULD BE, COULD HAVE BEEN.
IS THAT CORRECT? WE ALSO NEED TO ADD TO OUR RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN I'LL REWRITE A 3, 6, 11 OF THE WHOLE 3 0 6, BECAUSE I BELIEVE, BY THE WAY, IT'S, WE WILL DO A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE THE FRISK PAT DOWN IS FOR WEAPONS.
AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A, THAT'S LIMITING TOO.
SO MAYBE SPECIFY, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR DRUGS AND IF THERE'S A COMPROMISE, THEY CAN FALL IN BETWEEN, THAT'S FINE.
BUT YOU CAN'T LEAVE THIS 3 0 6 POINT 11 SO UNSPECIFIED, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE BY THE WAY, THE, THE, THE A STRIP SEARCH IS NOT DEFINED.
IT JUST SAYS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IF YOU DO ONE THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S PROBLEMATIC IN THE LANGUAGE TOO.
SO UNLESS THERE'S ANY MORE DISCUSSIONS, CAN WE VOTE THOSE THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF, I GUESS I'LL START THIS SINCE I, I'M GONNA SAY BOTH CASE 20, 26, 0 0 3, 6 3, I'M DO ONE BY ONE.
WE, UH, RECOMMEND THAT IT'S SUSTAINED WITH AN ORAL REPRIMAND.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF GOING ALONG WITH THE, UH, GROUP, WORKING GROUP, UH, C'S RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
SO I THINK WE HAVE, OKAY, MANY.
OH, NO, YOU CLAR CLARIFY THE RECOMMENDATION.
IT WAS THE, THIS SUSTAINED, RIGHT? IT WAS SUSTAINED.
WHICH YOU, OKAY, THAT'S ALL WE'RE VOTING ON RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? WE'RE SUSTAINED AND ORAL REPRIMAND, AND WE, THE VOTE IS, WE ARE VOTING TO SUSTAIN A ORAL REPRIMAND AND RE AND REQUEST TO REWRITE THE ORDINANCE.
THE, THE, THE GENERAL ORDER ON THAT THING.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMISSION, THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION OF GROUP C IS PUT FORWARD CLEAR.
SO THAT CLARIFIED THOSE IN FAVOR OF GOING ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF WORKING GROUP C.
SO WE HAVE, UM, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, THOSE AGAINST IT.
ONE, OR, SORRY, IT'S NOT THAT I'M FULLY AGAINST IT.
YOU'RE ASKING ME TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN THE LANGUAGE TO.
SO THAT'S OR, OR THE, SORRY, I ONCE AGAIN, I'M SORRY.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF FOLLOWING WORKING GROUP C, RECOMMENDATION TO SUSTAIN WITH AN ORAL REPRIMAND.
AND, UH, A RECOMMENDATION TO, TO, TO CLARIFY THE 3 0 6, UH, SEARCH AND, AND, UH, CLAR, UH, CODE IN A GENERAL ORDER, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
SO IT'S 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, THOSE AGAINST, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
MR. ALVAREZ, I THINK WE GOT IT.
NOW, SIMILAR FOR CASE 20 25, 26 63, WHICH ONCE AGAIN, THE COMMISSION, UH, RECOMMENDED TO SUSTAIN WITH AN ORAL REPRIMAND AND REWRITING STRONG REWRITTEN OF THE GENERAL ORDER.
PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU AGREE.
1, 2, 7, UH, AGAINST, OKAY, SO, UH, AND THEN ABSTAIN TO ABSTAIN.
SO, AND CHAIR AGREES, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IT'S, UM, 0 0 6 3 6 THAT IS STILL, UH, CORRECT, HASN'T GONE TO THE CHAIN.
AND SO WE ARE SAYING, UH, SUSTAIN, AND I THINK THEY HAD WRITTEN, WE WERE SAYING WE'RE GONNA RECOMMEND ORAL AND WE'RE GONNA RECOMMEND THE CHANGE THAT, THAT, UH, GENERAL ORDER NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED.
RIGHT? BUT IT'S THE ONE CASE THAT HASN'T BEEN EXONERATED, CORRECT? I MEAN, THAT HASN'T BEEN ADJUDICATED, CORRECT.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE YOU AWARE.
[02:40:01]
CASE THAT HASN'T BEEN COMPLETED YET, AND YOU ARE ASKING FOR LESS OF, I GUESS, A PUNISHMENT THAN WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING, BUT THEN YOU'RE ALSO REALLY ANGRY ABOUT IT, AND THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.BUT I, LIKE I SAID, I, WE, WE, WELL, WHY NOT? WHY NOT DO IT AS HARSHLY AS THEY SAID? I THINK I WOULD BE MORE IN FAVOR TO AGREE WITH IT IF YOU MADE IT A WRITTEN REPRIMAND.
YEAH, I THINK VERSUS ORAL, I COULD CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE THE WORKING GROUP, SORRY, CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE UNCLEAR LANGUAGE IN THERE ON THE GENERAL ORDER, IT'S SUCH THAT IT, IT IT'S PROBABLY, IT'S CONDUCIVE THOUGH IT'S UNFAIR TO POLICE OFFICERS AND THAT WE BELIEVE THAT GENDER GENERAL ORDER NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED AND THAT CL THAT LACK OF THAT FUZZINESS IS WHAT CAUSED SOME ISSUES.
AND THAT'S WHY WE RECOMMEND ONLY AN ORAL.
THAT WAS WHY WE RECOMMEND ORAL OR REPRIMAND.
AND, AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, AS SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T INITIALLY REVIEW THE CASE AND JUST KIND OF READ SOME OF THE SUMMARIES AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, WHAT I UNDERSTOOD WAS LIKE, YES, IT HAPPENED, BUT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE EXAMPLES OUT OF AN OFFICER WHO DIDN'T HAVE THE SUFFICIENT TRAINING TO, TO GO THROUGH THIS SEARCH PROCESS.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHY, THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY TOOK IT A STEP LOWER, LIKE JUST AN ORAL REPRIMAND.
BUT WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THE GENERAL ORDERS SO THAT IT ENSURE WE GET SOME TRAINING SO THAT IN THE FUTURE THAT'S NOT A REOCCURRING ISSUE.
SO CAN I MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT? SORRY.
I JUST FEEL LIKE THE THING IS, IS IF YOU DO MAKE EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE, IT DE TEARS OTHER PEOPLE FROM MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE.
UM, WE, WE GOT YOUR STATEMENT.
AND, UH, WE ALREADY RULE ON IT, SO WE'LL, WE'LL MOVE ON.
[17. Summary, deliberation, and action regarding a recommendation from Commissioner Review Working Group C for Case 2025-00965.]
THERE IS A REPORT RECOMMENDATION WORKING GROUP C ON CASE 0 0 9 6, UM, FIVE.DO YOU WANT ME TO DO THIS ONE TOO? I CAN
UH, UH, THIS CASE INVOLVED A TRAFFIC STOP, UM, WHERE THE SUSPECT WAS ORDERED OUT OF THE CAR, TURNED OUT THE SUSPECT HAD A GUN ON HIM AND HE BROKE FREE.
THE OFFICERS STARTED RUNNING AWAY FROM THE OFFICERS, TURNED AROUND AND APPARENTLY POINTED THE GUN AT THE OFFICERS.
AND THE OFFICERS INVOLVED OPEN FIRE ON THE SUSPECT.
UM, WE THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD SHOOTING.
BUT JUSTIFYING SAY THAT I'M, I'M SORRY FOR MY CHOICE OF LANGUAGE, BUT THE SHOOTING WAS JUSTIFIED.
UM, AND UH, IN A SIDE NOTE, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE REVIEWING THIS BECAUSE IS PART OF THE CASE FILE, I SAW A RETURN TO WORK FOR BOTH OFFICERS INVOLVED A YEAR AGO.
SO WHY ARE WE EVEN REVIEWING THIS? AND, AND THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT THE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON HAD, IS THAT IT SEEMED THAT BEFORE IT WAS RESOLVED THAT OFFICERS WERE ALLOWED BACK IN.
AND I THINK WE WERE DISCUSSING, I KNOW THAT ON ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, THAT SOMETIMES THEY CAN BE ALLOWED FOR DOING ONLY ADMINISTRATIVE WORK AND SO FORTH.
IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE THE CASE, CAN YOU CLARIFY MAYBE HOW, HOW THAT WORKS OUT? 'CAUSE I THINK HER IMPRESSION WAS BEFORE IT WAS EVEN RESOLVED, THIS GUY WAS BACK ON THE STREET.
AND ONE OF, IN THE, IN THE CASE FILE, ONE OF 'EM HAS ALREADY GIVEN, HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN ALL OF HIS EQUIPMENT BACK AND THE OTHER OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN HIS WEAPON BACK.
BUT THEY'RE BOTH BACK TO WORK OR LIKE OVER A YEAR BACK FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME A YEAR.
YEAH, IT ABOUT A YEAR WAS WAS THE SUSPECT KILLED? NO.
HE SURVIVED, HE WAS GIVEN CARE AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING.
THE, THEY WERE TAKEN BEFORE THE, THE TRAVIS COUNTY GRAND JURY.
THAT'S ANOTHER, SO, YOU KNOW, THE, AND THAT HAPPENED BACK IN, I BELIEVE APRIL.
UM, SO YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION IS WHY ARE WE EVEN REVIEWING THIS CASE WHEN IT'S ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED? WELL, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR TIME IS VALUABLE.
YOU KNOW, WHY DO WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE'RE DOING THIS AS LIKE A TRAINING EXERCISE OR SOMETHING, BUT, YOU KNOW, WHY ARE WE EVEN LOOKING AT THIS? YEAH.
AND, AND, AND ONCE AGAIN, YOU COULD LOOK ON THIS DIRECTION BECAUSE IT, IT WAS, IT WAS THE SIDE THAT WE WILL START LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE CASES.
REMEMBER WE DON'T KNOW WHEN WE SEE THIS UNLESS I REVIEW, WE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW ALL THE DETAILS OF IT.
WITH THE AIM OF GETTING EV GETTING THE COMMISSION TO BE EXPERIENCED AND WORKING THROUGH THESE CASES.
[02:45:02]
AND ALSO HOPEFULLY GIVING THE POLICE CHIEF A HEADS UP ON HOW WE ARE GONNA BE LOOKING AT THE KIND OF THINGS.WE ARE GONNA BE LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE CASES TOO.
SO SHE LEARNED THAT SHE CAN UNDERSTAND AND MAYBE PREPARE AND ALSO THE POLICE OFFICERS KNOWING THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S A GROUP OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO ARE REVIEWING YOUR INTERVIEWS, YOUR, THE, THE WAY IT'S CONDUCTED, YOUR BEHAVIOR, EVERYTHING.
AND THEY MAY BE MAY INCLINED TO KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, HOW DRASTICALLY YOU, YOU LOOKED AT A SEARCH VERSUS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT IT, HAVING THAT INFORMATION AHEAD MAY BE VALUABLE TO THE POLICE CHIEF.
WE'RE HOPING, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'RE AIMING TO START REVIEWING THINGS AHEAD OF THE FINAL DECISION BY THE CHIEF.
THAT'S THE, THE, THE, THE GOAL.
I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE MAKING SOME PROGRESS TOWARDS THAT.
UM, I THINK WHAT WAS MISSING HERE IS THAT WE, UM, I THINK IT WAS EXONERATED IS WHAT WE WOULD'VE SAID BECAUSE IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS JUSTIFIED, UM, UM, USE OF OF FORCE.
AND IN MY NOTES, I'M TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT'S SIGNIFICANT.
UM, THERE WERE NO, YEAH, I, WE TEND TO GO AND LOOK AND SEE, WAS THERE ANY OTHER THING, ANY OTHER CHARGE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED AND WE THOUGHT NO, THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS, UH, UNBIASED AND, UM, CORRECT.
THESE GUYS SHOULD BE ACCELERATED.
SO I'D LIKE TO ASK THOSE THAT WANT TO GO, UH, AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF WORKING GROUP C ON CASE 20 26, 0 0 9 6 5.
WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION? THE RECOMMENDATION? EXONERATED EX.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE DECISION.
CAN I MAKE A, ARE WE DUE WITH THE CASES? THERE'S ONE MORE CASE.
I KNOW WE, AND, AND, UH, IT WAS, THIS WAS, HUH? WHAT WAS THE LAST ONE? THAT WAS THE LAST ONE FOR CROSS A, B, AND C, BUT THERE IS
[18. Summary, deliberation, and action regarding a recommendation from the Commissioner Review Working Group for Case 2025-1411.]
A CASE 25 20 25.ONE ONE THAT WAS REVIEWED BY COMMISSIONER GRAVES, UM, FRANCO AND, AND FLOOD WITH THE INTENTION OF GIVING COMMISSIONERS FRANCO AND FLOOD, WHO ARE, ARE TRIAGING THINGS, SOME EXPERIENCE AND SOME UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS REVIEW INVOLVES.
AND SO THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS AND WANTED CHANCE, CHANCE TO, TO HAVE THEM, UH, GO TO THE FLOW WITH ME.
AND SO, UM, UM, SO WE UNFORTUNATELY, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCO AND I DID GET TOGETHER AND WENT LAST NIGHT AND WENT TO THE CASE IN, IN, IN DETAIL AND WE HAD SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AND SO FORTH WITH THE CASE.
AND SO I THINK, BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER FLOOD DOES NOT JOIN US AND SO I AM NOT SURE IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR US TO, TO, TO GIVE YOU GUYS WHAT WE CONCLUDED, UH, BECAUSE IN ANY CASE THERE'S A MAJORITY BECAUSE WE DID AGREE, BUT THERE'S A MAJORITY BUT NOT A UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT IN THE, IN THE, IN THE WORK, IN THE, IN THE GROUP.
I THINK WE DISCUSSED THAT IN THE PAST AND EVERYBODY VOTED THAT THEY WEREN'T GONNA DO THAT.
'CAUSE I, I BROUGHT THAT UP A COUPLE TIMES.
SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE NOT READY TO PRESENT BECAUSE NOT THREE OF US HAVE PERFECT.
SO, UM, OKAY, NOW WE GO TO WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS, WORKING GROUP UPDATE AS FAR AS THIS ITEM 20 CHAIR.
OH, I WANTED TO SAY BEFORE WE MOVE FROM THE CASE REVIEW, I WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENT.
YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL, BUT I'LL REFER TO COMMISSIONER FIRST.
AGAIN, I THINK THE WORKING GROUP PROCESS OF REVIEWING THE CASES, TRIAGING THEM, ASSIGNING THEM TO DIFFERENT WORKING GROUPS, I THINK THAT'S WORKING VERY WELL.
I THINK WE'RE REALLY SMOOTHING THINGS OUT.
WE WILL, THIS PROCESS WILL LEAD US TO THE GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO REVIEW CASES BEFORE THE CHIEF MAKES, UH, THEIR RECOMME THEIR DECISION.
AND IN LINE WITH THAT, UH, I, I THINK I NEED YOU GUYS TO KEEP IN MIND ITEM NUMBER 22 AND NUMBER 27 ARE STILL ACTIVE CASES WHERE THE CHIEF HAS NOT MADE A RECOMMENDATION.
WE TRY TO BE REAL GOOD AT COMMUNICATING TO A PD AND REAL TIME, JUST LIKE WE COMMUNICATE TO YOU GUYS IN REAL TIME.
AND SO WHEN I SEND A NOTIFICATION TO 'EM, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED, OR THEY MAY BE REVIEWING THIS, AND THEY SAY, OKAY, SO WE HEAR THE RECOMMENDATION ON TWO ACTIVE ITEMS, 22 AND 27, WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT FROM THEM? I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
CAN YOU GUYS GIVE THAT SOME THOUGHT IF, BECAUSE I SUSPECT EITHER COMMANDER BERGESON OR THE CHIEF'S GONNA SAY, OKAY, WE SEE THE RECOMMENDATION OR HEAR THE CPRC MADE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THESE ACTIVE CASES.
WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT? SHOULD WE EXPECT AN EMAIL, A MEMO? HOW ARE THEY GONNA NOTIFY US OFFICIALLY? KEVIN, IS THIS THE OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION?
[02:50:01]
YEAH, I JUST NEED TO KNOW HOW TO REACT TO THAT QUESTION.AND MY, I I THINK WE, WELL, THIS IS A GOOD TIME.
WE, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO TELL THE COMMISSION IS EVERY WORK, THE WORKING GROUP, YOU SHOULD BEST PRACTICE SHOULD BE THAT WHEN GOING FORWARD, YOU COME PRESENT TO THIS MEETING WITH A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION.
SO IT CAN ALWAYS BE AMENDED THE, UH, RIGHT THERE SO THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE MEETING IS OVER, WE CAN GIVE THIS DOCUMENT A DOCUMENT, RECOMMENDATION DOCUMENT TO THE STAFF LIAISON, AND HE CAN QUICKLY, UH, PASS IT TO THE POLICE CHIEF AND YOU GUYS, UH, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
AND IT, I WILL ASK YOU, AND THIS, THESE TWO CASES, SO WORKING GROUP C AND WORKING GROUP A, THAT WE HAVE THESE CASES, PLEASE DRAFT THOSE THIS WEEKEND IF POSSIBLE, MAYBE BY MONDAY TRY TO HAVE YOUR RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF, OF, UH, THE STAFF LIAISON SO WE CAN PASS IT TO THE POLICE CHIEF.
AND WE HAVE A CHANCE THAT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, WILL SHE GET THEM BEFORE, BEFORE, UH, SHE MAKES HERS? I I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT.
UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PREVIOUS, UH, CPRC GROUP, UH, THEY GAVE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAD, THAT THEY HAD FORMED SOME, LIKE A TEMPLATE OF SORTS.
UM, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN THE PAST.
AND I, I BELIEVE YOU DID MENTION THAT IT WAS SENT TO US PROBABLY SOME TIME LAST YEAR.
UM, COULD WE GET THAT AGAIN? THANK YOU.
SO TO CLOSE THE LOOP, IF I MAY ASK, I WILL, I WILL LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU WILL BE RECEIVING A MEMO FROM THE CPRC WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATION IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.
AND WE WILL DO IT LIKE GIVE IT TO THE STAFF LIAISON.
WE ALL HERE PASS THE STAFF LIAISON AND, AND SO FORTH.
YOU WILL GET FROM, FROM RECOMMENDATION, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM GROUP C.
I WILL DRAFT THAT THIS WEEKEND AND YOU WILL GET IT BECAUSE YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT IT IS.
SO WE WANNA MAKE, WHAT WE WANNA MAKE SURE IS THAT THEY GET IT, SHE GETS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
YOU ALREADY KNOW WHAT WE DECIDED.
I WOULD RECOMMEND ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT GO TO THE CHIEF FROM THE CPRC, BEAR YOUR SIGNATURE AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE, OF THE COMMISSION.
OKAY? SO, SO YOU, YOU, YOU WANT GROUP WORKING.
GROUP A WILL HAVE THEIRS DRAFTED AND YOU WANT ME TO HAVE THE, THE NO, IT SHOULD BE YOUR SIGNATURE.
I MEAN, IT, IT COULD BE A FORM.
WHATEVER YOU DO, THEY CAN DRAFT A LETTER ON YOUR BEHALF.
BUT I THINK ANYTHING YOU'VE, THIS COMMISSION SENDS TO THE CHIEF OR ANYONE ELSE, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY BEAR YOUR SIGNATURE AS THE CHAIR.
BECAUSE THAT'S, I DIDN'T WANT LUKE THAT I WAS HOPING NOT TO.
THAT'S JUST MY RECOMMENDATION GUYS.
MORE WORK FOR THE CHAIR, MORE WORK FOR THE CHAIR.
I THINK BASICALLY THE VICE CHAIR COULD ALSO BE, WE'LL LET 'EM KNOW.
THEY, THEY, THEY'RE DEFINITELY GONNA GET A MEMO.
WE, WE'LL DEFINITELY HAVE THEM.
SO, AND, AND CHAIR, I, I THINK ON TUESDAY WE SENT YOU SOME SAMPLES OF RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, THAT CAN BE, WE USED THOSE DISTRIBUTED.
YOU MAY HAVE GOTTEN THAT ALREADY.
OKAY, SO NOW, SO RYAN, COULD YOU PLEASE, I MEAN, COULD YOU SEND THAT TO THE WHOLE THING IN, IN GENERAL, I, LIKE I SAY, THE, THE PROCESS I LIKE TO FOLLOW IS JUST LIKE WHAT WE DO WITH LEGAL.
ANY ONE OF US SENDS A QUESTION TO LEGAL, WHAT WE, WHAT WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IS THEY SEND BACK THE RECOMMENDATION, THE, THE, THE ANSWER TO EVERYBODY, TO EVERYBODY IN THE COMMISSION.
SO SOMETIMES THERE'LL BE A QUESTION YOU WEREN'T ASKING, BUT YOU SEE A QUESTION THAT MEANS SOMEBODY, THERE IS NOT ALWAYS THE CHAIR.
OFTENTIMES IT'S NOT THE CHAIR, IT'S SOMEBODY ELSE IN THE GROUP.
AND SO SIMILARLY, SOMETHING LIKE THIS, MAYBE JUST SEND IT TO EVERYBODY.
SO EVERY COMMISSIONER WILL HAVE THAT BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE DRAFTED.
I WANT, IT'S NICE IF IT'S ALREADY PRE-DRAFT, EVEN IF I HAVE TO SIGN IT AFTER SOME OF US, ENGLISH IS NOT OUR FIRST LANGUAGE.
AND SO WRITING IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COMES EASILY.
SO I, I'D APPRECIATE IF IT'S PRE DRAFTED
[20. Update from the CPRC Year in Review Working Group regarding preparation of the Commission's Year in Review report.]
UPDATE.ITEM NUMBER 20, UPDATE FOR THE CPRC YEAR IN REVIEW WORKING GROUP REGARDING PREPARATION FOR THE COMMISSION'S YEAR IN REVIEW REPORT.
I, I AM IMPLORING YOU TO, UM, GIVE US YOUR INPUT THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER INPUT FORM.
UH, LAST I CHECKED, WE ONLY HAVE THREE.
UM, BUT IF WE DON'T GET ANYMORE, WE'LL, WE'LL CONTINUE TO GO FORWARD.
UH, THE WORKING GROUP WILL MEET SOMETIME AROUND AUGUST 27TH TO REVIEW THESE FORMS AND START DRAFTING DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE, OF THE PLAN.
[02:55:02]
WE WILL, UH, DID I, DID I SEND A REQUEST TO OPO FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION TO GO INTO THE ANNUAL REPORT? OKAY, I'LL SEND THAT.WE WANT, WE WANT TO KNOW THINGS LIKE FROM OPO, THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS WE'VE HAD, THE NUMBER OF CASES WE'VE REVIEWED, THE ACTIONS WE'VE TAKEN, PLUS PUBLIC TESTIMONY HAS BEEN RECEIVED.
UH, WE'D LIKE TO GET THAT INFORMATION FROM OPO, SO I'LL SEND THAT REQUEST, BUT PLEASE, UH, SUBMIT YOUR, UM, COMMISSIONER INPUT FORM.
[21. Report of recommendation by Commissioner Review Working Group A for Case 2026-01018.]
SO, UM, LET'S GO NOW.THE NEXT WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION, WHAT WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH IN EACH ONE OF THE WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION, THE CASES, JUST PLEASE, I AND, AND RYAN CORRECT ME IF NOT, WHAT WE'LL DO IS STATE THE CASE AND SUMMARIZE STATE THE CASE, THE WORKING, THE WORKING GROUP, A COMPOSITION AND HOW YOU, WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS.
THAT THAT'S WHAT WE GO THROUGH.
SO, UH, I JUST NEED A REPRESENT A REPRESENTATIVE OF EACH WORKING GROUP TO JUST OFFICIALLY, UH, DO THAT.
SO WE'RE STARTING WITH ITEM 21, RECOMMENDATION WORKING GROUP A DID 20 26, 0 1 0 1 8.
AND OH, AND IT WAS, UH, PETER PENA AND DE PASS.
THE RECOMMENDATION WAS, UH, FOR OFFICER ONE, WRITTEN REPRIMAND OFFICER TWO, THREE DAY SUSPENSION PENDING PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION, AND A MANDATORY DRUG AND ALCOHOL CLASS.
[22. Report of recommendation by Commissioner Review Working Group A for Case 2026-00277.]
FOR FROM WORKING GROUP A AND CASE 2 0 2 6 0 0 2 7 7.SO SUSTAINED WRITTEN REPRIMAND.
'CAUSE THERE HASN'T BEEN A DETERMINATION.
WHEN YOU I'M MAKING THE, I YEAH, SO WHEN YOU, OKAY, COOL.
YEAH, YOU'RE, YOU, YOU ARE MAKING ME SUSTAINED.
[23. Report of recommendation by Commissioner Review Working Group A for Case 2025-2324.]
WORKING GROUP A CASE 2 0 2 5 23 24.AND THEY, THE, UH, THE PENALTY IS THE SAME.
WHAT'S THE DISCIPLINE? LIKE THE SAME, LIKE WHATEVER YOU HAD.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THAT IS.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE SUSTAINED.
SO YEAH, SUSTAINED OR EXONERATE IS THE DISPOSITION.
AND THEN THE LEVEL OF DISCIPLINE IS EITHER OH, OKAY.
ORAL WRITTEN, UM, SUSPENSION, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
SO WHEN YOU AGREE, YOU CAN SAY SUSTAINED.
I DON'T THINK IT WAS ANYTHING.
DID THEY, DID THEY, THEY MUST, IF THEY SUSTAINED IT, THEY WOULD'VE HAD A, YOU GUYS CAN YOU, IT'S CONFUSING.
BUT IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO TELL US WHAT THE DISPOSITION OF 20 25 2 3.
TWO FOUR WAS? OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS EX EX.
THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS EXONERATE.
SO WHEN I SAY SUSTAIN, I MEAN WHAT THEY, I MEANT WHAT THEY OH, SO EXONERATE? NO.
YOU CONCUR WITH THEY, YOU CONCUR WITH THEIR PLAN.
SO, SO YOU RECOMMEND EXONERATION.
I THINK, UM, MR. MASTERS SENT A, A PORTION OF A GENERAL ORDER.
SO TELLING THE EXECUTIVE DIS AND DISCIPLINE, SO MAY TRY TO, TRY TO SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE BECAUSE PARDON? MAKE IT EASIER.
SO I'LL DO THE SAME THING WITH WORKING GROUP B.
I'M READY IN CASE 0 1, 1 20, 26, 0 1, 1, 2, 5, 0, 1, 1, 2, 5.
WE SUSTAINED ORAL, ORAL REPRIMAND OR REPRIMAND.
BUT WE WERE GONNA LOOK AT IT AGAIN AND SEE IF MAYBE THERE WAS OTHER THINGS RELATED TO, UH, I I'M, I I'M SORRY.
[24. Report of recommendation by Commissioner Review Working Group B for Case 2026-00555.]
SHOULD HAVE GONE AND STARTED.EXONERATED AND RECOMMEND ACCOMMODATION FOR THAT.
[25. Report of recommendation by Commissioner Review Working Group B for Case 2026-01125.]
GROUP B CASE 22 6 0 1 1 2 5.OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS GONNA BE SUSTAINED.
[26. Report of recommendation by Commissioner Review Working Group B for Case 2025-01175.]
GROUP B ALSO 20, 25 0 1, 1 7 5.[27. Report of recommendation by Commissioner Review Working Group C for Case 2026-00636.]
[03:00:01]
C 20 26, 0, 0 6.THREE SIX WE SAID SUSTAIN WITH ORAL RECOMMEND.
YEAH, WITH ORAL REPRIMAND FOR CASE
[28. Report of recommendation by Commissioner Review Working Group C for Case 2025-2663.]
20, 25, 20, 26, 22, 6, 6 3 WAS ALSO SUSTAINED WITH ORAL REPRIMAND.[29. Report of recommendation by Commissioner Review Working Group C for Case 2025-00965.]
CASE 20, 25, 0 0 9, 6 5, WE SAID EXONERATE.[30. Report of recommendation by the Commissioner Review Working Group for Case 2025-1411.]
WE SAID TABLED BECAUSE YES.'CAUSE WE, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE THIRD PERSON.
WILL THAT, WOULD THAT IN MIND? I'D LIKE TO LIST 6 49 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. OH YEAH, I'M SO IN A HURRY TO GET, SORRY.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AGENDA ITEMS. MM-HMMI WANNA INCLUDE A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REGARDING THE 3 1 1 NON-EMERGENCY POLICE REPORT FUNCTION, UH, THAT THEY HAVE.
IT'S A, OH, UM, FOR A DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM FOR THE FUTURE.
I WILL, UM, MENTION THAT, UM, CASES 20 26 0 1 1 2 5 FROM WORKING GROUP B THAT WAS TABLED.
IT'D BE NICE IF YOU GUYS CAN ADDRESS THAT NEXT TIME.
YEAH, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
AND, AND IN CASE 20 25, 14 11 FRANCO GRAVES AND, AND FLOOD, IF WE CAN TABLE THAT, WE TABLE THAT, WE'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT NEXT TIME.
WELL, I'D LIKE TO REMIND YOU GUYS ALSO A WEEK BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING IS WHEN OUR, MY, MY AGENDA IS DUE TO THE, TO THE, TO THE A PO, TO THE STAFF LIAISON.
IF YOU CAN GET ANYTHING TO ME BEFORE WITH A SECOND, THAT WILL APPRECIATE IT.
YOU KNOW, I'VE NOT BEEN GETTING ANY, BUT THAT'S FINE.
BUT THEN DON'T COMPLAIN THAT THE CHAIR IS RUNNING THINGS THE WAY HE WANTS.
OKAY, WITH THAT IN MIND, IT'S 6 51 20, AUGUST 21ST WE CALL, UH, I WANT TO CALL THIS MEETING.