Queja formal: Propósito y alcance y otras violaciones a políticas

OF
CITY
AUSTIN
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
FOUNDED
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
ICMS #: 2021-1170
November 29, 2021
Complaint: The complainant alleges:
"Summary of Complaint
Austin Police broke open the door of a closed-for-renovation non-profit office and
seized the non-profit's entire security footage recording apparatus, including weeks of
confidentialvideo recordings, instead of simply emailing a subpoena for the relevant two
hours and five minutes of footage to the organization's Executive Director.
In other words, Austin Police sent five armed officers in at least four separate city-
owned vehicles to raid a non-profit for evidence that could have been collected faster, cheaper,
and more precisely via a proper email.
This intimidating show of force targeted at the
has further
damaged Austin Police's already shaky relationship with the immigrant community. And it
belies Austin Police claims about understaffing.
Most troubling of all, Austin Police appear to have no clue why their decision to
dramatically bust open the door of an immigrant workers' rights and legal services non-
profitwas SO problematic. Supervisors at the scene rudely dismissed attorneys who pleaded
with Austin Police to display some respect and compassion for the community that
serves.
Finally, Austin Police needlessly traumatized and detained two of the non-profit's
administrative employees who were packing boxes and removing wall fixtures inside the
closed offices when armed officers broke into the building.
The evidence sought was subject to confidentiality
rules
Austin Police sought video footage of an alleged attempted assault that occurred in the
non-profit's parking lot on
The cameras record everyone who enters and exits
the building. The video footage-which could show the organization's legal services clients
entering and exiting the building-is subject to important confidentiality and privacy
restrictions.
provides legal services to immigrant working families. It is,
in other words, a law firm. The attorneys and staff who work for the non-profit must follow
ethical and statutory rules regarding the confidentiality of information related to legal
representation.
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.
1
OF
CITY
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
FOUNDED
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
The Texas Disciplinary Rules for Professional Conduct of attorneys broadly and
clearly define the types of information that attorneys cannot release without the client's
consent or a court order:
Confidential information includes both privileged information and
unprivileged client information. Privileged information refers to the
information of a client protected by the lawyer-client privilege. Unprivileged
client information means all information relating to a client or furnished by the
client, other than privileged information, acquired by the lawyer during the
course of or by reasonof the representation of the client.
The attorneys at the
could lose their law licenses if they
simplyhanded Austin Police confidential information about their legal clients. This
information can only be released with the consent of the client or under a court order.
What should have happened
The alleged attempted assault occurred on
A subpoena for two hours and five minutes of the non-profit's video footage was
obtained on
. The subpoena should have been emailed on
to
Executive Director
with an electronic return
acknowledgement requested.
The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (art. 24.04(a)) is
clear: A subpoena is served by:
(1) reading the subpoena in the hearing of the witness;
(2) delivering a copy of the subpoena to the witness;
(3) electronically transmitting a copy of the subpoena,
acknowledgment of receipt requested, to the last known electronic
address of the witness; or
(4) mailing a copy of the subpoena by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the last known address of the witness
Next, the officer who emailed the subpoena to the organization's Executive Director
should have filed a return of service documenting that he properly served the subpoena. Again,
the Code of Criminal Procedure (art. 24.04(b)) is quite clear:
The officer having the subpoena shall make due return thereof, showing the
time and manner of service, if served under Subsection (a)(1) or (2) of this
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.
2
OF
CITY
RUSTIN
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
FOUNDED
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
article, the acknowledgment of receipt, if served under Subsection (a)(3) of
this article, orthe return receipt, if served under Subsection (a)(4) of this article.
If the subpoena is not served, the officer shall show in his return the cause of
his failure to serve it.
Had Austin Police served the subpoena on
, organization attorneys would have
pulled the footage, reviewed it for attorney-client privilege, and turned over the responsive
information to Austin Police by
.
Instead, Austin Police waited until
to conduct a raid and seize an
unknown number of days of confidential footage stored on the recording device's hard drives.
Ironically, the
footage sought by Austin Police was likely automatically
recorded-over when it was 21 days old on
This was three days AFTER Austin
Police would have obtained the footage had they served the subpoena and ten days BEFORE
they raided the non-profit.
List of Complaints
Austin Police obtained a subpoena for two hours and five minutes of a non-profit's
private video footage but then failed to even attempt to serve the subpoena.
Austin Police either do not know or do not care how to properly serve a subpoena.
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 24.04(a) states that a subpoena can be hand-delivered, read
aloud, emailed with a return acknowledgement, or mailed certified mail.
Austin Police failed to prepare a return of service as required by Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure 24.04(b).
Austin Police misled non-profit staff about the organization's legal obligations
regarding the department's investigation of an alleged attempted assault that occurred in
the
parking lot.
Austin Police do not understand or purposely misrepresented the differences between
a search warrant that is signed by a Judge and a Grand Jury subpoena that is signed by an
Assistant District Attorney.
Austin Police said they would come in person to serve the subpoena on
and
but to
knowledge failed to show up both days.
Austin Police misrepresented the status of the subpoena to Austin Municipal Court
Judge
and obtained a search warrant from her under the false pretense that a
subpoena had been served.
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.
3
OF
CITY
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
Austin Police wasted city resources when they sent five armed officers in at least four
separate city-owned vehicles to execute a search warrant instead of simply emailing a
subpoena.
Austin Police at the scene expressed contempt for immigrant communities'
anxiety regarding law enforcement. The officers' statements directly contravene the
department's statedvalues about equity, cultural competency, and community engagement.
Austin Police escalated the confrontation with
attorneys in
the parking lot by shamming that two women attorneys were a threat. By way of example,
one officer slowly circled an attorney's minivan while she argued with police supervisors at
the scene. He peered intently in the open windows as if contraband were hidden among the
car seats and kid detritus. By way of another example, officers hassled the second attorney
when she tried to park her car in the organization's parking lot.
Austin Police escalated the confrontation by preposterously and falsely accusing a non-
profit employee-who was removing bathroom fixtures with a drill-of tampering with
evidence.
Austin Police damaged the non-profit's front door when they broke in to conduct the
raid.
Austin Police left the non-profit without a functional security system when they seized
the entire DVR.
Austin Police inappropriately profiled a non-profit employee inside the building. The
first words they spoke to the employee were "Do you speak English?".
Austin Police failed to wear face masks even through there were visible signs calling
for masking and the two staff people inside the building were appropriately masked.
Austin Police needlessly drew their weapons after entering the building. At every
stage, they escalated instead of de-escalating.
Austin Police improperly continued to search the non-profit's building even after
seizing the security footage recorder authorized under Judge
search warrant.
Even after seizing the evidence authorized by the search warrant and even though non-
profit staff had unlocked each room that they were requested, Austin Police broke into an
additional locked room, which contained attorney-client privileged legal files in a filing
cabinet.
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.
4
OF
AUSTEN
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
FOUNDED
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
Austin Police escalated the encounter with non-profit staff inside the building by
refusing to allow staff to observe while Austin Police searched the office which contained
attorney-client privileged files.
Timeline of events leading up to execution of the search warrant
Austin police responded to a call for service regarding an alleged attempted assault that
had occurred near the
parking lot.
Austin Police emailed the
Communications Director and the general-use
" email account and asked for advice on how to obtain the non-
profit's security footage. This was after Austin Police were already informed on the day of
the alleged attempted assault that non-attorney non-profit staff were not authorized to decide
when or how to release confidential information.
Austin Police must have obtained these two email addresses from the
"Contact
Us" page. It is not clear why a trained detective would expect legal advice about obtaining
confidential information from a communications professional listed as the contact person "For
Press Inquiries."
From
Date
Subject
To
Cc
Good afternoon.
The state members at
allowed responding
officers to review security footage which showed the suspect with a knife
but they would not allow the officers to obtain a copy of it. How can I go
about getting a copy of the video? Is there a legal department and if so.
what are the steps needed to obtain a copy?
Violent Crimes Aggravated Assault Unit
Austin Police Department
f
One Austin, Safer Together
Keeping you. your family & our community safe through innovative strategies &
community engagement
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.
5
OF
CITY
AURTH
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
FOUNDED
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
The
Director of HR and Operations promptly responded to Austin Police and
informed them that
had policies disallowing the organization from disseminating
confidential information.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject: Austin PD
External Email - Exercise Caution
We will not be releasing a copy of the footage as per our
privacy policies. Thank you.
It is unacceptable for Austin Police to respond to "we can't just hand you
confidential info" with a wink and a nod asking for advice on how to circumvent the privacy
policy. That is what happened next.
On
wrote:
If it requires a subpoena or search warrant then please let me know as I
will write it today to have it served tomorrow.
staff responded with the straight-forward truth. The non-
profit organization did not need or "require" anything from Austin Police.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject: Re: Austin PD Case
No, that's not necessary.
The detective responded that he had "spoken with a judge" and that a "court order is
being drafted now."
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.
6
OF
CITY
AUSTIN
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
On
wrote:
Unfortunately it is since you have already told me the video will not be
released. I have already spoken with a judge and the court order is
being drafted now.
This is a lie. The only Order obtained from a judge was not signed until
at
ISSUED at
on
to certify which witness my hand this day.
TRAVIS COUNTY TEXAS
CITY OF AUSTIN MUNICIPAL COURT
A reasonably well-trained detective would understand the differences between a search
warrant and a subpoena and would recognize why those differences are significant. Austin
Police spoke with an Assistant District Attorney (not a judge) and obtained a subpoena signed
by the Assistant District Attorney (not an order signed by the Court).
The subpoena sought security footage from the organization's parking lot cameras only
and limited the amount of footage to the relevant two hours and five minutes when the alleged
attempted assault occurred. This is significant because Austin Police vastly expanded the
evidence they sought to seize when they later obtained a search warrant.
NOW COMES, Assistant District Attorney, Travis County, Texas, who states to that the testimony of:
CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS
is believed to be material in behalf of the State in certain matters required to be inquired into by the Grand
Jury of Travis County. Wherefore said Assistant District Attorney asks that a subpoena duces tecum be
issued for the said CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS to appear before the Travis County Grand Jury
FORTHWITH and that CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS bring with him/her and produce in said Grand Jury,
at the said time and place, certain instruments in writing, desired as evidence in said criminal investigation,
as follows:
Original or clear copies of survillience video of the parking lot on
from
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.
7
OF
CITY
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
FOUNDED
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
The
subpoena was never served on the organization. It is not clear that
there was ever even any attempt to serve the document to the
Executive Director or its registered agent. (Both roles are filled by
a fact easy
searchable on the Texas Secretary of State website and the organization website).
Texas Secretary of State
John B. Scott
UCC
Business Organizations
Trademarks
Notary
Account
Help/Fees
Briefcase
Logout
BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS INQUIRY VIEW ENTITY
The only reason that the non-profit ever even learned about the existence or contents
of the subpoena is because organization staff requested a courtesy copy of the search
warrant that did not exist but about which Austin Police had lied about having obtained.
Having heard nothing from Austin Police since the weirdly threatening "I have already
spoken with a judge" email, non-profit staff asked "will you please send us a courtesy copy
of the search warrant? Please note that I am not authorized to accept services, but we would
like a copy to review."
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.
8
OF
STATE
AUSTEN
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject: Re: Austin PD Case
Will you please send us a courtesy copy of the search warrant? Please note that I am not
authorized to accept service, but we would like a copy to review.
Austin Police then emailed the subpoena to the non-profit staffer and said he would
"be by today to pick up the video":
From:
Date:
Subject: RE: Austin PD Case
To:
Attached is the subpoena issued by Travis County ADA
I will be by today to pick up the
video
The organization took this to mean that Austin Police intended to come by to serve the
subpoena in person that day. In hindsight, it appears that Austin Police may have believed that
the subpoena had already been served and SO the ten-day clock to comply had already expired.
Regardless, Austin Police never came by that day or any day to
knowledge until
when they raided the office to execute a
searchwarrant.
The next confusing communication between the non-profit and Austin Police was an
email apologizing for not yet serving the subpoena ("Sorry I have not made it over to the
business") and stating that the organization would have ten days to comply from
("we
are going to honor the 10 days you have to comply with the court order before issuing a search
warrant").
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.
9
OF
GIVE
AUSTRA
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
From:
Date:
Subject: RE: Austin PD Case
To:
Sorry I have not made it over to the business, we are going to honor the 10
days you have to comply with the court order before issuing a search warrant.
If the video is ready before the 10 days then please let me know so I can collect
it. If it is not, then we will proceed with the search warrant for the seizure of
the surveillance system.
It was not clear what court order this email was referencing or when Austin Police
expected to "make it over to the business" to serve the subpoena. The only thing that was clear
was that no subpoena, search warrant, or court order had been served on the organization and
thus the organization had no legal obligations regarding the investigation.
Despite never having "made it over" to
to serve the subpoena, Austin Police
obtained a search warrant on
at
from Austin Municipal Court Judge
-
The search warrant was significantly broader than the never-served-subpoena
signed by Assistant District Attorney
on
.
a. Any film images, digital images, photographs, slides, negatives, film, and/or undeveloped film,
videotape and reproductions of any of these, and the security camera recording device (to include
any recordable devices that may contain the same; i.e. digital camera, SD cards, DVR's, or USB flash
drives) that visually depict any illegal activity or events which occurred associated to the offense(s)
in Paragraph 4.
Austin Police's probable cause affidavit is highly misleading because it incorrectly
gives the impression that a Grand Jury subpoena was served. Yes, the subpoena was "sent" to
non-profit staff. But it was only sent in response to a request from the non-profit for a courtesy
copy because they had been waiting to be properly served and were confused about what
Austin Police were doing.
The fact that the staffer had informed Austin Police that she was not authorized
to accept service of process on behalf of the organization was not disclosed to Judge
.
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.
10
OF
CITY
AUTHOR
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
On
a Grand Jury Subpoena was sent to
for the requested surveillance footage. Your
Affiant advised
the court order would allow the business ten days to produce the video. After ten days. the
business has not produced the video and they have not attempted to contact your Affiant.
Your Affiant believes the surveillance video will be located on a Digital Video Recorder (DVR) inside of the
business located at
Austin. Travis County. Texas. Affiant knows through experience that
many businesses with a surveillance system has it connected to a DVR which stores the recordings captured
by the cameras it is connected to.
Wherefore. Affiant asks for issuance of a warrant that will authorize him to search said suspected place
and premises for said evidence and seize the same.
The probable cause affidavit is written in an accusatory tone that makes it appear
AustinPolice need training on the constitutional limits of their authority. "They have not
attempted to contact your Affiant" is a lie but more importantly, it implies that non-profit staff
had some legal obligation to contact Austin Police, which they did not.
On
, the Austin offices of the
were closed
for renovations.
Around
,
two administrative staff-who were inside the building packing
boxes, moving furniture, and removing items from the walls-heard knocking on the front
door of the office. Because the office was closed to the public, they continued about their
work. It later became clear that it was Austin Police who were knocking on the side doors and
windows but the officers did not identify themselves or their purpose for banging on the
building at this time.
Around
Austin Police moved one of their four vehicles to face the front of the
,
building and used the public address system. (Originally, there were four Austin Police
vehicles: two unmarked sedans and two marked patrol SUVs.) The officers identified
themselves as Austin Police and stated for the first time that they were there to execute a
search warrant. Officers used the public address system to make additional statements, but
they were unintelligible. As some officers used the public address system, others hopped the
fence to the backyard, thereby surrounding the building in what felt like a needless but scary
display of tactical aggression.
Around
,
an attorney representing the non-profit in this
matter, arrived at the parking lot. Even though Austin Police were expecting
to arrive,
they acted like her minivan turning into the parking lot was a threat and they tried to make her
stay in the car.
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.
11
OF
CITY
QUALITY
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
FOUNDED
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
and Austin Police's confrontation was heated and it escalated as the parties
failed to find common ground.
tried unsuccessfully to convince the Austin Police that
they did not need to break in the door and terrify the people inside but rather should
simply serve the subpoena.
eventually did convince the Austin Police supervisor at
the scene that mistakes had been made with the subpoena. He was SO angry at that point that
he told her he did not care and they were going in the front door anyway.
tried to inform an Austin Police supervisor at the scene that the search warrant
had likely been obtained under the false pretense that a subpoena had been served and that
the search warrant was therefore improper on its face.
begged Austin Police to
consider the impact that their unnecessary show of force would have on the community and
its already troubled relationship with Austin Police.
Around
the
staff attorney (i.e., the non-profit's in-
house attorney) arrived at the office and joined
in discussing this matter with Austin
Police in hopes of understanding what could possibly necessitate a raid on the nonprofit's
office.
Austin Police then intensely escalated the situation by claiming that non-profit staff
inside the building were seen destroying evidence near or on a media tower. They made the
two attorneys believe that this had turned into an exigent emergency. It turned out that Austin
Police who had hopped the fence and were peering in windows saw a staffer using a drill to
remove the toilet paper and paper towel dispensers from the wall in preparation for painting
the bathroom. Austin Police were spying into a bathroom (believable) and mistook a bathroom
shelf for a media tower (not believable).
This unequivocally false claim that organization staff were tampering with evidence
alarmed the two attorneys outside. They feared this escalation would lead to someone inside
being injured and SO they stopped trying to reason with Austin Police about the subpoena and
search warrant and instead focused on ensuring that the staff inside knew how to conduct
themselves when Austin Police broke in the door.
The
staff attorney-in an attempt to forestall physical
violence against the two staff inside and to help the officers feel safe and unthreatened,
instructed the staff inside to stand in the entryway with their hands visible. She informed
officers that two people would be standing in the entryway with their hands visible.
Around
Austin Police used a crowbar to break into the
,
office. The Austin Police who initially entered the building did not wear masks to
protect staff from the spread of COVID19. Throughout the raid, only one of the five Austin
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.
12
OF
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
Police officers wore any face covering inside the
office. All the
while, both non-profit staffers, who do not receive taxpayer dollars to protect and serve, wore
face masks to protect Austin Police officers from their potential breakthrough infections of
COVID19.
The first thing an Austin Police supervisor said when he walked in was to ask one of
the non-profit staffers if he spoke English. He does. The other staffer was not asked if she
spoke English, but unlike the first, she is white.
The staffers answered Austin Police questions about the location of the security system
and unlocked the server room where it is stored when asked to. Staff unlocked two other doors
when demanded. One officer opened the door to the server room and began removing the
security system. Two other officers drew and raised their firearms and performed dramatic
sweep of the office's other rooms, presumably looking for non-existent threats.
Even after completing their search, officers paraded through the open areas of
office with their firearms drawn. Austin Police refused to allow non-profit staff to observe the
search, but they could see some of the officer's actions from where they were detained up
against a wall in the building's lobby area. Both staffers saw Austin Police take pictures inside
the buildings offices. The security system was in the server room and not in the
offices.
Therefore, any photos the officers took inside the office was entirely unrelated to the
search warrant and should be destroyed.
Taking photos of items unrelated to the search warrant is especially alarming as the
officers searched
legal department's office, which contains case files and other
confidential materials subject to attorney-client privilege. The legal department's office is not
one of the three doors that Austin Police demanded the staff open and it is on the opposite end
of the building. Staff alerted Austin Police that the room was the legal department's office
and that nothing related to the security system was in there. Officer's broke in and searched
the office anyway. They did not give staff an opportunity to unlock the door.
Staff became alarmed that officers were in the legal office for longer than it would take
to sweep the room. One staffer who was still detained in the entryway, moved a step to the
side to obtain a better view of the officers searching the legal department's office. Even though
she was in the entryway, well away from the doorway to the legal office, they barked at her to
get back.
Eventually Austin Police gave the non-profit staff a receipt for the seized security
recording device, and they left.
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.
13
OF
CITY
RUSTIN
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
Conclusion
The events of
1 could have been avoided. Austin Police could have,
quite simply, properly served the subpoena. Upon arriving at the
office and speaking with the non-profit's legal representative, Austin Police could have
negotiated a peaceful resolution to obtaining the security footage. Instead, five Austin
Police wasted their time and the taxpayers' dollars terrorizing
staff.
Austin Police paraded through the non-profit's building, including its legal services
office, with their guns drawn and raised. Neither
nor its staff members have been
accused of a violent crime (or any crime for that matter). The staff inside complied with every
command, unlocked offices, and answered questions regarding the security footage recording
system. Yet, Austin Police behaved as if they were interacting with dangerous individuals in
dangerous circumstances instead of two young people who were at work. Most importantly,
this event has further eroded the very limited trust the immigrant community has in Austin
Police. We, therefore ask that the Office of Police Oversight investigate the actions of Austin
Police leading up to and on
and take all steps within its authority to ensure that
such an injustice does not reoccur."
This notice of formal 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.
Recommended Administrative Policies to Review (to include but not limited to):
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 respect the rights of individuals and perform their services with honesty, sincerity,
courage, and sound judgment.
301.2 IMPARTIAL ATTITUDE AND COURTESY
Employees shall provide equal and fair protection of all rights under local, state, and federal law for
all members of the community. Law enforcement will be conducted in an impartial and equitable
manner. In an effort to create an organizational culture that is inclusive and nondiscriminatory,
employees shall act professionally, treat all persons fairly and equally, and strive to interact with the
community in a positive manner. Employees will perform all duties objectively and without regard
to personal feelings, animosities, friendships, financial status, occupation or employment status,
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.
14
OF
CITY
TURN
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
FOUNDED
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
sex, disability status, housing status, mental health or ability, citizenship, language, national origin,
creed, color, race, religion, age, political beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender
expression, ethnicity, or social or ethnic background. Employees will endeavor to understand and
respect cultural, national, racial, religious, physical, mental, and other differences.
306.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Both the federal and state Constitutions provide every individual with the right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures. This order provides general guidelines for Austin Police
Department personnel to consider when dealing with search and seizure issues.
900.1.1 RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND COMPLY
The rules of conduct set forth in this order do not serve as an all-inclusive list of requirements,
limitations, or prohibitions on employee conduct and activities; employees are required to know
and comply with all Department policies, procedures, and written directives.
900.3.2 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.
Recommended Classification: The OPO is permitted to make a preliminary recommendation on the
classification of administrative cases.
The OPO recommends this complaint receive a B classification.
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.
15