Agreed Temporary Suspension of Police Sergeant Scott Gunter

OF
Received By Civil Service
on 09/05/24 @ 2:00 pm by MT
MEMORANDUM
Austin Police Department
Office of the Chief of Police
TO:
Susan Sinz, Director of Civil Service
FROM:
Robin J. Henderson, Interim Chief of Police
DATE:
September 4, 2024
SUBJECT:
Agreed Temporary Suspension of Police Sergeant Scott Gunter #8062
Internal Affairs Control Number 2024-0348 and 2024-0604
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code, Section
143.052, and Rule 10, Rules of Procedure for the Firefighters', Police Officers' and
Emergency Medical Service Personnel's Civil Service Commission, I have temporarily
suspended Police Sergeant Scott Gunter #8062 from duty as a City of Austin, Texas police
officer for a period of thirty-five (35) days. The agreed suspension is effective beginning
on September 5, 2024, and continuing through October 9, 2024.
I took this action because Sergeant Gunter violated Civil Service Commission Rule 10.03,
which sets forth the grounds for disciplinary suspensions of employees in the classified
service, and states:
No employee of the classified service of the City of Austin shall engage in,
or be involved in, any of the following acts or conduct, and the same shall
constitute cause for suspension of an employee from the classified service
of the City:
Violation of any of the rules and regulations of the Fire Department or Police Department
or of special orders, as applicable.
The following are the specific acts committed by Sergeant Gunter in violation of Rule 10:
On Thursday, March 28, 2024, at 6:00 A.M., at the end of the Henry 700's shift, Officers
#1 and #2 went to Sergeant Scott Gunter's office at the East Substation. They brought to
1
his attention that they both detected the odor of alcohol coming from Corporal X two days
prior, while on duty on the scene of a crash. Officer #1 also told Sergeant Gunter, that
another officer on their shift, Officer #3, had detected the odor of alcohol coming from
Corporal X on a different day. Corporal X was on duty when Sergeant Gunter learned about
these allegations, but Sergeant Gunter did not address the issue with Corporal X. Sergeant
Gunter decided he would address it upon his return to work on Monday April 1, 2024.
Sergeant Gunter was scheduled to be off the night of Thursday, March 28, 2024 (a regular
workday). Sergeant Gunter knew Corporal X would be the acting Sergeant in his absence.
March 28, 2024, was a training day for the shift. While acting as the Sergeant, Corporal X
inexplicably directed the officers to end their shift at 11:00 P.M. This was about four hours
earlier than they would regularly be released from duty.
On Monday, April 1, 2024, at 9:00 P.M., Sergeant Gunter, Corporal X, and the remainder
of the Henry 700's, reported for duty and attended show-up. After show-up, Corporal X
met with Sergeant Gunter in his office and they began "catching up" or "talkin' business,
as this was their first day back to work from their three-day weekend. Shortly after he
started talking to Corporal X, Sergeant Gunter began observing signs of intoxication.
Sergeant Gunter alerted the Charlie 700's Sergeant and Corporal to begin the reasonable
suspicion testing, per APD General Orders. The Charlie 700's Sergeant immediately
alerted their Lieutenant. While Sergeant Gunter was having an unrelated conversation with
his Lieutenant, the Charlie evening shift Lieutenant walked into their conversation and
advised Sergeant Gunter's Lieutenant about the allegations against the Corporal.
Afterwards, notifications were made up the chain of command, including the Watch
Lieutenant, the Duty Commander, the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), and Internal
Affairs (IA).
After the reasonable suspicion observation began on Corporal X, Sergeant Gunter notified
his chain of command for the first time about Officers #1 and Officer #2 having previously
alerted him on March 28, 2024, about detecting the odor of alcohol from Corporal X.
Corporal X was taken to Occupational Health to provide a sample of his blood for drug
and alcohol testing. The results showed his blood alcohol content (BAC) was .243. 1 An IA
investigation was launched into the conduct of Corporal X. Corporal X resigned shortly
after the initiation of the investigation into his conduct.
Internal Affairs (IA) investigation into Sergeant Gunter's conduct
On Thursday, April 4, 2024, IA received an internal complaint from Sergeant Gunter's
chain of command. The internal complaint requested that IA investigate the circumstances
surrounding Sergeant Gunter's knowledge on March 28, 2024, and his failure to take
1 Per Texas law, it is illegal for individuals aged 21 and above to operate a motor vehicle with a BAC of .08
or higher. Corporal X's BAC was more than 3 times that amount on April 1, 2024.
2
immediate action when apprised by two officers of serious allegations against Corporal X.
The chain of command requested IA initiate an Administrative Investigation to determine
if Sergeant Gunter's conduct complied with department policy. During the investigation,
IA interviewed several witnesses, including Sergeant Gunter on two occasions.
Sergeant Scott Gunter's May 2, 2024, IA Interview (1st Interview)
IA asked Sergeant Gunter when he learned that Corporal X may have been intoxicated.
Sergeant Gunter responded, "Well, on Thursday, about 6:00 am. Well, I wouldn't use the
words intoxicated, but... "This was [Officers #1 and #2]" " Monday, they smelled the
odor of alcohol on his breath, so..." Sergeant Gunter was then asked if either officer had
any special type of training in recognizing signs of impairment or intoxication. Sergeant
Gunter responded, "Well, [Officer #2's] a DRE a Drug Recognition Expert."
Sergeant Gunter was asked if he thought his officers were credible, which he responded:
"I mean, of course. But that doesn't mean that, - I mean, credibility can mean, did
you smell what you smelled? I mean, I don't know, I wasn't there. So, they're - I take
what someone tells me. And - if I can draw other things to add to that, and my due
diligence to say, yes, this is what we have, this is all I know of what I have. That's
what I'm gonna do, you know. Especially something as serious as this, you know."
Sergeant Gunter was asked if he believed the officers were credible in their observations:
"Well, I had some issues with- those observations for multiple reasons.
"I
was workin' on Monday when they were referencing, and we would had
normal show-up. And so I didn't see anything different than any other day.
And then [Corporal X and I] interacted, obviously, like I just described to
you in show-up. We didn't go on any calls together, like that kind of thing,
but chit-chatting around the office or whatever and so I didn't notice-
anything, during my interaction with him. We woulda had showdown as
well that same day, which usually we'll mill around at the lockers with the
guys, and I mean, I can't say 100% that I remember that- but usually that's
-what we do, so, I don't remember it being any different on that Monday.
Sergeant Gunter went on to say in further detail:
"So, I said, 'Oh, that's very interesting. Today's Thursday, obviously. I
said, 'Why didn't you tell me'- of course, because that's ridiculous. Then I
said, 'Just tell me about it, '- but obviously they're all on- the crash, and they
just noticed that. So, then I said, 'Well, I was working on Monday, that
seems really weird 'cause I woulda seen him in show-up and all during the
shift, et cetera.' And then I said, 'Well, you know, he has that odor, like,-
[Corporal X] either uses, like, an aftershave or-maybe it could be acne
related, somethin' on his face, and it's, like, a known smell. But it's, like,
chemical, and it smells horrendous. But it's his odor. [A]na so I said, 'Are
3
you sure it's not that thing that he smells like?' Because - I don't know if it's
alcohol-based or not, but I said, 'Could it have been that?' And so, they
didn't think so. - so said, 'Okay, well, um, we're gonna have to do somethin'
about this.' said, 'Obviously-you shoulda told me. And, obviously, if I were
not here for whatever reason, you have to tell another supervisor."
Sergeant Gunter was then asked what else was said after the officers told him they did not
believe the odor was an aftershave or chemical that he was referring to:
"So, they said - 'Well, [Officer #3] mentioned, um, he's seen somethin' on
some different times or whatever. I was like, 'Okay.' I said, 'Okay, well,
that's interesting as well.' And so, I mean, they didn't tell me any more than
that about it, but " obviously that was very concerning as well."
IA asked Sergeant Gunter where Corporal X was after he was notified. He responded, "I
don't really know where - I mean, maybe, like, loading his gear, I have no idea."
Sergeant Gunter was asked if he considered there was a possibility that he did not have any
interaction with Corporal X from show-up till 6:00 A.M. Sergeant Gunter responded, "Not
true." "I always had interactions. If he he came to work - there was never a day that I
wouldn't of seen him at either...' However, when asked if he remembered a specific
interaction with Corporal X, Sergeant Gunter responded, "No, I do not." Sergeant Gunter
eventually conceded that he did not know if he had any interaction with Corporal X after
show-up that day. He responded, "I have no idea. Like I said, it - it was - you know, the
little meeting with the guys and was, like, at 6:00. The R2R - this R2R thing was, like, at
6:15, whatever. So - and then I didn't get back to the office till 7:30."
Sergeant Gunter was also asked, if he believed that it was possible, and if he considered
Corporal X could have been drinking after show-up. Sergeant Gunter responded,
"Anything's possible." "I mean, I only considered what I knew. I didn't go through every
possible, you know, option of what could or mighta showed up type..."
IA then asked Sergeant Gunter what steps he took after his two officers notified him:
"Um, so, well, to - it was all mental at that point, to - there's two things I wanted to
do. Talk to [Officer #3] real quick to find out what in the world they were talking
about. Secondly was to look at the BWC from Monday from the crash. And then
third thing would - was gonna be notify chain of command."
IA followed up by asking Sergeant Gunter if he took any of these steps and he responded:
"So, no, those - I was - so, it's Easter weekend. I was going off on to rec, and I was
gonna do it first thing, basically on Monday, my next day after - after they told me,
my next day back at work."
Sergeant Gunter was asked why he took no immediate action. Sergeant Gunter responded:
4
"Well, -it was already a 2-day old - you know, there's obviously no evidence,
except for talkin' to [Officer #3] about whatever that was, which was
unknown and then seeing if I can corroborate what they're saying through
BWC from that crash night, 'cause I'd say I was workin' with him and never
observed anything. And so, it seemed like there was nothing evidentiary that
was actionable at that second, except to verify the credibility of what they
were saying, and tell my chain of command at the next time I was at work."
IA asked Sergeant Gunter why did he did not at least immediately notify his Lieutenant:
"Well, I just said I wanted to assess the credibility of what they were saying,
seeing as I was working the same night that they made the accusation. And
then I think they gave me, actionable, information as far as talkin' to
[Officer #3] to see if there was - how much there was to this whole story
before I make a notification like that."
Sergeant Gunter was asked if he considered the possible ramifications of not notifying
anyone in his chain of command and he responded,
"Well, I wasn't gonna not notify. I told you that I was gonna do those two things
to
"On my day off, no, I felt like, the first thing I get back to the office on my next
workday woulda - woulda been sufficient."
Sergeant Gunter was then asked if he ever felt it would be beneficial to notify his chain of
command that he would be off and Corporal X would be the acting sergeant the following
day. Sergeant Gunter responded, "I didn't come to that conclusion, no."
IA also asked Sergeant Gunter what his intention was when he began talking to Corporal
X after show-up on Monday, April 1, 2024. He responded:
"We were just catching up- after me being gone. I don't remember what
agenda I had. I mean- usually, we talk about anything, you know? Even ask,
you know, I'll ask, 'How was your weekend. ,"
Towards the end of this first interview, and with the hindsight that Corporal X was
intoxicated on Monday and the fact that Sergeant Gunter had no memory of whether he
interacted with Corporal X after show-up, investigators re-asked Sergeant Gunter why he
did not feel the need to immediately address these "serious" allegations. Sergeant Gunter
still maintained that he did nothing wrong by repeating his explanation and stating in part:
"Well, I already told you this, and my response hasn't changed
"
Sergeant Gunter was also asked towards the end of his interview if he encountered this
situation again, would he do anything differently and he responded,
5
"No, I would not."
The interview concluded when Sergeant Gunter was asked if he believed his actions were
in compliance with APD General Orders 900.1.1, Responsibility to Know and Comply,
900.2, Required Reporting of Violations, and 900.4.3, Neglect of Duty. Sergeant Gunter
adamantly replied that his actions were in compliance with each of those General Orders.
Sergeant Scott Gunter's June 27, 2024, IA Interview (2nd Interview)
Sergeant Gunter's chain of command issued a supplementary complaint against
him after his first interview. This complaint prompted IA to conduct another
interview of Sergeant Gunter to address amongst other things, whether he had any
pre-existing knowledge of Corporal X having alcohol related problems, prior to
being informed of the allegations from his officers on March 28, 2024. Before
investigators were able to question him on the new complaint, Sergeant Gunter read
a prepared statement where he completely reversed his stance from the first
interview and admitted that he violated every General Order he was confronted with
during that first IA interview.
Sergeant Gunter read the following information in his written statement:
I do remember hearing rumors or jokes about [Corporal X] drinking a lot.
But I never considered them more than rumor status. As a sergeant I work
- I did work with him more closely than ever. But I never observed any signs
that indicated that he had been drinking or was intoxicated at work. I asked
them if they could have mistaken the odor for the strong, chemical-smelling
aftershave or medication that [Corporal X] wears. I would like to stress that
I do believe my officers are credible. I do not hold myself to a different
standard as far as reporting possible policy violations. I knew their
observations required further attention and investigation. But my initial
thought was that there was - they were out on an open-air crash scene and
the odor could have been mistaken. Especially because no one else,
including myself, had observed anything concerning on Monday Upon
reflection and with more mental clarity on my initial statement and the
[Notice of Allegations], if I encountered the situation again - situation
again I would do the following. I would have immediately sought out and
communicated to a lieutenant at the East Substation or communicated with
a lieutenant by phone if none were present to allow [Officers # 1 and 2] to
tell us what they observed to seek appropriate direction. Secondly, I would
have considered that [Corporal X] would be acting supervisor the next night
when I was already scheduled to be off work and make sure the direction of
the Lieutenant and chain of command included addressing that concern. It
was never my intention to violate any policy or give my chain of commands
concern that I cannot fulfill my duties. I understand that as a supervisor I
have a responsibility to report any possible policy violations right away. I
accept full responsibility for not taking action immediately. I further
6
apologize for any confusion I may have caused during my first interview.
And I hope this statement has provided some clarification.
Also, at the end of this second interview, Sergeant Gunter was specifically re-asked
about two of the General Orders he originally denied violating in his first interview.
When Sergeant Gunter was re-asked if he violated APD General Order 900.2
Required Reporting Violations, he responded, "Well, the policy says and describes
explicitly that supervisors will immediately take action when a violation or a
directive comes to their attention. I didn't do that."
When re-asked if he complied with APD General Order 900.4.3 Neglect of Duty, he said,
"No. Because it also mentions basically taking appropriate action, like in, Subsection C.
And obviously in the case that we just described that I should have taken immediate,
immediate action to make the notification on the Thursday morning. But I did not."
Sergeant Gunter summed up his statement by stating, "That I - my motivation in violating
those two policies was not intentional.. I did accept responsibility as I just mentioned in
my, for-the-record statement. And as Supervisor I'm held to a higher standard."
Conclusion
I concur with Sergeant Gunter's admissions in his second IA interview that he violated
APD General Orders 900.4.3 Neglect of Duty and 900.2 Required Reporting Violations. I
also concur with Sergeant Gunter's chain of command who concluded and recommended
to me, that he also violated APD General Orders 900.1.1 Responsibility to Know and
Comply to wit:110.2.5 Sergeant, and 902.2.4 Initial Supervisor Responsibility in their
Notice of Sustained Allegations (NOSA) that was served upon Sergeant Gunter on
August 22, 2024. Sergeant Gunter subsequently acknowledged that he violated all of the
General Orders violations listed in the NOSA during his September 4, 2024, disciplinary
review hearing.
In coming to my disciplinary decision, I weighed the factors outlined in APD General
Order 902.9.3 Factors to Consider in Determining Discipline, including but not limited to
the fact that Sergeant Gunter is in a supervisory role and rank at APD. I also considered
the fact that Sergeant Gunter's neglect from March 28 to April 1, 2024, contributed to the
potential continued danger Corporal X posed to not only himself, his subordinates, but
also to members of the Greater Austin Community. Sergeant Gunter also unnecessarily
exposed APD and the City of Austin to potential liability, particularly by not immediately
notifying anyone of the potential danger Corporal X posed, which enabled Corporal X to
work, continue to drive a patrol vehicle and supervise the Henry 700's as the acting
Sergeant the evening of March 28, 2024.
Sergeant Gunter's chain of command and I were troubled by the fact that he specifically
denied any responsibility or wrongdoing in his first IA interview on May 2, 2024.
Sergeant Gunter made these repeated and emphatic denials despite having had about a
full month from being served with the complaint referring to his failure to take immediate
7
action to reflect and contemplate APD General Orders in relation to the gravity of his
inaction. Yet, even with that month of reflection, Sergeant Gunter was defiant,
unremorseful, and defensive, and took no personal accountability in that first IA
interview.
While the chain of command and I gave credit and consideration to the fact that Sergeant
Gunter has no prior disciplinary history and that Sergeant Gunter accepted responsibility
in his second IA interview on June 27, 2024, we still have concerns about the initial
apathetic disposition that he expressed in first IA interview where he tried to justify his
mishandling of serious allegations that were brought to his attention by his subordinate
officers.
For those reasons, while I gave strong consideration to indefinitely suspending Sergeant
Gunter, I have decided to temporarily suspend Sergeant Gunter, with additional agreed to
conditions, including extensive supervisory training, and a Last Chance agreement, which
spells out that a repeat of this type of behavior will result in an indefinite suspension.
By these actions, Sergeant Gunter violated Rule 10.03(L) of the Civil Service Rules by
violating the following rules and regulations of the Austin Police Department:
Austin Police Department Policy 900.1.1: General Conduct and
Responsibilities: Responsibility to Know and Comply
900.1.1 Responsibility to Know and Comply
The rules of conduct set forth in this order do not serve as an all-inclusive list of
requirements, limitations, or prohibitions on employee conduct and activities;
employees are required to know and comply with all Department policies,
procedures, and written directives.
(a)
Employees will maintain a working knowledge and comply with the
laws, ordinances, statutes, regulations, and APD written directives
which pertain to their assigned duties.
(b)
Employees who do not understand their assigned duties or
responsibilities will read the relevant directives and guidelines, and
will consult their immediate supervisor for clarification and
explanation.
(c)
A lack of knowledge of an APD written directive is not a defense to
disciplinary action.
Austin Police Department Policy 110.2.5: Organizational Structure and
Responsibility: Sergeant
110.2.5 Sergeant
8
Sergeants exercise line command over the employees of their assigned unit and
function as the first line supervisory level within the Department. They are
responsible for ensuring service delivery, compliance with general orders, making
recommendations to their lieutenants for improvements in operations, and to guide,
train, direct, and motivate those they supervise.
Austin Police Department Policy 900.2: General Conduct and Responsibilities:
Required Reporting of Violations
900.2 Required Reporting of Violations
Employees have an obligation and responsibility to report all facts or credible
information they know regarding any criminal activity by other employees or any
breach of APD written directives.
(a)
Suspected Criminal Activity
1.
Employees will report any knowledge or credible information
regarding criminal activity of another employee via
memorandum to IA, SIU, or any supervisor in their chain-of-
command.
(a) When a memorandum is presented to a supervisor, the
supervisor will notify their chain-of-command.
(b) When a memorandum is presented to an assistant
chief/director, it will be immediately forwarded to IA
and SIU.
(b)
Suspected General Order Violations
1.
Employees will report any employee known or believed to be
guilty of any violation of a rule, regulation, or order issued by
the Department to their immediate supervisor.
Austin Police Department Policy 900.4.3: General Conduct and
Responsibilities: Neglect of Duty
900.4.3 Neglect of Duty
Employees will satisfactorily perform their duties. Examples of unsatisfactory
performance include, but are not limited to:
(a)
Lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be
enforced.
(b)
Unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks.
9
(c)
Failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime,
disorder, investigation or other condition deserving police attention.
(d)
Failure to respond to any call or to perform any police duties
assigned to them by appropriate authorities.
(e)
Absence without approved leave.
(f)
Repeated poor evaluations.
(g)
Written record of repeated infractions of rules, regulations,
directives or orders of the Department.
(h)
Failure to follow department standardized training and tactics when
it was objectively reasonable to do SO.
(i)
Employees are expected to be truthful at all times in the performance
of their duties. However, there may be instances where, initially, the
employee has not been truthful; but, before the investigation is
complete, the employee provides an accurate and detailed
accounting of their true culpability in a situation, and accepts full
responsibility for their actions. In those cases, the Chief may
consider each case on a fact-specific basis.
Austin Police Department Policy 902.2.4: Administrative Investigations:
Initial Supervisor Responsibility
902.2.4 Initial Supervisor Responsibility
Unless a complaint is submitted directly to the OPO or IA, the initial response to
an internal or external complaint shall generally rest with the employee's immediate
supervisor.
(a)
Supervisors investigating a complaint shall adhere to the following
guidelines:
1.
If the incident is force related, follow the guidelines set forth
General Order 211 (Response to Resistance Inquiry,
Reporting, and Review).
2.
Supervisors shall ensure the procedural rights of the accused
employee are followed pursuant to state and federal law, as
well as the Meet and Confer Agreement.
3.
During the preliminary investigation of any complaint,
supervisors should make every reasonable effort to obtain
names, addresses, and telephone numbers of additional
witnesses.
(b)
Allegations of a Minor Nature:
1.
Supervisors notified of a minor complaint are required to
contact the complainant within one (1) calendar week of the
time the complaint was received and attempt to resolve the
issue.
10
2.
After attempting to resolve any minor complaint, supervisors
shall ensure that an IA External Complainant Contact Form
has been completed as fully as possible and should indicate
whether the complainant was satisfied. Forms will be emailed
to Internal.Affairs@austintexas.gov
(a)
Minor complaints that are marked as "satisfied" on the
form shall be entered into the IA Tracking Database as
information and marked as closed.
(b)
Minor complaints that are marked as "not satisfied" on
the form shall be entered into the IA Tracking Database
and will follow the normal complaint assessment,
classification and investigation process as outlined in
this order. If a complainant is not satisfied, supervisors
shall refer the complainant to the OPO.
(c)
Allegations of a Serious or Criminal Nature:
1.
Allegations of a serious or criminal nature shall be initially
investigated by a supervisor the rank of sergeant or above.
2.
Supervisors receiving a complaint involving allegations of a
potentially serious administrative nature shall notify an IA
investigator as soon as possible. Serious administrative
allegations include, but are not limited to:
(a) Serious violations of a general orders, rules, or
regulations.
(b) Conduct that challenges the integrity, good order, or
discipline of the Department.
3.
A supervisor receiving a complaint involving allegations of a
criminal nature shall notify the following personnel as soon as
possible:
(a)
The Watch Lieutenant.
(b)
The Duty Commander.
(c)
An SIU supervisor.
(d) An IA investigator.
(e) The involved employee's chain-of-command.
In addition to this agreed temporary suspension, Sergeant Gunter agrees to the following
terms and conditions:
1.
Sergeant Gunter shall attend any training specified by his chain of
command.
2.
Sergeant Gunter agrees to a probationary period of one (1) year, with the
additional requirement that if, during the probationary period, he commits
the same or a similar act of misconduct for which he is being suspended (the
11
determination whether an act is the same or similar is solely within the
purview of the Chief of Police and is not subject to review by the Civil
Service Commission, an Independent Third Party Hearing Examiner, or
District Court), he will be indefinitely suspended without the right to appeal
that suspension to the Civil Service Commission, an Independent Third
Party Hearing Examiner, and to District Court. The one-year period begins
on the day Sergeant Gunter returns to duty after completing his agreed
suspension. Should Sergeant Gunter commit the same or similar violation
outside the one-year period, he will be indefinitely suspended but retains
the right to appeal that suspension.
3.
Sergeant Gunter understands that this temporary suspension may be taken
into consideration in the Chief's determination whether a valid reason exists
to bypass him for a future promotion in accordance with APD Policy
919.11.
4.
Sergeant Gunter agrees that he, and all others claiming under his named
herein or not, fully discharge, release and waive any and all known or
unknown claims or demands of any kind or nature whatsoever that he now
has, or may have in the future, including without limitations, claims arising
under any federal, state or other governmental statute, regulation, or
ordinance relating to employment discrimination, termination of
employment, payment of wages or provision of benefits, Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, the Family and
Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Texas
Commission on Human Rights Act, against the City of Austin, the Austin
Police Department, or their respective agents, servants and employees,
arising from the above-referenced incident, and any actions taken as a result
of that incident, including but not limited to, the negotiation and execution
of this agreed temporary suspension.
5.
Sergeant Gunter acknowledges that he had the opportunity to discuss this
agreed suspension and additional terms and conditions set forth herein with
a representative of his choosing prior to signing his acceptance where
indicated below.
By signing this Agreed Discipline, Sergeant Gunter understands and agrees that I am
forgoing my right to indefinitely suspend him for the conduct described above and that by
agreeing to the suspension, Sergeant Gunter waives all right to appeal this agreed
suspension and the additional terms and conditions to the Civil Service Commission, to an
Independent Third-Party Hearing Examiner, and to District Court.
#3441
09/04/2024
Robin J. Henderson #3441, Interim Chief of Police Date
12
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I acknowledge receipt of the above and foregoing memorandum of agreed suspension and
I understand that by entering into this disciplinary agreement the Chief forgoes her right to
indefinitely suspend me for the conduct described above and that by agreeing to the
suspension, I have no right to appeal this disciplinary action, as well as the additional terms
and conditions, to the Civil Service Commission, to an Independent Third Party Hearing
Examiner, and to District Court
9/04/2024
Scott Gunter #8062, Police Sergeant
Date
13