Suspención temporal del oficial Ryan Seweryn

RECEIVE
Civil Service Office
OF
NOV 25 2020
DAY
see
4:21 pm
FOUNDED
1839
MEMORANDUM
Austin Police Department
Office of the Chief of Police
TO:
Joya Hayes, Director of Civil Service
FROM:
Brian Manley, Chief of Police
DATE:
November 25, 2020
SUBJECT:
Temporary Suspension of Police Officer Ryan Seweryn #8593
Internal Affairs Control Number 2020-1079
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 Officer Ryan Seweryn #8593 from duty as a City of Austin, Texas police
officer for a period of TEN (c) days. The temporary suspension is effective beginning
on November 26, 2020 and continuing through December 5 TH, 2020.
I took this action because Officer Seweryn 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.
The following are the specific acts committed by Officer Seweryn in violation of Rule 10:
I
On May 30, 2020, Austin Police Department (APD) Officer Ryan Seweryn was assigned
to the Mobile Field Force (MFF) at APD headquarters. APD deployed its assigned MFF in
response to a large number of protesters located outside of APD headquarters. While
standing in front of the building on the front steps, Officer Seweryn referred to a protester
as: "That gay dude with the short shorts in the black shirt." The protester allegedly had a
laser pointer and was using it to shine a beam of light on the Air One helicopter. Shining a
laser pointer at an aircraft is potentially dangerous and could be a criminal act. Officer
Seweryn's statement was recorded by his body-worn camera (BWC).
On November 13, 2020, Internal Affairs (IA) received a Complaint Memorandum from
Commander Brian Jones, requesting an administrative investigation to determine if Officer
Seweryn violated APD General Orders, Civil Service Rules, or state law.
Officer Sewervn IA Interview
IA interviewed Officer Seweryn during their investigation. During his interview, Officer
Seweryn explained that while working in the MFF, he recalled describing the individual
who was shining a laser at the helicopter circling above in the following manner: "I
described the individual as a gay individual with umm a gay dude with black short
shorts.
He went on to elaborate his reasoning for using this description by stating:
"Uh., if. if there was a male in feminine clothing I would describe that individual
as gay.. uhmm in order to for uhh my fellow officers to identify the individual,"
Counterintuitively, Officer Seweryn then stated that he does not assume a person's sexual
orientation based on how an individual is dressed. He elaborated that he had described the
individual in question as gay because the individual's clothing was consistent with the
clothing styles that he believed people wore at Gay Pride parades. IA also specifically
asked Officer Seweryn if he had ever met the person he was referring to on the night in
question. He replied, "No sir." Officer Seweryn was asked if he knew for a fact that the
person whom he described was gay; he replied, "No sir.'
Based on that explanation, the IA investigator asked Officer Seweryn how he would be
able to tell if someone is gay in a crowd of people. He reiterated, based on the clothing, in
this particular case, that the person was wearing short black shorts, and his dress was
consistent with what is seen in Gay Pride parades. Officer Seweryn was asked if he had
ever seen a person who is not gay wear short shorts; he replied, "Yes sir. "IA circled back
to ask Officer Seweryn how he would be able to identify the person in this case as gay
based on short shorts, to which Officer Seweryn stated:
"I wouldn't be able to identify that was a gay person based on short shorts. "
2
Officer Seweryn stated that he believed it was an accurate description to use in this case,
but he agreed that there are better descriptions that could have been used. Officer Seweryn
explained he was not making an assumption that the person was gay based on the style of
clothing he was wearing.
The IA investigator asked Officer Seweryn to clarify how he knew that the person was gay.
I
uhh the again the clothing he was wearing. he was wearing short
Shorts I believe he was wearing a low-cut shirt. uhh...you know these are uhh
a
physical style, that is similar to that uhhh that, uhh that's worn by the
community. uhh LGBTQ community there's a male in feminine clothing as well.
The IA investigator followed up by asking Officer Seweryn how the word "gay" is a
physical description. Officer Seweryn replied: "It's a description of the clothing of the
person, not a physical description of the person themselves." Officer Seweryn also
explained that he did not simply describe the individual's clothing because there were
hundreds of people at the protest, and he wanted to provide a description that stood out in
a sea of white males in black shorts. Officer Seweryn stated that he used "gay" as a
descriptor because the style of clothing the subject had on was consistent with what he
understood to be that style. Officer Seweryn admitted that he has never used the term "the
straight dude" when describing a subject.
IA asked Officer Seweryn if the APD Training Academy teaches cadets to use the term
"gay" as a descriptor for subjects. He replied, "Not as a description, no sir.' IA asked
Officer Seweryn if he would be comfortable providing that description over the radio. He
replied, "No sir.
IA also asked Officer Seweryn if he would do anything differently, to which he responded:
Uhh. I would use uhh uh the the description of the uhh of the clothing
themselves rather than any other than any other uh stylistic or terms in
order to portray my point.
In spite of his unprofessional and inappropriate comment, Officer Seweryn concluded his
IA interview by stating that he did not feel like he violated APD General Orders.
Other Recent Discipline (Case IA Case # 2020-0362)
On or about March 24, 2020, APD Officer Ryan Seweryn sent a text message image,
commonly referred to as a "meme," to two officers on his shift. The image was a booking
photograph (with added captions) of a current APD officer, which was taken when the-
current officer was 17 years old and arrested for a low-level crime. One of the officers who
received the meme informed a supervisor and expressed to the supervisor that they found
the image and message to be inappropriate and disrespectful. On March 26, 2020, Sergeant
Michael Joseph signed an internal complaint memorandum directing APD Internal Affairs
(IA) to conduct an Administrative Investigation to determine if any violation of APD
policy, Civil Service Rules, or state law had been committed by Officer Seweryn.
3
IA interviewed several witnesses during the course of their investigation, including Officer
Seweryn. Throughout his interview, Officer Seweryn acknowledged that he violated the
following General Orders: 900.3.4 (Personal Conduct), 900.5 (Responsibility to
Coworkers), and 116.8 (Privacy and Security of Records). Moreover, Officer Seweryn
acknowledged that this failed attempt at "humor" was unwarranted, unprofessional, and
discourteous to his co-worker. Officer Seweryn also recognized that he should not have
accessed the records, and he also acknowledged that his usage of the booking photograph,
his comments, and sharing the photograph with at least one other person caused
embarrassment to a co-worker.
As a result of his actions in this case, Officer Seweryn received a 10-day suspension on
September 3, 2020. 1
Conclusion
Unlike in his previous above-mentioned case, Officer Seweryn did not take responsibility
for his conduct in this case involving his inappropriate comment about a protester. While
he acknowledged that his conduct is inconsistent with APD training and expectations, he
did not accept that there was anything wrong with the assumptions, description, and
stereotype he made. He repeatedly denied making any offensive assumptions solely based
upon the subject's clothing. Yet when repeatedly given a chance by IA to explain what
other factors contributed to his decision making, Officer Seweryn maintained his denial as
he stumbled through his explanation, only to reiterate the same inappropriate basis for the
description. Rather than take full responsibility and acknowledge that he did anything
wrong, Officer Seweryn demonstrated that he not only needs to receive discipline in this
case, but he needs to go through additional training to gain an understanding of the
expectations of APD's ICARE values and the impartial attitude and courtesy he must show
to members of the entire community, within or outside of their presence.
By these actions, Officer Seweryn 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 301.1: Responsibility to the Community:
Purpose and Scope
301.1 Purpose and Scope
All persons deserve protection by fair and impartial law enforcement and should be
able to expect similar police response to their behavior wherever it occurs.
Employees will serve the public through direction, counseling, assistance, and
protection of life and property. Employees will be held accountable for the manner
in which they exercise the authority of their office or position. Employees will
I This case is currently scheduled for appeal.
4
respect the rights of individuals and perform their services with honesty, sincerity,
courage, and sound judgment.
Austin Police Department Policy 301.2: Responsibility to the Community:
Impartial Attitude and Courtesy
301.2 Impartial Attitude and Courtesy
Employees are expected to act professionally, treat all persons fairly and equally,
and perform all duties impartially, objectively, and equitably without regard to
personal feelings, animosities, friendships, financial status, sex, creed, color, race,
religion, age, political beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender
expression or social or ethnic background.
(a)
Employees will not express or otherwise manifest any prejudice
concerning race, religion, national origin, age, political affiliation,
sex, or other personal characteristics in the performance of their
duties.
1.
Employees will respect the rights of individuals and will not
engage in discrimination, oppression, or favoritism whether by
language, act, or omission.
2.
The use of racial or ethnic remarks, slurs, epithets, words or
gestures, which are derogatory or inflammatory in nature to or
about any person or group of persons is strictly prohibited.
(b)
Employees will be tactful in the performance of their duties, control
their tempers, exercise patience and discretion, and shall not engage
in argumentative discussions even in the face of extreme
provocation.
(c)
Employees will make every effort to be courteous and respectful
toward all persons.
Officer Seweryn is advised that this suspension may be considered by the Chief of Police
in a future promotional decision pursuant to General Order 919.
By copy of this memo, Officer Seweryn is hereby advised of this temporary suspension
and that the suspension may be appealed to the Civil Service Commission by filing with
the 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, Officer Seweryn 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
5
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.
all
3440 CHIEF
FOR MANLEY
BRIAN MANLEY, Chief of Police
11/25/2020
Date
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I hereby acknowledge receipt of the above and foregoing memorandum of temporary
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.
Police ry Officer Ryan Seweryn 8593
11/25/2020
#8593
Date
6