Suspensión temporal del oficial Justin Scott

RECEIVED
CITY OF AUSTIN
OF
CIVIL SERVICE
OFFICE
AUGUST 27, 2021
1:26 pm
MEMORANDUN
Austin Police Department
Office of the Chief of Police
TO:
Joya Hayes, Director of Civil Service
FROM:
Joseph Chacon, Interim Chief of Police
DATE:
August 27, 2021
SUBJECT:
Temporary Suspension of Police Officer Justin Scott #8224
Internal Affairs Control Number 2021-0318
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 Justin Scott #8224 from duty as a City of Austin, Texas police
officer for a period of ONE (1) days. The temporary suspension is effective beginning
on August 28, 2021 and continuing through August 28 , 2021.
I took this action because Officer Scott 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.
1
The following are the specific acts committed by Officer Scott in violation of Rule 10:
On March 6, 2021, while on patrol duty, Officer Justin Scott was dispatched to a "Crash
Hot Shot" between the 1000 and 1400 block of East Anderson Lane. While traveling on
the inside shoulder of the roadway to reach the scene, and intermittently using his lights
and siren, Officer Scott caused a minor crash by driving too close to a Home Depot truck.
Specifically, Officer Scott drove his patrol car close enough to the truck to strike its driver
side mirror with his patrol unit's passenger side mirror.
Despite the collision, Officer Scott continued to the original call for service. Officer Scott
did not make contact with the driver of the truck and he did not immediately notify his
supervisor.
After completing his responsibilities at the dispatched incident, Officer Scott returned to
his sector and notified his immediate supervisor of his collision with the Home Depot truck.
This notification prompted the supervisor to initiate an investigation into the collision,
including locating the driver of the Home Depot truck. Ultimately, the crash investigation
showed the APD patrol unit's passenger side mirror sustained damage, while the other
vehicle did not sustain any damage. Furthermore, no injuries were sustained. Officer
Scott's actions, including his failure to immediately stop and exchange information with
the other driver and notify a supervisor, were referred to Internal Affairs for investigation
for any violations of APD General Orders.
Officer Scott advised Internal Affairs investigators that he was immediately aware that he
was involved in, and at fault in, the collision with the Home Depot Truck. Despite these
facts, Officer Scott admitted that he did not think to notify a supervisor right away.
Moreover, he acknowledged that he failed to immediately stop, as required by state law, to
exchange information with the driver of the Home Depot truck. Officer Scott also admitted
that he violated APD Policy 804.2(a), General Operations of Department Vehicles. Officer
Scott explained his response, stating, "Cause in the manner that I drove the vehicle I
obviously was involved in a collision. That was my fault."
Officer Scott stated if he encountered this situation again, he would handle it differently:
"Main thing is I woulda got on the radio given that circumstance. Obviously I was in a
roadway or an area that was more open and maybe the crash wasn't a bad crash it was a
fender bender or whatever then I would have put that as not of high a priority as dealing
with my incident that occurred. But if I could relive that thing over that whole scenario
over again the main thing especially after watching the video is just letting my supervisor
know over the radio. Just slipped my mind unfortunately. But I had all intentions the whole
entire time even when my back-up eventually came my first words to him were that I hit my
mirror and needed to call my Corporal. So I wasn't trying to be sneaky or anything. I was
just I was gonna wait 'til the crash was over to do it."
2
By these actions, Officer Scott 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 804.2(a): Department Vehicles: General
Operation of Department Vehicles
804.2(a) General Operation of Department Vehicles
(a)
Employees will operate Department vehicles in a careful and
prudent manner within the guidelines of the law and Department
General Orders. Unsafe or negligent driving is prohibited.
1.
Vehicles will be operated in such a manner and at a rate of
speed that the driver, by use of ordinary care, can avoid
colliding with another vehicle, object, or person.
2.
Employees will wear a seatbelt in the front or back seat while
operating or riding inside of a Department vehicle unless there
is an operational, tactical, or medical need to be unsecured.
Austin Police Department Policy 900.1.1(b): General Conduct and
Responsibilities: Responsibility to Know and Comply
900.1.1(b) 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.
(b)
Employees who do not understand their assigned duties or
responsibilities will read the relevant directives and guidelines, and
will consult their immediate supervisor for clarification and
explanation.
By copy of this memo, Officer Scott 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 Scott is hereby advised that such provides for an appeal to an independent
third party hearing examiner. 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
3
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.
In addition, if this disciplinary suspension is for three (3) days or less, Officer Scott is
advised of the following provisions of Article 18, Section 1, of the Meet and Confer
Agreement:
The parties agree that when an officer is suspended for 1, 2, or 3 days the officer may
choose one of two methods of dealing with the suspensions as listed below.
a)
Suspensions that may not be appealed. The officer may choose to use
vacation or holiday time to serve the suspension with no loss of paid
salary and no break in service for purposes of seniority, retirement,
promotion, or any other purpose. The officer must agree that there is no
right to appeal if this method of suspension is chosen.
b)
Suspensions that may be appealed. The officer may appeal the
suspension to arbitration or the Civil Service Commission. If the officer
chooses to appeal the suspension, the arbitrator or Civil Service
Commission's authority is limited to ruling on whether or not the charges
against the officer are true or not true. If the arbitrator or Civil Service
Commission finds the charges to be true, there is no authority to mitigate
the punishment. If the arbitrator or Civil Service Commission finds the
charges to be not true, the officer shall be fully reinstated with no loss of
pay or benefit.
Arbitration Costs on Appealable Suspensions
In the event that an officer appeals a 1, 2 or 3 day suspension to arbitration, it is agreed
that the party that loses the arbitration shall be responsible for all costs of the arbitrator,
including travel and lodging if necessary.
To facilitate such payment on the part of the officer he shall submit, at the time of appeal,
a signed payroll deduction agreement that if the arbitrator rules in favor of the City he
authorizes up to one hundred dollars ($100.00) per month to be deducted from his regular
pay until such time as what would usually be the City's portion of the arbitrator's costs
have been satisfied.
(for LIPSH
08/77/21
JOSEPH CHACON, Interim Chief of Police
Date
4
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) 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 Officer Justin seat Scott #8224 #8224
08/27/2021
Date
5