May 14, 2024
OPO Recommendation Case #2024-0122, Officer Felix Perez
In response to Interim Chief of Police Robin Henderson's disciplinary determination regarding Officer Felix Perez in case #2024-0122, the Office of Police Oversight objects to classifying Officer Perez's conduct as Class D and recommends Classification B and C. OPO's review of the Internal Affairs investigation revealed that Officer Perez failed to use objectively reasonable force while detaining a community member, violating 200.4 Response to Resistance and 200.4.1 Determining the Objective Reasonableness of Force.
Document
OPO Recommendation Case #2024-0122, Officer Felix Perez286.31 KBPDF Content
Disclaimer: The following text was extracted from the PDF file to make this document more accessible. This machine-generated content may contain styling errors due to redactions. In some instances, text may not load if the original file is a scanned image or has not been made searchable. For the full version of the document, please view the PDF.OF
AUSTIN
P.O. BOX 1088, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767
CITY
OFFICE OF
WWW.ATXPOLICEOVERSIGHT.ORG
POLICEOVERSIGHT@AUSTINTEXAS.GOV
POLICE OVERSIGHT
PHONE: 512.974.9090 | TTY: 711 FAX: 512.974.6306
FOUNDED
COMPLAINT HOTLINE: 512-972-20PO
May 14, 2024
TO:
Robin Henderson, Interim Chief, Austin Police Department
FROM:
Gail McCant, Director, Office of Police Oversight
SUBJECT:
OPO Recommendation, Case # 2024-0122, Officer Felix Perez 9098
Dear Chief Henderson,
On February 12, 2024, Michael Mayo, father of Asia Mayo filed a telephonic complaint on behalf
of his daughter (2024-0122). A. Mayo was arrested by Austin Police Department Police (APD)
Officer Felix Perez, AP9098 on February 11, 2024 (2024-0420209). Perez injured A. Mayo during
the course of her arrest.
On February 15, 2024, A. Mayo was telephonically interviewed and apprised of the Office of
Police Oversight's complaint process. A. Mayo advised she wanted to pursue a formal complaint
against Perez. On February 20, 2024, A. Mayo signed a sworn affidavit. The affidavit was
delivered to the APD Internal Affairs Division (IAD) on February 20, 2024.
On April 24, 2024, APD IAD notified OPO that they completed their internal investigation of the
allegations A. Mayo made against Perez. IAD's investigation determined that Perez's use of force
against A. Mayo was within policy and classified their investigation as a "Class D."
OPO's review of Perez's and other officers' BWC, when A. Mayo was subdued and arrested,
discovered an officer's BWC that demonstrates Perez did not use objectively reasonable force in
preventing A. Mayo from striking an individual resulting in A. Mayo becoming injured. The APD
officer's BWC was not stored in Evidence. Com under APD Case Number 2024-0420209 noted
in Perez's General Offense Report or IAD's investigative report. The Officer was identified as
Shalom Alvarez, AP9207. A query of Evidence. Com under APD Case Number 24-0420185
revealed that Alvarez BWC captured Perez approaching A. Mayo from behind, yelling "hey, hey,"
and then using both his hands to shove A. Mayo to prevent her from striking an individual with
her hand. Alvarez's BWC is for February 11, 2024, at 2:25 AM. The force Perez used was
significant enough to cause him to lose his balance and almost fall forward. Taking into
consideration his size and weight compared to A. Mayo's size and weight, very little force would
have been necessary. Perez's force caused A. Mayo to fall forward striking her head on a
concrete planter box and then fall semi-conscious to the sidewalk at which time he placed her in
handcuffs.
Based on the additional discovery OPO would object to the IAD recommendation with the
classification of D and would instead recommend a classification B and C base on the following
policy.
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American Disabilities Act.
Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request.
OF
CUSTOM
P.O. BOX 1088, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767
CITY
OFFICE OF
WWW.ATXPOLICEOVERSIGHT.ORG
POLICEOVERSIGHT@AUSTINTEXAS.GOV
POLICE OVERSIGHT
PHONE: 512.974.9090 | TTY: 711 | FAX: 512.974.6306
COMPLAINT HOTLINE: 512-972-20PO
APD's General Orders, Chapter 2, Section 200.4, Response to Resistance, 200.4.1, Determining the
Objective Reasonableness of Force reads:
Any interpretation of objective reasonableness about the amount of force that reasonably appears to be
necessary in a particular situation must allow for the fact that police officers are often forced to make
split-second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving, and the amount
of time available to evaluate and respond to changing circumstances may influence their decisions. The
question is whether the officer's actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and
circumstances confronting them.
(a) When determining whether to apply any level of force and evaluating whether an officer has used
objectively reasonable force, a number of factors should be taken into consideration. These factors
include, but are not limited to:
1. Reasonable opportunity for the officer to engage in de-escalation;
2. The conduct of the individual being confronted as reasonably perceived by the officer at the
time;
3.
Officer and subject factors such as age, size, relative strength, skill level, injury/level of
exhaustion and number of officers versus subjects;
4. Influence of drugs and alcohol or mental capacity.
Regards,
Gail McCant
Director
Office of Police Oversight
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American Disabilities Act.
Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request.
AUSTIN
P.O. BOX 1088, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767
CITY
OFFICE OF
WWW.ATXPOLICEOVERSIGHT.ORG
POLICEOVERSIGHT@AUSTINTEXAS.GOV
POLICE OVERSIGHT
PHONE: 512.974.9090 | TTY: 711 FAX: 512.974.6306
FOUNDED
COMPLAINT HOTLINE: 512-972-20PO
May 14, 2024
TO:
Robin Henderson, Interim Chief, Austin Police Department
FROM:
Gail McCant, Director, Office of Police Oversight
SUBJECT:
OPO Recommendation, Case # 2024-0122, Officer Felix Perez 9098
Dear Chief Henderson,
On February 12, 2024, Michael Mayo, father of Asia Mayo filed a telephonic complaint on behalf
of his daughter (2024-0122). A. Mayo was arrested by Austin Police Department Police (APD)
Officer Felix Perez, AP9098 on February 11, 2024 (2024-0420209). Perez injured A. Mayo during
the course of her arrest.
On February 15, 2024, A. Mayo was telephonically interviewed and apprised of the Office of
Police Oversight's complaint process. A. Mayo advised she wanted to pursue a formal complaint
against Perez. On February 20, 2024, A. Mayo signed a sworn affidavit. The affidavit was
delivered to the APD Internal Affairs Division (IAD) on February 20, 2024.
On April 24, 2024, APD IAD notified OPO that they completed their internal investigation of the
allegations A. Mayo made against Perez. IAD's investigation determined that Perez's use of force
against A. Mayo was within policy and classified their investigation as a "Class D."
OPO's review of Perez's and other officers' BWC, when A. Mayo was subdued and arrested,
discovered an officer's BWC that demonstrates Perez did not use objectively reasonable force in
preventing A. Mayo from striking an individual resulting in A. Mayo becoming injured. The APD
officer's BWC was not stored in Evidence. Com under APD Case Number 2024-0420209 noted
in Perez's General Offense Report or IAD's investigative report. The Officer was identified as
Shalom Alvarez, AP9207. A query of Evidence. Com under APD Case Number 24-0420185
revealed that Alvarez BWC captured Perez approaching A. Mayo from behind, yelling "hey, hey,"
and then using both his hands to shove A. Mayo to prevent her from striking an individual with
her hand. Alvarez's BWC is for February 11, 2024, at 2:25 AM. The force Perez used was
significant enough to cause him to lose his balance and almost fall forward. Taking into
consideration his size and weight compared to A. Mayo's size and weight, very little force would
have been necessary. Perez's force caused A. Mayo to fall forward striking her head on a
concrete planter box and then fall semi-conscious to the sidewalk at which time he placed her in
handcuffs.
Based on the additional discovery OPO would object to the IAD recommendation with the
classification of D and would instead recommend a classification B and C base on the following
policy.
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American Disabilities Act.
Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request.
OF
CUSTOM
P.O. BOX 1088, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767
CITY
OFFICE OF
WWW.ATXPOLICEOVERSIGHT.ORG
POLICEOVERSIGHT@AUSTINTEXAS.GOV
POLICE OVERSIGHT
PHONE: 512.974.9090 | TTY: 711 | FAX: 512.974.6306
COMPLAINT HOTLINE: 512-972-20PO
APD's General Orders, Chapter 2, Section 200.4, Response to Resistance, 200.4.1, Determining the
Objective Reasonableness of Force reads:
Any interpretation of objective reasonableness about the amount of force that reasonably appears to be
necessary in a particular situation must allow for the fact that police officers are often forced to make
split-second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving, and the amount
of time available to evaluate and respond to changing circumstances may influence their decisions. The
question is whether the officer's actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and
circumstances confronting them.
(a) When determining whether to apply any level of force and evaluating whether an officer has used
objectively reasonable force, a number of factors should be taken into consideration. These factors
include, but are not limited to:
1. Reasonable opportunity for the officer to engage in de-escalation;
2. The conduct of the individual being confronted as reasonably perceived by the officer at the
time;
3.
Officer and subject factors such as age, size, relative strength, skill level, injury/level of
exhaustion and number of officers versus subjects;
4. Influence of drugs and alcohol or mental capacity.
Regards,
Gail McCant
Director
Office of Police Oversight
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American Disabilities Act.
Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request.