Notice of complaint related to 2022-0826

OF
DEAT
CUSTOM
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
FOUNDED
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT
September 23, 2022
ICMS #: 2022-0826
On September 19, 2022, the OPO received an online complaint.
The complainant alleges: I am filing this complaint in respect to Incident No.
I initially made an online report on
(telephone harassment). On
Detective
scheduled an
,
appointment for me to meet with him on
at the
located at
He had already emailed me a template for me to prepare a sworn statement
of facts SO that it could be signed and notarized the day of my appointment. I had spoken
with Detective
by phone on
He informed me
that he had 15 pending cases and that he had not yet read the statement I emailed him the
prior
). While I do think that Detective
reviewed
the documents I submitted via Axon in respect to my case, I am concerned with how I was
spoken to by a fellow detective who joined in on my appointment with Detective
I unfortunately do not recall the name or badge number of this detective.
Detective
did tell me that my interview was recorded before I began speaking.
Prior to my appointment, I had already submitted a high volume of information relating to
my situation. Because the situation is SO intricate, I don't think a single appointment would
have been sufficient to effectively cover what was going on between myself and the two
suspects in this pending case. That is why I submitted all information that I thought was
relevant to Detective
via Axon, and that is why I prepared a sworn statement
that was 9-10 pages in length. The detective accompanying Detective
admitted
that he was not at all familiar with this case and had not even looked at any of the evidence
I submitted. However, he continued to ask me questions in a way that was belittling. I
remembered being asked questions including: What is [NAME OF SUSPECT]'s relation
to [NAME OF OTHER SUSPECT]? Why did you not go to [SUSPECT's] supervisor
instead of filing a bar complaint? Are these people [SUSPECTS] attorneys? Why would
they do something [ACTS CONSTITUTING TELEPHONE HARASSMENT] that would
put their license on the line? Why would they do something to get themselves disbarred?
When I tried to explain the particularities of this situation, the detective closed his eyes and
made faces. At one point it seemed he was trying not to laugh because he wasn't taking me
OF
DEAT
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT
seriously. It is a very unusual situation, and not something that could be fully explained in
a single in-person appointment. A detective would need to look at what I submitted prior
to actually asking me questions about the situation. I told him that I did not think I should
have to repeat what I already brought to Detective
attention through my
previous submissions, as well as my statement. This detective also discounted my concerns
on the basis that the suspects are licensed attorneys. Detective
hardly spoke
during my interview. When we discussed the possibility of a search warrant issued to the
phone providers of the suspects, this detective adamantly told me that search warrants are
not issued. However, I do know that this is not true. There have been cases filed for
misdemeanor harassment in Travis County where a search warrant was issued and it was
determined through the search warrant that the defendant was making unwanted
communications by dialing *67 SO that caller ID shows up as "NO CALLER ID" (also
circumventing any block placed on their number). I insisted that I could show this detective
the case I found where a search warrant was issued (Cause Number
).
This detective immediately said, "But not for harassment." He also said that if it was, it
wouldn't have been for this year. This case where a search warrant was issued was indeed
for harassment. The search warrant was obtained on
and the harassment
case was filed on
I followed up with Detective
) and emailed him the Affidavit for Warrant for Arrest and
Detention. I told him that this was the case I was referring to during my interview this
morning. The other detective (not Detective
informed me that everything I
submitted would be routed to a county prosecutor, who would make the situation on
whether the case should go forward. While I understand that police may not think that they
have sufficient probable cause to go forward, I am upset that my appointment was
scheduled almost 3 weeks in advance, and that another detective sat in and questioned me
without any familiarity with my file or the facts of this case. I am also concerned that this
detective asserted to me that search warrants aren't obtained for harassment, when existing
records for current, pending cases suggest otherwise. I understand that the circumstances
behind my initial complaint to APD are unusual compared to other harassment cases. But
atypical circumstances do not justify this detective's expressions and communications to
me during my appointment. I should not have to repeat my account of events over and over,
particularly when I've already provided this information to law enforcement. It was also
unnecessary for this detective to insinuate that the fact that the suspects are attorneys makes
my claims less credible. While I cannot pinpoint exactly why these people are acting in the
way that they are, I cited possibilities and provided relevant documentation. Licensed
attorneys are just as capable of violating the law as anyone else, and complaints about
OF
CITY
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
FOUNDED
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT
concerning behaviors shouldn't be disregarded based on a suspect's occupation and the
perceived prestige that surrounds it.
This notice of complaint is a request for Internal Affairs to initiate an investigation to
determine if the employee conduct is within compliance of APD policy, Civil Service
Rules, and Municipal Civil Service Rules.