Indefinite suspension of Officer Christopher Tomlin

Received 12/18/24 at
OF
CLEARLY
10:46 am- CSO
FOUNDED
MEMORANDUM
Austin Police Department
Office of the Chief of Police
TO:
Susan Sinz, Director of Civil Service
FROM:
Lisa Davis, Chief of Police
DATE:
December 18, 2024
SUBJECT:
Indefinite Suspension of Police Officer Christopher Tomlin #9122
Internal Affairs Control Number 2024-0884
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 indefinitely
suspended Police Officer Christopher Tomlin #9122 from duty as a City of Austin, Texas
police officer effective December 18, 2024.
I took this action because Officer Tomlin 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:
L.
Violation of any of the rules and regulations of the Fire
Department or Police Department or of special orders, as
applicable.
1
The following are the specific acts committed by Ofc. Tomlin in violation of Rule 10:
On the evening of July 4, 2024, Ofc. Christopher Tomlin #9122 was assigned to the
Downtown Area Command (DTAC) when he responded to a leaving the scene crash (LTS)
(APD Case # 241861607) at the intersection of Red River Street and Cesar Chavez Street.
The crash involved a motor vehicle and an electric scooter. The scooter was operated by
who sustained injuries in the crash. Ofc. Tomlin was not responsible for follow-
up investigation of the LTS crash in the days after the crash. Nonetheless, while the crash
was still an open investigation, Ofc. Tomlin began communicating via work and personal
mobile phone with
the involved party of the LTS.
In late August and early September,
brought to the APD's attention that Ofc.
Tomlin had multiple inappropriate conversations with her via text messages. She claimed
he initially communicated with her on his APD department issued mobile phone before
transitioning to his personal mobile phone number. It was later undisputed by Ofc. Tomlin
that these communications took place while APD was actively investigating the LTS.
also provided APD with some of their text exchanges.
The final text message Ofc. Tomlin sent
from his personal mobile phone was:
"Imma be real with u. I had no idea you were gonna text me back the next day. When
I opened up the ambulance door and saw you there, I was fucking floored by how
beautiful you were, those eyes and beautiful features that you possess. I was amazed."
Ofc. Tomlin completed this text message by saying:
"So I was definitely opened to chillin with u if it ever got to that point.
This message prompted
to block Ofc. Tomlin's personal mobile phone number
sometime on or after July 6, 2024. On August 16, 2024,
was notified by her
attorney that she was deemed to be at fault in the July 4, 2024, crash. This prompted
to text Ofc. Tomlin on his APD department issued mobile phone and address her
concerns about her being found at fault in the crash. Ofc. Tomlin reached out to the HALO
unit, who verified to him that there was video evidence which appeared to show that
was at fault in the crash. Thus, when Ofc. Tomlin responded to
he was unable
to alleviate her concerns. Thereafter,
complained about the negative findings
against her and Ofc. Tomlin's conduct.
On October 9, 2024, Ofc. Tomlin's Commander signed a complaint memorandum
requesting the Internal Affairs Division (IA) conduct an administrative investigation to
determine if APD General Orders, Civil Service Rules, or state law had been violated.
IA reviewed the following APD General Orders (GOs) in relation to this investigation:
APD Policy/GO 900.3.2 Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department
1 Policy and General Order (GO) are used interchangeably at APD and throughout this document.
2
APD Policy/GO 900.3.3 Prohibited Associations
APD Policy/GO 1004.6 Prohibited Uses
IA reviewed text messages provided by
They also interviewed
and Ofc.
Tomlin during their investigation.
(October 19, 2024) IA interview
From the onset of her IA interview
expressed "My main complaint was about the
police report being all the discrepancies on the report. When IA asked about Ofc.
Tomlin's inappropriate behavior.
explained, "That was kind of small compared to
the other complaint. She did express to IA that she perceived that blocking Ofc. Tomlin
may have played a part in the negative finding against her in the crash. It is important
to
note that the IA investigation showed that Ofc. Tomlin had no involvement in finding that
was at fault in the crash. Video evidence from a high activity location observation
(HALO) camera discovered by the assigned investigator showed that
did
not
have
the right-of-way as she entered the intersection when the other involved vehicle had a green
light. That video evidence was the deciding factor in determining that
was
at
fault.2
recounted that on the night of July 4, 2024, she was being treated in the back of an
ambulance when she was interviewed by Ofc. Tomlin after the crash. Ofc. Tomlin
requested her phone number to give her follow up information regarding the crash. Ofc.
Tomlin sent a picture of his computer screen which displayed the case number as well as
the insurance information of the LTS vehicle.
explained to IA the next day after
the crash, that she did not understand the information Ofc. Tomlin had sent her, SO she
texted Ofc. Tomlin for clarification.
told IA that Ofc. Tomlin then provided
clarifying information about the LTS case on his department issued mobile phone
then began to describe to IA conduct on the part of Ofc. Tomlin that is explicitly
prohibited by APD General Orders (GOs).
explained that Ofc. Tomlin then
communicated to her from his personal phone. His initial text message read as follows:
"Hey this is Chris the Officer you were texting I'm replying back to U on my personal
phone. That other number is my city phone.'
"Lol is this little scooter incident going to scare you into driving your car at night
now?'
The communication between Ofc. Tomlin and
transitioned from her LTS incident
to multiple unrelated topics. As was evident from text messages that she provided,
confirmed Ofc. Tomlin asked her about various personal topics, including music, her
favorite restaurants, where she was born, where she liked to travel, where he had traveled,
whether she was of "mixed" ethnicity, her grandmother's health, and about his own
personal life. He also sent her heart emojis, told her on one or more occasion that he wanted
2 APD still had an open investigation on July 10, 2024, including investigating the driver who left the
scene. The case was suspended as APD still has not discerned the driver of the vehicle that left the scene.
3
to see her again, including offering to come watch her play piano and/or meet her at a
restaurant to escort her home, while he was on duty nearby. He also provided her
information about an unrelated APD investigation, and commented on her physical beauty
and attributes, amongst other topics.
Once he built a rapport with
Ofc. Tomlin sent the following text messages.
confirmed these last messages prompted her to block his number:
"That's cool. I'm mad I can't watch, I really want to see you play [the piano]."
Followed by:
"Imma be real with u. I had no idea you were gonna text me back the next day. When
I opened up the ambulance door and saw you there, I was fucking floored by how
beautiful you were, those eyes and beautiful features that you possess. I was amazed."
"So I was definitely opened to chillin with u if it ever got to that point.'
The entirety of her communication with Ofc. Tomlin, led
to making the following
concerning statements to IA, including that she felt "preyed" upon by him:
"I just think the conversation just continued on for too long. Like, if I had gone long
periods of time without replying, he may send another message or, um, he may,
like, apologize for not replying."
"Just asking, like, what - what I'm eating or, like drinking or, um, asking if I
returned home was a red flag. Um, when I did return home, just o- like, sort of
overly checking in."
"he followed up with I'm not too far from you, I could stop by, um, and I had
declined that that was when I was eating at Flower Child and I think I had like sort
of politely said, 'Oh I'm walking home.' And he had said, uh, you know, 'I would
really like to see you. Like, he knew that I had gone to play the piano, um, and he
had said like 'I'd really like to see you play maybe the next time you go. Um, so I
think those were just too much too - it was just too many comments."
"I texted him and I said 'I was in a state of shock. And so he called to clarify the
text. I never called him."
"Then he texted me from his personal phone number and said this is my personal
number. Uh, from then it had been a few days of conversation that sort of got off
track of the case."
"I thought texting me in general from your personal number was unprofessional.
"I thought it was unusual getting a message from an officer from a personal phone
4
number. I have never been in an incident where I was I would needed to follow
up, um, about, like, my safety about the case, you know, I didn't know what was
going on and I felt that the whole continuing the conversation, asking like personal
questions or, um, being flirtatious like just crossed the line, um, I didn't quite know
what to do since my case was still open and I I felt that I didn't - I just didn't know
how to navigate it but it just felt off."
"Um, yeah. After I notified my95-year-oldgrandma,shehad a
that
night and I rushed to Illinois, uh, while I was still in pain, and, um, he was aware
of that because I - he was communicating with me and I just felt like at that point
I
- I wish he would have just, like, kept it about the case. Um, but he had asked me
about my grandma. And I think that at that point, I was, like, very sensitive, uh, and
feeling very guilty about informing her. Uh, and so, uh, I don't even know what your
question was.
"Um, and so I think that was just kind of preyed on. Um, so I do think very early
on like looking back on it now it was - it just escalated, you know."
"The last message he had sent, which was along the lines of like, 'when I opened
the ambulance door and I saw, uh, how gorgeous you were and everything just
flirting. Um, that made me very uncomfortable. So, um, I had decided to block
him."
These series of answers prompted IA to follow up by asking
IA:
Okay. And has this changed your opinion of the Austin Police
Department?
Yeah.
elaborated by stating it has changed her opinion of all police officers and that:
"Well, I'm just nervous that even saying this, like, since he knows where I live, I'm
just nervous of the aftermath. So I didn't even - I really didn't even want to, um, go
into detail about the about the text messages. I just wanted to provide feedback
'cause I don't - I don't want, um, to feel scared."
"I've never been there in my life and so I just don't know, uh, what to trust, uh,
moving forward."
also recounted how Ofc. Tomlin communicated with her about a deceased veteran
who suffered from PTSD. This was clearly unrelated to her crash. Ofc. Tomlin even offered
to provide
more detail in the below text message:
"You have nothing to worry about. The dude shot himself in the head. He was a
retired military veteran suffering from PTSD. He actually lived in one of the
5
Rainey Street apartments. The wild thing is, he did that shit at, like, 4;00 pm in
broad daylight, right on the trail. I can give you all the details, I was first on
scene. Dude was already dead as fuck when we found him."
With respect to this exchange,
knew this information should not have been sent to
her, as she told IA:
"I don't know if you're supposed to disclose like that it was a veteran who blew his
brains out.'
Separately, Ofc. Tomlin also gave
the impression that APD's law enforcement
partners "beat the shit" out of prisoners when she told IA:
I just don't think it had anything to do with my case. I I don't I don't
think knowing about people committing suicide or he said one other thing
was about, um, how he had to take somebody in and then the correctional
officers beat the shit out of him and, um, I don't think that has anything to
do with my well-being. It actually made me even more scared. Um, I
- and I don't have an answer. I've never experienced anything like that in
my life. So I don't have any answer for why he would do that.
Also, within their text exchange Ofc. Tomlin showed a willingness to look up the crash
report related to the LTS collision to let
know what the other officer wrote in the
report, rather than refer her to the officer that wrote the report.
In the days after the crash, Ofc. Tomlin also asked
personal questions like
"[W]hen is she getting back in town?" and "Where are you sore at? Ofc. Tomlin later
confirmed that he started to become aware of personal things about
including
her interests and "favorite restaurant".
Ofc. Tomlin's (November 18, 2024) IA interview
Ofc. Tomlin was asked by IA to describe in detail the contact and all the interactions he
had with
starting from the incident on July 4, 2024, until the date of his
interview. Ofc. Tomlin responded:
"On July 4, I responded to a crash in which she was involved in. It was a crash leaving
the scene, the other driver left the scene after hitting her with a vehicle. I provided
information to her on the scene. After that we engaged in a text message conversation
for a few days after. And after that there was nothing other than, a text message she
sent about a month after our co- conversation. We have no contact at all now and
haven't for 5 months or 6 months.
Ofc. Tomlin confirmed that he determined and documented that
was the victim of
the LTS crash on July 4, 2024. Ofc. Tomlin was asked by IA if he believed the LTS crash
was an open investigation. Ofc. Tomlin replied: "The LTS aspect of it, sure. Yes."
6
Ofc. Tomlin was asked how
had access to his department issued mobile phone.
Ofc. Tomlin explained he provided a screen shot with the other driver's information to her
cell phone. Ofc. Tomlin was then asked the reason he sent
the following text from
his department issued cell phone; "Hey, just wanted to let you know the reports should be
uploaded tomorrow. "Ofc. Tomlin recalled:
"She - the next day she's the one that called me, I believe, or texted me. I'm sorry, she
texted me a long passage about questions she had from the crash, I think it was. So, at
that point is when I called her and I just explained or answered whatever questions
that she had about the crash. At the - after that phone call, we continued to text
throughout the day."
On July 5, 2024,
sent Ofc. Tomlin a text message to his department issued mobile
phone stating "I'm very grateful. Ofc. Tomlin was asked by IA why he responded to
text with a heart emoji. Ofc. Tomlin replied: "With a heart necessarily, I don't -
um, just to let her know that I was happy to help her or I'm glad that she was okay with the
help that she received." Ofc. Tomlin was then asked if he typically sent heart emojis to
victims or witnesses. Ofc. Tomlin stated: have not before. Ofc. Tomlin was asked why
he did so this time. He replied: "No - no particular reason. No, sir."
Ofc. Tomlin was then asked if he ever texted
from his personal phone as well as
who initiated the contact. Ofc. Tomlin recalled:
"Yes, she - after a long conversation on the city phone we started a conversation on
my personal phone. I would say that I did only because our - the conversations that
we had on the work phone were just more so about work and personal stuff about just
like her, like, life and lifestyle as far as what she does at work or playing music. So, at
that point, I thought it would be - it was a lapse of judgment on my end that, that type
of conversation whether it be about music and things like that should not be on the
work phone 'cause it wasn't work related."
Ofc. Tomlin was asked about his intent when he gave
his personal cell phone
number. Ofc. Tomlin explained it was just a friendly conversation over the phone which
was not work related. Ofc. Tomlin added he did not know how many times he texted
on his personal phone but he knew the conversation started on July 5, 2024, and only
lasted a few days within that week.
Ofc. Tomlin was asked if
ever gave him the impression the conversations via text
or even over the phone, outside of her incident, were welcomed by her. He responded:
"I would say, yes. We talked about a broad spectrum of things as far as even going
back to music and her playing instruments and where she works and some of the
interests that she has as far as artists. So, we were just having back and forth
conversations about stuff like that."
7
When confronted by IA, Ofc. Tomlin acknowledged he sent the following messages to
"When I opened up the ambulance door and saw you there, I was fucking floored by
how beautiful you were, those eyes and those beautiful features that you possess, I was
amazed.'
"So I was definitely opened to chillin with u if it ever got to that point.
Ofc. Tomlin was also asked about the following text message he sent
"You have nothing to worry about. The dude shot himself in the head. He was a retired
military veteran suffering from PTSD. He actually lived in one of the Rainey Street
apartments. The wild thing is, he did that shit at, like, 4;00 pm in broad daylight, right
on the trail. I can give you all the details, I was first on scene. Dude was already dead
as fuck when we found him."
Ofc. Tomlin was asked if these texts were appropriate to send. He admitted they were not.
Ofc. Tomlin was then asked about the original GOs under consideration by his Chain
of Command. He admitted to violating GO 900.3.3 Prohibited Associations, stating:
"Yes, no matter, uh, what, uh, the case may be, I deeply understand that the policy
of not even creating any types of friendships with- any, you know, suspect, victim or
anybody that you might come in contact with that's a subject of a call."
Ofc. Tomlin also admitted to violating GO 903.2 Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the
Department, stating: "Based on the potential of there being possible conflict of interest
sure. Yes sir.'
Ofc. Tomlin also admitted to violating GO 1004.6 Prohibited Uses, stating:
"Yes. I would say this, I violated the policy, sir. Going back to the policy, I can see
how it would be perceived that texting someone of that association from my work
phone would be unprofessional."
Ofc. Tomlin was asked by IA if he had the opportunity to do this again would he do things
differently. He responded in part:
"I'm here to absolutely just, you know, say that I completely understand the issues
and - and some of the mistakes that I made in this call. I haven't stopped thinking about
it. I would do a lot of things different and I'm deeply apologetic for how this went
down and I'm appreciative of you guys being here for the process as well, so, it's never
gonna happen again."
8
Notice of Sustained Allegations (NOSA)
The Chain of Command notified Ofc. Tomlin in a NOSA issued to him on December 9,
2024, that he was being sustained for the original GOs that he admitted to violating during
his IA interview:
APD Policy/GO 900.3.2 - Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department
APD Policy/GO 900.3.3 - Prohibited Associations
APD Policy/GO 1004.6 - Prohibited Uses
The Chain of Command also notified Ofc. Tomlin in the NOSA that he violated the
following additional GOs:
APD Policy/GO 900.3.1-Honesty
APD Policy/GO 902.4.1-Cooperating with Assigned Investigators
The NOSA specifically identified the five different exchanges Ofc. Tomlin had with IA
where he violated the two above-mentioned GOs after multiple different chances. The
NOSA states as follows:
"In your November 18, 2024, IA interview, your Chain of Command concluded that
the following responses (in the following exchanges) were not completely truthful, not
accurate, were misleading, not credible, and/or were attempts by you to conceal,
divert, and/or mitigate from your true culpability in this case:"
Exchange # 1
IA:
Okay. So what was your intent for giving her your cell phone - your personal
Cell phone number?
Tomlin:
It was just a - a friendly conversation that was on the phone. There was no,
oh, no intent past just the conversation being not work-related.
Exchange # 2
IA:
Okay. And what was the purpose of you sending her the following text
message. "When I opened up the ambulance door and saw you there, I was
fucking floored by how beautiful you were, those eyes and beautiful features
that you possess. I was amazed."
Tomlin: She was upset. The - we were talking about her injuries, and honestly it was
the only intent in that was to - to talk about how the - the scar, the - the
stitches weren't gonna change her appearance. That was the only intent and
that type - that message there was no - there's no other intent at all in that. It
was a compliment given.
9
IA:
And do you consider this to be flirtatious in nature?
Tomlin:
Um, I didn't - I didn't mean it to be, but I can't - I don't know what the other
perception would - would be of it.
Exchange # 3
IA:
What was your intent or reasoning why you told her that you were not far
from her and that you could stop by?
Tomlin:
Oh, just to say hello, 'cause I work in that area, sir. That's in my area. That
that was the only intent in that.
IA:
Okay. And what did you mean by, "I would really like to see you."
Tomlin:
Uh, a- at that point, like, we'd only had friendly conversation up until that
point. So it was literally just in a friendly manner, that's it. There was no
other intent in that. And I didn't recall that, to be honest, but that - that would
be the only intent.
Exchange # 4
IA:
What did you mean when you told
you were "definitely open to
chilling with her if it ever got to that point"?
Tomlin:
That - that, uh, friendship like, we had, uh, at that point, started texting back
and forth. Just, uh, was kind of a friend - uh, friendly thing. And that's the
intent was just friendship- wise
IA:
And is that why you texted her from your personal phone?
Tomlin:
Is that - that was not my initial intent in texting her from my personal phone.
No, sir.
IA:
Did you - did the interaction over time lead you to believe that you could
pursue a romantic relationship with her?
Tomlin:
No, sir.
Exchange # 5
IA:
Did
block you from texting her or calling her?
Tomlin:
Not that I know of. I wouldn't have - W- we - I never texted her after - I don't
know what that date was, but I've never texted her or called her, so I don't
know why she would have blocked me. Then she reached out to me, so.
10
IA:
What was the reason why you stopped the communication? Is there a reason
why?
Tomlin:
I didn't - like, I don't know if there's a reason, I just - uh, it got to a certain
point, uh, I didn't really feel like texting her, to be honest.
It is important to note that every APD employee is trained and repeatedly reminded about
the importance of GO Honesty 900.3.1, which specifically states and mandates in part that:
(a)
Employees will speak the truth at all times Any statement or omission of
pertinent or material information which intentionally misrepresents facts or
misleads others through an official statement will be considered a false official
statement.
(c)
Employees will not attempt to conceal, divert, or mitigate their true
culpability in a situation, nor will they engage in efforts to thwart, influence,
or interfere with an internal or criminal investigation.
(emphasis added)
Whereas GO 902.4.1 Cooperating with Assigned Investigators is equally as important. It
mandates and states in part:
a) Employees will cooperate with any assigned investigator as if they were
addressing the Chief. Employees who fail or refuse to cooperate with
an assigned investigator will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and
including indefinite suspension.
b) Honesty is of the utmost importance in the police profession. Employees
are expected to be truthful at all times during interviews with
investigators as outlined in General Order 900 (General Conduct and
Responsibilities).
1.
Employees who are found to have given a false official
statement are subject to indefinite suspension as outlined in the
Discipline Matrix ("Dishonesty - False Official Statements").
(emphasis added)
Conclusions of the Chain of Command before the DRH
In spite of his denials to IA's questions, members of Ofc. Tomlin's Chain of Command
expressed to me through the NOSA and/or before his Disciplinary Review Hearing (DRH)
that their individual and/or collective review of the evidence caused them to conclude, by
the preponderance of the evidence that:
11
Ofc. Tomlin's physical attraction to
caused him to seek a dating,
sexual, and/or romantic relationship with her.
Ofc. Tomlin's intent was to flirt with
Ofc. Tomlin did flirt with
Ofc. Tomlin's last text message was to express to her his intent to seek a dating,
romantic and/or sexual relationship with
Ofc. Tomlin more likely than not realized after
stopped responding to
his text messages that his communication with her was unwelcome.
Ofc. Tomlin was not the one who ended the dialogue with
because
he was disinterested.
Despite the evidence contained in his text exchanges with
Ofc. Tomlin never
admitted to any of the above to IA, and instead chose to try to mislead, and/or mitigate
his true culpability in this situation during his IA interview. Ofc. Tomlin repeatedly
denied pursuing a dating, romantic, and/or sexual relationship with
claiming,
among other things, that his intent was limited to trying to uplift the spirits of a
member of the public when it came to her physical appearance from scars she sustained
during a crash. Ofc. Tomlin also was adamant to IA on more than one occasion that he
was seeking nothing more than a friendship with
Ultimately, as you will see in
the conclusion of this memorandum, Ofc. Tomlin contradicted these assertions in his
DRH by explaining his intent was beyond the limitations he expressed to IA and more
consistent with the Chain of Command's above-mentioned conclusions as to the extent
of his true culpability. Ofc. Tomlin also explained some of his conscious and/or
intentional motivation at the time of his IA interview for not admitting to and/or
mitigating his intent and culpability during his IA interview.
Of further significance, going into the DRH, the Chain of Command expressed to me
that they unanimously concluded that Ofc. Tomlin violated GO 900.3.3 Prohibited
Associations, and that his actions brought discredit to APD, in violation of GO 900.3.2
Acts Bringing Discredit upon the Department. They expressed that they appreciated the
fact that Ofc. Tomlin admitted to violating GOs, but they were also troubled and
disappointed by his egregious conduct in this case by pursuing an external social
relationship when GOs prohibit it.
Conclusion (after the DRH)
Ultimately, I concluded that Ofc. Tomlin should be sustained for violating the following
APD GO's:
APD Policy/GO 900.3.2 Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department
APD Policy/GO 900.3.3 Prohibited Associations
APD Policy/GO 1004.6 - Prohibited Uses
APD Policy/GO 902.4.1 - Cooperating with Assigned Investigators
By sustaining these GOs, Ofc. Tomlin gives me a multitude of individual and/or collective
reasons to indefinitely suspend him. It is important to note that I would have made the
12
decision to indefinitely suspend Ofc. Tomlin for solely violating GO 900.3.3 Prohibited
Associations, which he acknowledged violating. That GO could not be more explicit as its
title and the text both state the type of relationship that Ofc. Tomlin sought was strictly
"prohibited." This violation is a breach of trust to all of the people in the Austin
community, particularly people who are in vulnerable positions due to their being crime
victims or involved in an accident. Ofc. Tomlin's actions in this matter were inconsistent
with APD ICARE values and the standard of excellence that I promised to uphold within
the Austin Police Department.
Ofc. Tomlin's decision to surreptitiously copy
mobile phone number from his
department-issued mobile phone to his personal mobile phone, and to begin texting her
from his personal mobile phone, is egregious. His decision to seek a romantic, dating,
and/or sexual relationship with
while her case was still under investigation,
is
abhorrent, reprehensible, and a breach of trust to the oath that he took as an APD officer.3
It was also troubling to me as Chief of Police to have a citizen
tell IA that she felt
"preyed" upon by Ofc. Tomlin as he knew she was going through multiple traumatic
events in her life (her recent LTS crash and her grandmother's heart attack).
Ofc. Tomlin's actions not only violate multiple APD GOs, but his actions bring significant
discredit to APD in violation of GO 900.3.2, Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department.
Moreover, Ofc. Tomlin made disparaging remarks about a deceased veteran, including
revealing that the deceased veteran had PTSD, seemingly as a way to endear himself to
He even offered to give her greater detail about the call, while clearly giving no
consideration to the decedent and the decedent's soon to be grieving family. Additionally,
Ofc. Tomlin left
with the impression that APD's law enforcement partners "beat
the shit" out of a prisoner, as he stood idly by. This statement brings discredit to all of law
enforcement and/or hurts APD's relationships as Ofc. Tomlin spread a false rumor about
another agency. These individual and/or collective actions bring further discredit to APD
and demonstrate to me that Ofc. Tomlin is not fit, mature, nor empathetic enough to
represent APD and this community.
I also want to note that I made the decision not to sustain Ofc. Tomlin for GO 900.3.1
Honesty, in part because he finally acknowledged during his DRH that he was "flirting"
with
Ofc. Tomlin also acknowledged in his DRH that he was pursuing a romantic,
a dating, and/or sexual relationship with
He also admitted that if
had
expressed an interest, this could have built up into a sexual relationship. Ofc. Tomlin then
stated his conscious and intentional motivation at that time of his IA interview for
withholding making these specific admissions during the IA interview was motivated in
part by the fact that he is in a longstanding relationship with someone whom he shares a
family with. I appreciate his candor to me and the Chain of Command during the DRH.
3 While it had no influence on my decision, it was brought to my attention that the most recent officers who
violated GO 900.3.3 Prohibited Associations either resigned in lieu of termination or the decision was made
to indefinitely suspended by the last APD Chief's of Police.
13
However, while I appreciate that Ofc. Tomlin ultimately told the complete unmitigated
truth in the DRH; he should have done so-and in fact was obligated to do so-in his IA
interview. So, while I am declining to sustain him for Honesty GO 900.3.1, Ofc. Tomlin's
testimony to IA in this matter, nonetheless, violates the letter and the spirit of multiple APD
GOs, including GO 902.4.1 Cooperating with Assigned Investigators. Before any
substantive question was asked of him, Ofc. Tomlin had the opportunity to begin his
interview by stating the complete truth, as if he were addressing me, the Chief of Police,
as delineated by GOs. He was also given multiple additional opportunities by IA to
acknowledge his true intent and not try to mitigate his true culpability. Thus, even if Ofc.
Tomlin had not been sustained for GO 900.3.3 Prohibited Associations, the stand-alone
violation of GO 902.4.1 Cooperating with Assigned Investigators would have resulted in
my decision to indefinitely suspend him.
Moreover, while I did not sustain Ofc. Tomlin for GO 900.3.1 Honesty since he told the
complete truth during his DRH, the surrounding evidence shows that Ofc. Tomlin was not
completely credible or completely truthful during his IA interviews. This lack of credibility
and complete candor cuts at the core of his own integrity. Therefore, the facts and
circumstances of this case must be shared with members of the criminal justice system as
this qualifies as Brady (Brady vs. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)) and Michael Morton Act
material that must be disclosed to prosecuting attorneys. Moreover, his conduct in this case
compromises his credibility to testify in the future. This makes him unfit to serve as a police
officer, which also leaves me with no choice but to indefinitely suspend him.
Separate and apart from the cooperating with investigator violation, I believe I would be
doing a disservice to the members of the greater Austin community if I retained Ofc.
Tomlin, as I cannot confidently trust him moving forward to answer a call for service
involving young women.
While I appreciate that Ofc. Tomlin expressed remorse, has a limited disciplinary history4
and stated that he would not do this again, I have no reason to confidently trust his word
for a multitude of reasons. First of all, Ofc. Tomlin did not self-disclose or self-report this
indiscretion. Ofc. Tomlin only admitted to violations because he could not deny the facts
in front of him. Moreover, Ofc. Tomlin's answers to IA were not credible, as described in
this memorandum.
However, the main reason I cannot trust Ofc. Tomlin is very simple. Ofc. Tomlin's
intolerable actions in this case were already prohibited by GOs and that fact did not stop
him. Therefore, his assurance that he will not do this again is not something I, as Chief of
Police, can confidently rely on. The only way I can assuredly protect the community and
the Department moving forward is to indefinitely suspend Ofc. Tomlin. Moreover, if I
retained Ofc. Tomlin, I would send the wrong message to his peers that this type of
behavior is somewhat tolerable by APD, when it is clearly not.
4 Ofc. Tomlin has been with the department for less than 5 years. His only discipline was a written
reprimand for violating APD Policy/GO 9 Requirements of Duty in IAD-2023-0628. In that case,
rather than performing his DTAC responsibilities, Ofc. Tomlin participated in a North Metro Tactical
briefing and operation for several hours without notifying or receiving approval from his supervisor.
14
In sum, Ofc. Tomlin's admission that he violated the GO 900.3.3 Prohibited Associations,
confirmed to me that he tried to take advantage of his position as a police officer to initiate
a romantic relationship with
a victim in an open investigation. It bears repeating,
that fact alone is intolerable and grounds for his indefinite suspension. I would be remiss
in my duties and responsibilities to protect the members of this community if I allowed
Ofc. Tomlin-in light of his actions and/or omissions in this case-to continue to be
bestowed the power to serve members of the greater Austin community as a police officer.
Therefore, after careful deliberation and consideration of all of these factors, I have made
the decision to indefinitely suspend Ofc. Tomlin, effective immediately.
By these actions, Officer Tomlin 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 900.3.3(a): General Conduct and
Responsibilities: Prohibited Associations
900.3.3(a) Prohibited Associations
(a)
Employees will not establish an external social relationship with a
known victim, a known witness, or a known suspect of a crime while
such case is being investigated by this Department or prosecuted as
a result of such an investigation.
Austin Police Department Policy 900.3.2(a)(c): General Conduct and
Responsibilities: Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department
900.3.2(a)(c) Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department
Since the conduct of personnel both on-duty or off-duty may reflect directly upon
the Department, employees must conduct themselves at all times in a manner which
does not bring reproach, discredit, or embarrassment to the Department or to the
City.
(a)
Employees will not commit any act which tends to destroy public
confidence in, and respect for, the Department or which is
prejudicial to the good order, efficiency, or discipline of the
Department.
(c)
Employees will not engage in any activity in which there is a
potential for conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of
interest with the lawful duties of the employee.
1.
"Conflict of interest" includes any activity which would tend
to influence a decision, create a bias or prejudice, or create a
gain or loss for any person or agency which would favor one
side or the other in conflict with the employee's official duties,
15
or which conflicts with the accomplishment of the
Department's mission or goals.
Austin Police Department Policy 1004.6(c): Department Owned Cell Phones:
Prohibited Uses
1004.6(c) Prohibited Uses
Employees shall adhere to all guidelines outlined in GO 1000.3.1 Prohibited Uses
of Department Technology in addition to the following:
(c)
The cell phone shall not be used to take or send inappropriate
photographic or video images, emails, or texts unless they can be
clearly linked to official police business.
Austin Police Department Policy 902.4.1: Administrative Investigations:
Cooperating with Assigned Investigators
902.4.1 Cooperating with Assigned Investigators
(a)
Employees will cooperate with any assigned investigator as if they
were addressing the Chief of Police. Employees who fail or refuse
to cooperate with an assigned investigator will be subject to
disciplinary action, up to and including indefinite suspension.
(b)
Honesty is of the utmost importance in the police profession.
Employees are expected to be truthful at all times during interviews
with investigators as outlined in General Order 900 (General
Conduct and Responsibilities).
1.
Employees who are found to have given a false official
statement are subject to indefinite suspension as outlined in the
Discipline Matrix ("Dishonesty - False Official Statements").
2.
There may be cases where officers have not been truthful but
the dishonesty does not constitute a false official statement. In
those situations, the Chief of Police shall consider each case
on a fact specific basis and may decide that corrective action
other than indefinite suspension is warranted as outlined in the
Discipline Matrix ("Neglect of Duty - Misleading
Statements").
By copy of this memo, Ofc. Tomlin is hereby advised of this indefinite suspension and that
the suspension may be appealed to the Civil Service Commission by filing with the
16
Director of Civil Service, within ten (10) days after receipt of a copy of this memo, a proper
notice of appeal in accordance with Section 143.010 of the Texas Local Government Code.
By copy of this memo and as required by Section 143.057 of the Texas Local Government
Code, Ofc. Tomlin is hereby advised that such section and the Agreement Between the
City of Austin and the Austin Police Association provide for an appeal to an independent
third-party hearing examiner, in accordance with the provisions of such Agreement.
If
appeal is made to a hearing examiner, all rights of appeal to a District Court are waived,
except as provided by Subsection (j) of Section 143.057 of the Texas Local Government
Code. That section states that the State District Court may hear appeals of an award of a
hearing examiner only on the grounds that the arbitration panel was without jurisdiction or
exceeded its jurisdiction, or that the order was procured by fraud, collusion or other
unlawful means. In order to appeal to a hearing examiner, the original notice of appeal
submitted to the Director of Civil Service must state that appeal is made to a hearing
examiner.
Land
12.18.24
LISA DAVIS, Chief of Police
Date
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I hereby acknowledge receipt of the above and foregoing memorandum of indefinite
suspension and I have been advised that if I desire to appeal that I have ten (10) calendar
days from the date of this receipt to file written notice of appeal with the Director of Civil
Service in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government
Code.
Chirpher Janein
12/18/24
Police Officer Christopher Tomlin #9122
Date
17