Temporary suspension of Police Detective Juan Mata

RECEIVED 12/2/2021
7:02 pm
OF
CITY OF AUSTIN
DAY
COUNT
CIVIL SERVICE OFFICE
FOUNDED
1839
MEMORANDUN
Austin Police Department
Office of the Chief of Police
TO:
Joya Hayes, Director of Civil Service
FROM:
Joseph Chacon, Chief of Police
DATE:
December 2, 2021
SUBJECT:
Temporary Suspension of Police Detective Juan Mata #5354
Internal Affairs Control Number 2021-0747
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 Detective Juan Mata #5354 from duty as a City of Austin, Texas police
officer for a period of Ten (10) days. The temporary suspension is effective beginning on
December 3, 2021 and continuing through December 12, 2021.
I took this action because Det. Mata 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 Det. Mata in violation of Rule 10:
1
On May 25, 2021, Austin Police Department (APD) officers responded to a disturbance at
a duplex in East Austin. The call text stated that an unknown male and female were
involved in a physical disturbance. Officers identified the two subjects involved in the
disturbance. Officers conducted interviews, took photographs, and documented the events
from this night in a report titled "Assault w/Injury Family/Dating Violence, The officers
concluded that they did not have probable cause to make an arrest on the night of the
incident, but they provided the victim with contact information to follow up with the APD
Domestic Violence Unit.
On June 10, 2021, at 1:58 P.M., Detective Juan Mata designated himself as the lead
investigator for this case. At 3:31 P.M. on the same day, Det. Mata added a supplemental
report titled Case Review, writing "case suspended - declined prosecution. "
On July 20, 2021, the APD Internal Affairs (IA) received a Notice of Formal Complaint
from the Office of Police Oversight (OPO). The complaint was submitted by the female
victim of the above-mentioned Family/Dating Violence incident. She alleged in part that
Det. Mata did not properly investigate her allegations against her husband.
IA Investigation
IA reviewed the criminal case file, including reports, supplements, audio, and video files.
IA also interviewed available witnesses to the Family Violence incident. Additionally, IA
interviewed the investigators (Det. Mata and another detective assigned in place of Det.
Mata) as well as the Assistant County Attorney (ACA)-who originally declined
prosecution of the Family Violence incident, when Det. Mata presented it to her-and who
later approved an arrest warrant for Assault with Injury Family Violence - Class A
Misdemeanor, when it was presented to her by the subsequently assigned detective.
IA established the following timeline of events:
June 10, 2021
The victim called to check the status of her case and Det. Mata answered the
Domestic Violence main line. (During this conversation, the victim mentioned the
name of a potential witness. Det. Mata did not ask for this potential witness's
contact information, nor did he ever contact this person.)
@ 1:35 P.M. the victim emailed Det. Mata additional photos depicting her injuries.
These pictures showed more developed bruises then the ones taken by the on-scene
officers. (The ACA indicated that Det. Mata never shared these photos with her,
and told IA that she did not think Det. Mata had access to these photos since the
victim ultimately sent them directly to her in July.)
@ 1:37 P.M. Det. Mata called/spoke to the ACA for approximately fifteen minutes.
@ 1:58 P.M. Det. Mata self-assigned himself to the case as the lead investigator.
@ 3:31 P.M. Det. Mata added a supplement to the case stating what material he
reviewed and final determination that the prosecution was declined/the
investigation was suspended.
2
@ 3:51 P.M. Det. Mata added a supplement stating that the case had been staffed
with the ACA and after her review the ACA declined prosecution. (Det. Mata
admitted to IA that he received approval for the "declined prosecution" from the
ACA even though he never reviewed the Body Worn Camera (BWC) footage from
the immediate aftermath of the incident. The newly assigned detective and the ACA
both advised IA that they deemed this BWC footage to be significant. The BWC
footage was one of several pieces of evidence that Det. Mata failed to provide or
apprise the ACA of.)
June 15, 2021
Det. Mata called the victim and they spoke for approximately fifteen minutes.
During this conversation, the victim informed Det. Mata of a recording of her
husband admitting to committing the Family Violence. (Det. Mata admitted to IA
that he never listened to this recording nor did he share it with the ACA). I
Det. Mata called two of the potential witnesses and he spoke to one of them for
approximately five minutes and the other for approximately ten minutes.
June 16, 2021
@ 12:32 P.M. Det. Mata added a witness supplement documenting the contact with
the two aforementioned witnesses.
@ 1:00 P.M. Det. Mata called a number associated with the victim for forty-four
seconds. Det. Mata indicated this is the conversation where he informed the victim
that the charges were still declined by the ACA. (Det. Mata claimed to IA that he
also spoke to the ACA before this conversation, where the ACA "declined
prosecution" a second time. He stated it was his practice to document his
conversation(s) with an ACA in a supplement, but he failed to do so in this case.)
June 29, 2021
@ 8:25 A.M. the victim sent an email to Det. Mata asking for the identity of the
ACA who declined to prosecute her allegations.
@ 8:39 A.M. Det. Mata responded by providing the name and email address of the
ACA who rejected the charges. Unfortunately, he transposed an extra "s" to the
ACA's name and email address.
@ 11:15 A.M. Det. Mata received a call from the ACA on his City-issued cell
phone for approximately fifteen minutes.
@ 2:41 P.M. the victim attempted to send an email to the ACA using the email
provided by Det. Mata and carbon copied (CC'ed) Det. Mata on the email. The
email contained the time stamp injury photos taken by one of the potential
witnesses. The ACA never received the email because the victim used the incorrect
email provided by Det. Mata.
1
She also identified additional potential witnesses. On this particular occasion, Det. Mata asked for the
contact information for the potential witnesses and put the victim in contact with a Victim Services counselor.
3
July 14, 2021
The victim contacted the ACA by phone and then sent numerous emails to the
ACA's correct email address (including the injury photos that the victim first sent
to Det. Mata on June 10 & June 29).
July 15, 2021
The ACA sent an email to Det. Mata's supervisor with the subject, "Help on
pending case. The ACA told Det. Mata's supervisor in the email that the victim
was uncomfortable with Det. Mata. In part, the ACA stated, " ...for reasons I don't
quite understand the victim is uncomfortable with Mata, The ACA continued, "I
had agreed with Mata's assessment of this case. All of the information that changed
my mind on this case Det. Mata never had access to.' (Det. Mata ultimately
admitted to IA that he did indeed have access to the information that "changed"
the ACA's assessment of the case.)
July 16, 2021
Det. Mata's supervisor emailed another detective in the Domestic Violence Unit
and asked him to contact the ACA and look into this case.
July 27, 2021
The newly assigned detective presented the information to the ACA and then wrote
a supplement documenting his review of this case. The newly assigned detective
presented a Probable Cause (PC) Affidavit to a presiding Judge and an arrest
warrant was approved and issued for Assault with Injury Family Violence - Class
A Misdemeanor.
The subject self-surrendered to the Travis County Jail on the same day to satisfy
the warrant.
Detective Mata's October 14, 2021 IA Interview
During his IA interview, Det. Mata stated he generally does a thorough job of notating or
documenting everything he does in a case, by doing "a supplement for every little thing
that I do." However, in this particular case, he not only admitted to failing to meet his own
expectations, but more importantly failing to meet the expectations of the Domestic
Violence Unit.
Specifically, Det. Mata acknowledged that he failed to upload all of the interviews he
completed in this case into the APD Versadex reporting system. He also acknowledged
that he failed to write multiple supplements for some of the steps and interviews he
performed in this case, including getting a second "declination" from the ACA and the
information he provided her that led to the second "declination."
Det. Mata also acknowledged that he failed to notate pertinent information provided to him
by witnesses within the supplements that he did write. Moreover, Det. Mata stated that the
victim provided him with the name of a potential witness in his initial conversation with
her, yet he failed to ask the victim for the witness's contact information, nor did he try to
4
locate that person. Det. Mata was not able to offer an explanation as to why he deviated
from his normal practice or why he failed to take multiple follow-up steps. He did at least
indicate that he "should" have done each of them.
Surprisingly, Det. Mata stated he generally does not review BWC footage from the
incidents that he investigates. This is entirely unacceptable to me and his Chain-of-
Command, particularly in this case, where Det. Mata overlooked useful information that
factored into the ACA's initial decision not to prosecute the suspect and into her later
decision to prosecute the suspect. Moreover, Det. Mata acknowledged that he failed to
review an audio recording provided to him by the victim, in which she claimed that she
elicited
a
confession from the suspect. 2 This too is unacceptable. Yet again, Det. Mata
could not offer a reasonable explanation for why he failed to review these materials.
At the conclusion of his IA interview, Det. Mata only acknowledged that he violated APD
General Order 402.2 Incident Reporting. However, I agree with Det. Mata's Chain-of-
Command that he not only violated APD General Order 402.2 Incident Reporting, but he
also violated 900.4.3 Neglect of Duty and 403.2 Follow-Up Investigations General Orders.
In sum, but for the persistence of the victim, this Family Violence case would not have
been properly vetted and prosecuted by the ACA because of Det. Mata's neglect. Det. Mata
admittedly failed to review all of the potential evidence and take necessary steps, including
properly reviewing and documenting all of the evidence in his reports and/or supplements.
He also did not provide all of the relevant information or potential evidence to the ACA
during his review of this Family Violence case. This misinformation and potential evidence
that the ACA was not privy to impacted the ACA's decision to initially decline charges in
the incident. The case then had to be re-assigned to another detective and charges were
ultimately filed after the newly assigned detective provided information to the ACA that
Det. Mata neglected to provide. This demonstrates to myself and the Chain-of-Command
that Det. Mata was in a position to better inform the ACA at the initial assessment of the
case and that his mistakes impacted the decision to pursue charges from the onset.
By these actions, Det. Mata 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 900.4.3: 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:
2
While the audio recording did not have the stated evidentiary value, that still does not excuse Det. Mata's
neglect.
5
(a)
Lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be
enforced.
(b)
Unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks.
(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 402.2: Incident Reporting and
Documentation: Incident Reporting
402.2 Incident Reporting
A well-written report can help make a case just as easily as a poorly written report
can ruin a case. Employees have the responsibility to write clear, factual, and
complete reports.
Austin Police Department Policy 403.2: Follow-Up Investigations
403.2 Follow-Up Investigations
Follow-up investigations may include, but are not limited to:
(a)
Reviewing and analyzing preliminary reports.
(b)
Reviewing Department records and databases.
(c)
Seeking additional information from complainants, witnesses,
neighbors, informants, officers and Department employees.
(d)
The incident may require contact with the victim(s) and witness(es)
by the assigned personnel to obtain information not uncovered
during the preliminary investigation.
(e)
Upon request and without jeopardizing case security, the assigned
personnel or designee shall advise the victim(s) of the status of the
case.
6
(f)
Conducting interviews and interrogations. Arranging for the
dissemination of information, as appropriate.
(g)
Soliciting assistance and/or information from other Units within the
Department and/or outside law enforcement agencies.
(h)
Planning, organizing and conducting searches.
(i)
Collecting physical evidence.
(j)
Identifying and apprehending suspects.
(k)
Follow-up on emergency mobile phone request court orders and
related paperwork within 48 hours of first request.
(I)
Checking suspects' criminal histories.
(m)
Determining the involvement of suspects in other crimes.
(n)
Reviewing the results of laboratory examinations.
(o)
Preparing cases for court presentation.
(p)
Assisting in the prosecution.
(q)
Documenting entry, modification, validation or cancelation of
TCIC/NCIC records.
Det. Mata 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, Det. Mata 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, Det. Mata 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.
12/2/2021
JOSEPH CHACON, Chief of Police
Date
7
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.
If Police Detective Juan 5354 Mata
12-2-21
#5354
Date
8