2022 Annual Report

Annual
Report
2022
A
U
S
T
I
N
C
I
T
H
A
OF
AUSTIN
OFFICE OF
.
POLICE OVERSIGHT
FOUNDER
1338
The Office of Police Oversight (OPO) provides independent, impartial oversight of the Austin Police Department
(APD). OPO and APD are separate departments within the City of Austin. OPO is staffed by civilians with oversight,
legal, policy, and community engagement expertise.
Mission: To provide impartial oversight of the Austin Police Department's conduct, practices, and policies to
enhance accountability, inform the public to increase transparency, and create sustainable partnerships
throughout the community.
Vision: To enhance a culture of accountability and transparency within policing in Austin.
Common goals of police oversight:
1. Improving public trust
2. Ensuring accessible complaint processes
3. Increasing transparency
4. Deterring police misconduct
5. Promoting thorough, fair investigations
6. Improving policies, practices, and training
7. Improving the public's understanding of police policy and training
8. Minimize legal risk associated with office misconduct
The Office of Police Oversight recognizes that effective change requires a comprehensive approach beyond
investigating complaints of alleged police misconduct. To achieve lasting improvements that benefit both the
community and the police department, we prioritize robust data research, policy development, and community
engagement. To this end, OPO is comprised of three divisions that work collaboratively to create positive change.
Complaint Division
Policy & Research Division
Communications & Community Engagement Division
Having three distinct divisions in place enables a comprehensive approach to executing oversight that prioritizes
accountability, transparency, and open communication.
1
Complaint Division
The Complaint Division of the Office of Police Oversight (OPO) accepts complaints and compliments about the
conduct of Austin Police Department (APD) officers. Anyone may submit complaints or compliments based on
their own or someone else's experience. OPO accepts contacts via phone, email, U.S. mail, or online. Community
members may also file complaints anonymously. Receiving anonymous feedback increases accessibility for
community members who would otherwise be unwilling or unable to share their experiences. Throughout 2022,
the OPO operated under the meet and confer agreement.
2021 ARBITRATION DECISION
In December 2021, OPO modified its operating procedures within the Complaint Division. These changes were in
response to an arbitration decision involving the Austin Police Association and the City of Austin. Per the
arbitrator's direction, the OPO was no longer allowed to perform certain tasks that were previously within the
purview of the Complaint Division, such as:
Receiving interview questions in advance
Change, modify, edit, or add suggestions to interview questions
Conduct preliminary reviews before a complaint investigation has been initiated by APD
HOW DID OPO PROCESS COMPLAINTS IN 2022?
Throughout 2022, the OPO operated under the meet and confer agreement.
STEP 1: After being contacted with a complaint, OPO entered the complaint in a shared database with APD. OPO
then notified APD and forwarded all information provided by the complainant.
STEP 2: APD reviewed the complaint and determined how it would be classified. OPO was allowed to make
classification recommendations; however, APD had sole discretion on the final classification of complaints. If APD
determined that the complaint was a Class A or Class B complaint and would be investigated, OPO monitored the
investigation.
STEP 3: APD conducted complaint investigations. Once an investigation was complete, APD had sole discretion in
deciding the disposition (outcome).
STEP 4: If APD determined that an officer had committed a policy violation, APD disciplined the officer. APD had
sole discretion in deciding how an officer would be disciplined for a sustained policy violation.
Note: If a sustained policy violation originated from a community member's complaint (an "external" complaint),
OPO communicated the details to the complainant who filed the complaint and published the discipline
documents on our website.
Please see below for a visual chart of the OPO Complaint Process.
2
STEP 1
STEP 2
STEP 3
STEP 4
After being contacted
APD reviewed the
APD conducted
If APD determined that
with a complaint, OPO
complaint and
complaint investigations
an officer had committed
entered the complaint in
determined how it would
Once an investigation
a policy violation, APD
shared database with
be classified. OPO was
was complete, APD had
disciplined the officer.
APD. OPO then notified
allowed to make
sole discretion in
APD had sole discretion
APD and forwarded all
classification
deciding the disposition
in deciding how an
information provided by
recommendations;
(outcome).
officer would be
the complainant.
however, APD had sole
disciplined for a
discretion on the final
sustained policy
classification of
violation
complaints. If APD
determined that the
complaint was a Class A
or Class B complaint and
would be investigated,
OPO monitored the
investigation
Image 1: OPO Complaint Process (2022)
WHAT KIND OF COMPLAINTS DID OPO GET IN 2022?
In 2022, due to the arbitration decision, the OPO could not conduct a preliminary review of complaints. Despite
this, the OPO attempted to evaluate complaints from the community to gain a better understanding of the issues
being reported. The categories presented below only pertain to allegations made by community members and
were evaluated solely based on the words used by the community to describe their complaints. In 2022, the OPO
found that the two most reported allegations were related: (1) a lack of assistance from APD and (2) a lack of
courtesy or impartial attitude.
Alleged Policy Violations in External Complaints
No assistance from APD
32.7%
Courtesy/Impartial Attitude
25.9%
False Arrest or Detention
10.3%
Use of Force
8.8%
Officer Driving Dangerously
6.4%
False/Incorrect Report Writing
5.9%
or Citation
Loss/Destruction of Property
3.5%
3
Racial Profiling
3.4%
Search/Seizure
3.1%
Table 1: External Complaint Allegations (2022)
HOW DID OPO OVERSEE COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS IN 2022?
There are two different types of complaints: APD initiates internal complaints, while external complaints originate
from contacts made to OPO. In 2022, OPO was responsible for overseeing investigations related to both internal
and external complaints. Specifically, OPO:
Reviewed information gathered by APD
Attended interviews conducted by APD
Recommended final dispositions to APD
Recommended case classifications to APD and
Recommended potential policy violations to APD
OPO COMPLAINT PROCESS STEP 1
After being contacted with a complaint, OPO entered the complaint in a shared database with APD. OPO then
notified APD and forwarded all information provided by the complainant.
STEP 1
STEP 2
STEP 3
STEP 4
After being contacted
APD reviewed the
APD conducted
If APD determined that
with a complaint, OPO
complaint and
complaint
an officer had
entered the complaint
determined how it
investigations Once an
committed a policy
in a shared database
would be classified.
investigation was
violation, APD
with APD. OPO then
OPO was allowed to
complete, APD had
disciplined the officer.
notified APD and
make classification
sole discretion in
APD had sole
forwarded all
information provided
recommendations;
deciding the
discretion in deciding
however, APD had sole
disposition (outcome).
how an officer would
by the complainant
discretion on the final
be disciplined for a
classification of
sustained policy
complaints If APD
violation.
determined that the
complaint was a Class
A or Class B complaint
and would be
investigated OPO
monitored the
investigation.
Image 2: Complaint Process Step 1
CONTACTS, COMPLAINTS AND COMPLIMENTS
An essential part of building trust between the community and APD is providing opportunities for people to
submit positive and negative feedback about their interactions with the Department. OPO works to provide these
opportunities in a way that is accessible to all. As a result, community members who wish to share feedback about
APD may do so by communicating with OPO online, in person, or by phone, email, or mail. OPO uses the term
contact to refer to any received communication; a contact may be a compliment, complaint, or general
4
information and assistance. When referring to negative feedback, OPO uses the term complaint, and when
referring to positive feedback, OPO uses the term compliment.
In 2022, OPO received 1,876 contacts and 117 compliments for APD.
In 2021, OPO received 2,239 contacts and 187 compliments for APD.
In 2020, OPO received 2,809 contacts and 177 compliments for APD.
In 2019, OPO received 1,353 contacts and 158 compliments for APD.
The graph below illustrates OPO's contacts and compliments between 2019 and 2022.
Breakdown of Contacts and Compliments
2019 - 2022
3000
2809
2500
2239
1876
2000
1500
1353
1000
500
158
177
187
117
0
2019
2020
2021
2022
Contacts
Compliments
Graph 1: Breakdown of Contacts and Compliments (2019-2022)
Please note that the significant increase in 2020 was due to local and national protests against police brutality.
Community members may also file complaints anonymously. Accepting anonymous feedback increases
accessibility for community members who would otherwise be unwilling or unable to share their experiences. In
2022, OPO received 91 anonymous complaints.
See below for a graph showing the number of anonymous complaints OPO received between 2019 - 2022.
5
Anonymous Complaints
2019 - 2022
300
243
250
200
104
102
91
100
50
2019
2020
2021
2022
Graph 2: Anonymous Complaints by Year (2019 - 2022)
OPO COMPLAINT PROCESS STEP 2
APD reviewed the complaint and determined how it would be classified. OPO was allowed to make classification
recommendations; however, APD had sole discretion on the final classification of complaints. If APD determined
that the complaint was a Class A or Class B complaint and would be investigated, OPO monitored the
investigation.
STEP 1
STEP 2
STEP 3
STEP 4
After being contacted
APD reviewed the
APD conducted
If APD determined that
with a complaint, OPO
complaint and
complaint
an officer had
entered the complaint
determined how it
investigations. Once an
committed a policy
in a shared database
would be classified.
investigation was
violation, APD
with APD. OPO then
OPO was allowed to
complete, APD had
disciplined the officer.
notified APD and
make classification
sole discretion in
APD had sole
forwarded all
recommendations;
deciding the
discretion in deciding
information provided
however, APD had sole
disposition (outcome).
how an officer would
by the complainant.
discretion on the final
be disciplined for a
classification of
sustained policy
complaints. If APD
violation.
determined that the
complaint was a Class
A or Class B complaint
and would be
investigated, OPO
monitored the
investigation.
Image 3: Complaint Process Step 2
6
WHAT IS A CLASSIFICATION?
All complaints receive a classification; the classification determines how APD will handle the complaint. There are
several classifications outlined in APD's General Orders. You may view it online or in the table below.
Classification
Assessment
Investigative Responsibility
Administrative Inquiry
An inquiry into a critical
Administrative Inquiries will be
incident, or other incident,
assigned to the appropriate Unit or
ordered by the Chief of Police or
Division based on the
designee. Inquiries are generally
circumstances surrounding the
for issues that could destroy
inquiry.
public confidence in, and
respect for, the Department or
which is prejudicial to the good
order of the Department.
Class A Complaint
Cases in which the potential
Class A complaints are investigated
discipline is more than a 15-day
by IA. Complaints that involve
suspension, indefinite
allegations of criminal conduct are
suspension and/ or demotion
also concurrently investigated by
according to the Discipline
SIU as outlined in General Order
Matrix. Generally, Class A
901.
Complaints are allegations of a
serious nature, which include,
but are not limited to:
Criminal conduct.
Serious violations of a
general order, rule, or
regulation.
Conduct that challenges
the integrity, good
order, or discipline of
the Department.
Class B Complaint
Cases in which the potential
Class B Complaints that are OFCA
discipline is a 15-day suspension
eligible will be investigated by the
or less. Generally, Class B
employee's chain-of-command.
Complaints are allegations of a
Class B complaints not eligible for
less serious nature, which
OFCA will be investigated by IA. The
include, but are not limited to:
OPO has full access rights to Class B
Less serious violations of
investigations that are conducted
a Department general
by an employee's chain-of-
order, rule or regulation
command. Class B complaints are
(e.g., profanity, belittling
resolved through three different
language, inadequate
procedures:
police service, minor
Investigation by IA
traffic violations).
OFCA, if eligible (chain-of-
Negligent damage or
command investigations)
7
loss of property.
Mediation, if eligible
Class C Complaint
Generally, allegations that:
Class C complaints will be reviewed
Do not fit into the Class A or
by the IA commander and the
Class B category,
employee's chain-of-command. If
The complaint does not
all of the parties agree with the
rise to the level of a
initial Class C classification, the
general order violation,
complaint will be "Administratively
and
Closed". If it is determined that
The complaint would
additional investigative follow-up is
best be handled through
needed, the complaint may be
other departmental
reclassified and investigated
processes (e.g.,
according to its new classification.
grievance, Conduct
Counseling
Memorandum,
Employee Success Plan,
or training).
Class D Complaint
Allegations that do not rise to
Class D complaints will be reviewed
the level of a general order
by the IA commander and the
violation and meet one or more
employee's chain-of-command. If
of the following criteria:
all of the parties agree with the
A preliminary review of
initial Class D classification, the
the allegation shows it is
complaint will be "Administratively
not true (e.g., video or
Closed". If it is determined that
audio recording shows
additional investigative follow-up is
allegation is false), and/
needed, the complaint may be
or
reclassified and investigated
The complaint is about
according to its new classification
the probable cause for
an arrest or citation that
appears to be
unsubstantiated.
Supervisor Referral
A complaint:
If IA/OPO receives this informal
That is a minor policy
complaint from a citizen, it will be
violation which may
forwarded to the appropriate
result in informal
supervisor and chain-of-command
discipline, or
for its follow-up and response.
Where no formal
Supervisor Referrals are entered
complaint affidavit has
into the IA tracking system for
been received by IA,
documentation purposes only and
however the
not for disciplinary purposes.
complainant requests
that the issue be
brought to the attention
of the supervisor, or
Where there is no policy
violation. These informal
complaints can either be
8
made directly to IA, an
officer's supervisor
and/or the OPO and are
most appropriately
handled through other
departmental processes
(e.g., grievance,
Conduct Counseling
Memorandum,
Employee Success Plan,
or training).
Information Incident
An incident where no apparent
Complaints documented using the
general order violation has been
IA External Complainant Contact
committed and a signed affidavit
Form will be forwarded to IA with a
has not been received.
notation that the complaint either
Information incidents may also
was/was not handled satisfactorily.
be from complaints that are
Satisfactorily handled complaints
brought to the direct attention
will be marked as "Information"
of a supervisor, handled
Information incidents are entered
satisfactorily and documented
into the IA tracking system for
on an IA External Complainant
documentation purposes only and
Contact Form.
not for disciplinary purposes.
Table 2: APD General Orders Complaint Classifications
APD is responsible for assigning a classification. OPO may make a classification recommendation; however, APD
has sole discretion in determining the final classification of a complaint.
HOW DID APD CLASSIFY EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS IN 2022?
There are two different types of complaints: internal and external. Internal complaints are complaints that APD
initiates, while external complaints originated from contacts made to OPO.
In 2022, OPO received 1,876 contacts. OPO forwarded 689 complaints from those contacts to APD, requesting
an investigation.
The table below represents how APD classified each of the 689 external complaints.
9
External Case Classification
Administrative Inquiry
2
A
13
B
32
C
31
D
196
Information
88
Not Applicable to OPO
28
Supervisory Referral
208
Supervisory Referral - Minor Policy
5
Violation
Community Concern
86
Total
689
Table 3: Classification of External Cases (2022)
Note: The category Not Applicable to OPO describes complaints that OPO cannot accept. OPO may only accept
complaints against APD officers. Complaints that are not about APD officers do not apply to OPO.
HOW DID APD CLASSIFY INTERNAL COMPLAINTS in 2022?
In 2022, APD initiated 202 internal complaints. The table below represents the classifications that APD assigned
to each of the 202 internal complaints.
Internal Case Classification
Administrative Inquiry
13
Class A
47
Class B
101
Class D
2
Supervisory Referral - Minor Policy Violation
39
TOTAL
202
Table 4: Classification of Internal Cases (2022)
10
OPO COMPLAINT PROCESS STEP 3
APD conducted complaint investigations. Once an investigation was complete, APD had sole discretion in deciding
the disposition (outcome).
STEP 1
STEP 2
STEP 3
STEP 4
After being contacted
APD reviewed the
APD conducted
If APD determined that
with a complaint, OPO
complaint and
complaint
an officer had
entered the complaint
determined how it
investigations. Once
committed a policy
in a shared database
would be classified
an investigation was
violation, APD
with APD. OPO then
OPO was allowed to
complete, APD had
disciplined the officer.
notified APD and
make classification
sole discretion in
APD had sole
forwarded all
recommendations;
deciding the
discretion in deciding
information provided
however, APD had sole
disposition (outcome).
how an officer would
by the complainant.
discretion on the final
be disciplined for a
classification of
sustained policy
complaints. If APD
violation.
determined that the
complaint was a Class
A or Class B complaint
and would be
investigated, OPO
monitored the
investigation.
Image 4: Complaint Process Step 3
HOW MANY EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS WERE INVESTIGATED IN 2022?
In 2022, OPO received 1,876 contacts. From these, OPO forwarded 689 complaints to APD, requesting an
investigation. OPO oversaw those complaints and found that of the 689, 47 were investigated, and 401 were not
investigated. Of the 47 that APD investigated, 17 resulted in sustained policy violations.
Please see the image below for a visual representation of this information.
11
1876 Total Contacts
689 Complaints Sent
to APD
401 Complaints Not
47 Complaints
Investigated
Investigated
17 Investigations
Resulted In Sustained
Policy Violations
Image 5: Breakdown of External Complaints (2022)
HOW MANY INTERNAL COMPLAINTS WERE INVESTIGATED IN 2022?
In 2022, APD initiated 202 internal complaints. OPO oversaw those complaints and found that 161 were
investigated and 41 were not investigated. Of the 161 complaints investigated, 101 resulted in sustained policy
violations.
Please see the image below for a visual representation of this information.
12
202 Complaints
Originated from APD
161 Complaints
41 Complaints Not
Investigated
Investigated
101 Investigations
Resulted in Sustatined
Policy Violations
Image 6: Breakdown of Internal Formal Complaints (2022)
COMPARING OPO AND APD COMPLAINT DATA FROM 2019 to 2022
In 2022, OPO received 1,876 contacts. A total of 689 were sent to APD as complaints for investigation. APD
investigated 47 of these 689 complaints. APD did not investigate the remaining 401 complaints. Of the 47
complaints APD investigated, 17 resulted in sustained policy violations.
In 2021, OPO received 2,239 contacts. A total of 220 were sent to APD as complaints for investigation. APD
investigated 90 of 220 complaints. APD did not investigate the remaining 130 complaints. Of the 90 complaints
APD investigated, 16 resulted in sustained policy violations.
In 2020, OPO received 2,809 contacts. A total of 189 were sent to APD as complaints for investigation. Please
note that this does not include complaints related to the 2020 protests. APD investigated 96 of the 189
complaints. There were 90 complaints that APD did not investigate. Of the 96 complaints that APD investigated,
52 resulted in a sustained policy violation.
In 2019, OPO received 1,353 contacts. A total of 53 were sent to APD as complaints for investigation. APD
investigated 33 of these 53 complaints. APD did not investigate the remaining 20 complaints. Of the 33
complaints that APD investigated, 28 resulted in a sustained policy violation.
Below is a comparison chart for both OPO external complaints and APD internal complaints. The data below
looks at 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022.
13
Comparative External Complaint Data
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2019
2020
2021
2022
Total Number of Complaints
Total Number Investigated
Total NOT Investigated
Total Sustained
Table 5: Comparative Complaint Data External
Comparative Internal Complaint Data
250
200
150
100
50
0
2019
2020
2021
2022
Total Number of Complaints
Total Number Investigated
Total NOT Investigated
Total Sustained
Table 6: Comparative Complaint Data (Internal)
OPO COMPLAINT PROCESS STEP 4
If APD determined that an officer had committed a policy violation, APD disciplined the officer. APD had sole
discretion in deciding how an officer would be disciplined for a sustained policy violation.
If the sustained policy violation originated from an external complaint, OPO communicated with the complainant
and published the discipline on our website.
14
STEP 1
STEP 2
STEP 3
STEP 4
After being contacted
APD reviewed the
APD conducted
If APD determined
with a complaint, OPO
complaint and
complaint
that an officer had
entered the complaint
determined how it
investigations Once an
committed a policy
in a shared database
would be classified
investigation was
violation, APD
with APD. OPO then
OPO was allowed to
complete, APD had
disciplined the officer.
notified APD and
make classification
sole discretion in
APD had sole
forwarded all
recommendations;
deciding the
discretion in deciding
information provided
however, APD had sole
disposition (outcome).
how an officer would
by the complainant
discretion on the final
be disciplined for a
classification of
sustained policy
complaints. If APD
violation.
determined that the
complaint was a Class
A or Class B complaint
and would be
investigated, OPO
monitored the
investigation.
Image 7: Complaint Process Step 4
WHAT IS A DISPOSITION?
A disposition is APD's final determination of how a complaint is closed. Below are definitions of the dispositions
outlined in the APD General Orders.
Sustained - When the investigation discloses sufficient evidence to establish that the act occurred and that it
constituted misconduct.
Exonerated - When the investigation discloses that the alleged act occurred but that the act was justified, lawful
and/or proper according to Departmental General Orders.
Unfounded - When the investigation discloses that the alleged act(s) did not occur.
Inconclusive - When the investigation discloses that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the complaint or fully
exonerate the employee.
Administratively Closed - Complaints will be administratively closed under the following circumstances:
a) An administrative inquiry has been completed and no allegations were made, or misconduct discovered.
b) The case was classified as a Class C or Class D complaint.
c) At the discretion of the Chief of Police or designee.
Information - An incident maintained for documentation purposes only.
Community Concern - A community concern allows for the community to submit feedback to APD, for their
review, this is not an investigation.
Supervisor Referral - An informal complaint forwarded to the appropriate supervisor for follow-up. If an
15
investigation discloses misconduct or improper job performance which was not alleged in the original complaint,
the investigator shall take appropriate action with regard to any possible additional allegations.
Not Applicable to OPO - Describes complaints that OPO cannot accept. OPO may only accept complaints against
APD officers. Complaints that are not about APD officers do not apply to OPO.
HOW DID APD DETERMINE THE DISPOSITION OF EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS IN 2022?
External Case Disposition
Administratively Closed
237
Community Concern
85
Exonerated
2
Inconclusive
5
Information
82
Not Applicable to OPO
28
Supervisor Referral
208
Supervisor Referral - Minor Policy
5
Violation
Sustained
17
Unfounded
20
TOTAL
689
Table 7: External Case Disposition (2022)
HOW DID APD DETERMINE THE DISPOSITION OF INTERNAL COMPLAINTS IN 2022?
Internal Case Disposition
Unfounded
10
Sustained
101
Supervisory Referral - Minor Policy
40
Violation
Inconclusive
7
Administratively Closed
30
Active
9
Exonerated
5
TOTAL
202
Table 8: Disposition of Internal Complaints (2022)
16
WHAT TYPES OF DISCIPLINE CAN APD ADMINISTER?
Indefinite suspension: Equivalent to dismissal or termination from the Department.
Temporary suspension: This may range from 1 to 3 days, 4 to 15 days, or an agreed upon 16 to 90 days
suspension.
Written reprimand: A formal letter of reprimand notifying the employee that a department general order has
been violated. It is issued for any misconduct or performance in which the supervisor determines this level of
discipline is necessary to correct the problem. Generally, written reprimands will be issued when there is a
continuation of problems, or a supervisor determines a one-time event is serious enough to warrant a written
record being placed in the employee's file.
Oral reprimand: A formal document of counseling notifying the employee that a department general order has
been violated. It may be issued for any misconduct that the supervisor determines is necessary and appropriate
to correct the problem.
Education-based discipline: An alternative to traditional suspensions offering optional behavior-focused
education and training for suspension of 1 to 5 days at the determination of the Chain of Command.
WHAT KIND OF DISCIPLINE DID APD ISSUE IN 2022?
In 2022, 132 individual Austin Police Department officers received discipline. Of the 132 disciplined officers, 113
were the subject of internal complaints, and 19 were the subject of external complaints. The chart below shows
all discipline APD issued to officers in 2022.
Discipline Administered by APD
2022
70
65
60
50
40
28
30
23
20
15
10
1
0
Education Based Oral Reprimand
Written
Temporary
Indefinite
Discipline
Reprimand
Suspension
Suspension
Graph 3: Discipline Administered by APD (2022)
17
WHAT WERE OFFICERS DISCIPLINED FOR IN 2022?
In 2022, officers were disciplined most often for policy violations related to:
Department Vehicles - This was the most cited policy violation for sustained complaints. This policy refers to the
general operation of department vehicles.
General Conduct and Responsibilities - This was the following most common policy violation. This policy category
includes acts bringing discredit upon the department and responsibility to co-workers.
Responsibility To the Community - This policy category includes impartial attitude and courtesy and the required
use of body-worn cameras. See the comparative chart below for APD-issued discipline between 2019 and 2022.
Discipline Administered by APD
2019-2022
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Written Reprimand
Oral Reprimand
Temporary
Education-Based
Indefinite
Suspension
Discipline
Suspension
2019
2020
2021
2022
Graph 4: Discipline Administered by APD (2019-2022)
Policy & Research Division
The Policy and Research Division conducts rigorous academic, legal, quantitative, and qualitative research to:
Recommend policy and training changes within the Austin Police Department (APD)
Report clear and reliable information about APD data and other areas of public concern
Object to APD practices that negatively impact transparency, accountability, or fairness
OPO believes that the best policies are created with equal attention to research, formulation, and
implementation. Additionally, OPO works to ensure an open line of communication between policymakers and
the individuals or groups affected by those policies.
Research and analysis are critical to OPO's mission to enhance accountability and increase transparency. The
Policy & Research Division reports on the issues that most impact community members' interactions with APD.
18
In some cases, these reports are based on patterns or trends that OPO has observed while processing and
monitoring complaints. In other cases, these reports are written in response to specific direction from the
Austin City Council or the City Manager's Office.
In 2022, OPO continued expanding our policy and research work by publishing a series of reports and memos
aimed at revising APD policies. Among this work were two comprehensive reports recommending changes to
APD's body-worn and dashboard camera policies.
Revising the APD General Orders in 2022
The policies that govern Austin Police Department (APD) officers are found in a manual called the APD General
Orders.
One of the main responsibilities of OPO's Policy & Research Division is to recommend changes to any policies
within the General Orders where there is room for improvement. These recommendations are generally made
through one of two processes:
1. OPO independently recommends a policy change and shares that recommendation in writing with City
leadership and APD based on community feedback, complaints data, and national best practices.
In 2022, OPO made 157 recommendations to APD's policies and practices.
2. APD proposes or approves a policy change, and OPO responds in writing to either support or object to
the change. Objections to a change are generally accompanied by specific recommendations for
improvement.
In 2022, OPO objected to APD's approved changes to 4 policies. These objections were
accompanied by 30 specific recommendations for improvement.
In 2022, OPO supported APD's changes to 2 policies.
OPO'S RECOMMENDED POLICY CHANGES IN 2022
Body-Worn Cameras & Dashboard Camera
In June 2020, the Austin City Council passed a series of resolutions aimed at reimagining public safety in Austin.
As part of those resolutions, the City Manager directed OPO to facilitate a rewrite of the Austin Police
Department (APD) policy manual, known as the General Orders. The rewrite covers all policies, including those
surrounding issues like search and seizure, body-worn cameras, dashboard cameras, mental health response,
discipline, bias, language, and courtesy.
OPO's Three-Phase Approach
OPO utilizes a three-phase approach to facilitate the rewrite of APD's General Orders. OPO approaches this
rewrite through an open process, seeking feedback and input from the community.
In Phase I, OPO conducts a preliminary analysis of APD's current policy language on specific topics. The findings
19
from this research are available on atxpoliceoversight.org.
In Phase II, OPO works with community partners and stakeholders to gather input from the public about
proposed changes to policies. This outreach effort includes events, surveys, and other forms of community
engagement.
In Phase III, OPO submits policy recommendations and community feedback to APD. APD, in consultation with
the City Manager's Office will review the recommendations.
Reports
In 2022, the General Orders rewrite focused on a policy initiative related to APD's body-worn camera and
dashboard camera policies.
Phase I of this initiative began in March 2021 and ended in January 2022 when OPO published our preliminary
report. This report discussed our initial research and recommendations to change APD's policies on body-worn
and dashboard cameras and covered the following topics:
1. Using public feedback to make policy
2. Aligning the purpose of policies with City priorities
3. Making clear policies that align with the law
4. Starting and stopping a recording - definitions
5. Starting and stopping a recording = officer discretion
6. Keeping written records of camera use
7. Telling individuals that they are being recorded
8. Inspection of camera recordings
9. Enforcement and discipline
OPO's initial recommendations related to these issues were based on research into best practices and relevant
laws.
Click here to read the preliminary report.
Phase II of this initiative took place between February and April 2022. Phase II involved a community
engagement campaign to collect public input on APD's current body-worn camera and dashboard camera
policies and OPO's proposed recommendations For more information on this community engagement
campaign, read the Communications & Community Engagement division section below.
The final phase of this initiative, Phase III, took place between April and October 2022. This phase of the
initiative closed in October 2022 when OPO published our final report. Community voices were at the center of
our final recommendations. The report highlighted public input that we received and explained how we
incorporated this input, along with current best practices and relevant laws, into our final analysis and
recommendations.
In our Phase III report, we made 140 recommendations to change specific language within APD's body-worn
and dashboard camera policies, as well as 17 broader recommendations to change APD's policy development
practices.
20
Our final recommendations for APD's policy language addressed issues including, but not limited to, the
following:
Compliance with the amendments to 1701.655 of the Texas Occupations Code under House Bill
929, which requires that:
Body-worn camera policies include a provision related "to the collection of a body worn camera,
including the applicable video and audio recorded by the camera, as evidence."
Body-worn camera policies "require a peace officer equipped with a body-worn camera and
actively participating in an investigation to keep the camera activated for the entirety of the
officer's active participation in the investigation unless the camera has been deactivated in
compliance with [police department] policy."
1701.657, which requires that:
an officer "who does not activate a body worn camera in response to a call for assistance must
include in the officer's incident report or otherwise note in the case file or record the reason for
not activating the camera."
Ensuring definitions for pertinent terms
Clearer requirements related to the following:
Documentation of recordings
Notice of recording
Activation/deactivation of video recording
Activation/deactivation of audio recording
Equipment testing by employees
Inspections by supervisors
Our final recommendations for APD's policy development practices addressed topics including, but not limited
to the following:
1. Partnering with OPO to develop a transparent and formalized process for soliciting and incorporating
community feedback during policy development.
2. Publishing a schedule of planned updates to the General Orders at the beginning of each calendar year
and updating it as needed.
3.
Publishing background information to explain the reason for each policy change.
4. Publishing and sharing policies in a manner that is accessible to people with disabilities and/or people
who speak a language other than English.
5. Considering the role that vendors play in the policymaking process.
Click here to read the final report.
Presentations
In March 2022, OPO gave an in-depth presentation of our initial body-worn camera and dashboard camera
recommendations at a regular meeting of the City of Austin's Community Police Review Commission.
OPO Responses to APD's Policy Changes in 2022
Recommendations for Improvement
21
In 2022, OPO objected to APD's approved changes to four policies and issued 30 specific recommendations for
improvement to support our objections. OPO's objections addressed the changes that APD made to the
following policies:
1. General Order 317 Handling Juveniles
2. General Order 445 Mental Health Response
3. General Order 801.4 Required and Authorized Uniform Raiments
4. General Order General Order 427 Geolocates, Pen Registers, and/or Trap and Trace Devices
Click here to view OPO's memo discussing General Orders 317, 445, and 801.4.
Click here to view OPO's memo discussing General Order 427.
The sections below summarize our key recommendations to APD.
Handling Juveniles (General Order 317)
OPO recommended the following:
APD policy provisions discussing an individual between 10 and 17 years of age who has not been
assigned an incident should refer to that individual as a "child." Only those provisions discussing a child
who has been assigned an incident number should use the term "juvenile." The use of these terms in
the ways OPO described would be in accordance with state law definitions.
APD policy should require officers to seek guidance from their Sector Detective Unit regarding probable
cause, type of charges, and disposition of the juvenile when taking a juvenile into custody.
APD policy should expand the situations in which juveniles receive emergency medical treatment. In
particular, officers should ensure that juveniles also receive emergency medical treatment when they
request it or complain of pain or injury during any contact with law enforcement. In other words, the
General Orders should cover situations where a juvenile cannot or does not communicate a need for
EMS, but officers believe that they need care, as well as those situations in which a juvenile
communicates a need for care, regardless of the officer's beliefs.
APD policy should categorically ban body cavity searches of juveniles
APD should create a specialized unit to handle interactions with juveniles.
Mental Health Response (General Order 445)
OPO observed APD's incorporation of three of our recommendations to the Mental Health Response policy,
including the following:
De-escalation - APD added a provision to General Order 445.3 requiring officers to use de-escalation
tactics while waiting for a CIT officer or the CIT Unit to respond to a scene.
Documentation - APD added language to the approved version of General Order 445 that requires
officers to document attempts to contact Integral Care (Travis County transports) or Bluebonnet
Community Services (Williamson County transports).
Wording - APD revised 445.4.2(b)(1)(b)(3) to stop referring to a detained person as "the Emergency
22
Detention."
OPO recommended that APD incorporate the remainder of our original recommendations, including the
following:
Incorporating feedback from the 2021 town hall event, "Town Hall on Public Safety: People with
Disabilities and Policing," hosted by OPO, the Mayor's Office, the Equity Office, and the Mayor's
Committee for People with Disabilities.
Revising General Order 445.3 to clarify that requests for a "mental health officer" qualify as "mental
health requests" for assistance, which would require patrol officers to refer individuals to an on-duty CIT
officer, the CIT Unit, or EMCOT.
Revise General Order 445.3(b) to outline the factors that officers should consider in determining
whether EMCOT will be called to the scene. The approved revisions state that an EMCOT employee will
be called to the scene to assist when deemed necessary by an officer or the CIT Unit but offer no
further guidance.
Required and Authorized Uniform Raiments (General Order 801.4)
OPO recommended that APD use unambiguous, objective language to create any restrictions regarding officer
attire. The restriction that APD implemented prohibits officers from wearing "any tie tack or other pin making a
political statement, or displaying any offensive design, logo, or wording." As is, this policy language is subjective
and, as a result, would likely be difficult to apply consistently.
OPO
cited APD's November 2021 changes to Section 803.3.6 Personally Owned Rifles as an appropriate
example of a restriction based on unambiguous, objective language. Section 803.3.6 originally prohibited
officers from placing "offensive markings" on personally owned rifles carried while on duty. In November 2021,
the policy was revised to prohibit officers from placing any "marking(s), sticker(s), engraving(s), etc." on
personally owned rifles "with the exception of the manufacturer identifiers and an employee's initials or
employee number." Changes like this, which use unambiguous objective language, allow for consistent
application and make it easier for officers to understand what is being asked of them.
Geolocates, Pen Registers, and/or Trap and Trace Devices (General Order 427)
OPO recommended that APD:
-
Define terms that have a specific meaning within the policy and based on APD's use of the technology,
including, but not limited to, terms like: mobile devices, trap and trace devices, exigent circumstances,
subscriber, act of violence, etc.
Review its definition of "ESN reader." The revised policy states that the definition is pulled from the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 18B; however, APD's definitions are unclear and do not reflect
the language of Article 18B.
Cite its definition for the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), as the revised definition is restated verbatim from content on the
FCC website.
Revise its policy to explicitly state that designees present during the operation of applicable devices
must also be properly trained.
23
-
Revise its policy to provide information about when administrative subpoenas may be appropriately
utilized.
-
Revise its policy to require documentation as it relates to seeking approval for an administrative
subpoena and issuing the subpoena.
Acknowledgment of Improvements Made
In 2022, OPO acknowledged improvements that APD made to two policies and addressed the specific reasons
why the revisions improved APD's policies. The acknowledgments addressed certain changes that APD made
to the following policies:
208.7.1 Proper Maintenance (TASER Devices)
803.3.6 Personally Owned Rifles
Click here to review the full memo discussing General Orders 208.7.1 and 803.3.6.
The sections below summarize the reasons why the revisions improved APD's policies.
Proper Maintenance (TASER Devices) (General Order 208.7.1)
OPO agreed with the approved changes to APD's TASER maintenance policy. The changes aligned with
recommendations and objections made by OPO in 2021 and improved the policy in the following ways:
Requiring, rather than advising, that officers report defective equipment to a supervisor
Requiring that officers immediately report the defect
Requiring that officers immediately email a description of the problem to the Learned Skills Unit
Personally Owned Rifles (General 803.3.6)
OPO agreed with the approved changes to APD's policy on officers' use of personally owned rifles. The changes
improve the policy by creating an objective standard by which to enforce the policy. Rather than hinging on
whether markings are "offensive," the policy now simply requires that officers have no markings, stickers, or
engravings on personally owned weapons that they use while on duty. Additionally, it provides appropriate
exceptions for things like manufacturer identifiers (i.e., serial numbers and model numbers), employee initials,
and employee numbers.
Click here to review the full memo discussing the following sections of the General Orders:
1. 427 Proper Maintenance (TASER Devices)
2. 803.3.6 Personally Owned Rifles
RECOGNITION OF OPO'S WORK
Texas Oversight Panel
On January 29, 2022, OPO was invited to speak on a virtual panel for an event titled "The Changing Landscape
of Civilian Oversight in Texas."
24
The event was organized by the Fort Worth Office of the Police Oversight Monitor and discussed the ways that
civilian oversight practitioners in Texas approach their work, engage with stakeholders, and navigate challenges
unique to Texas. Panelists also offered guidance for those interested in starting or building a civilian oversight
entity in their area.
The panel included a senior staff member or executive from each of the four major oversight offices in Texas:
Austin, Fort Worth, Dallas, and Houston. The panel was moderated by staff from the National Association for
Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.
The live panel drew 64 attendees and allowed OPO to share our work at a statewide level with an audience
made up of oversight professionals and individuals interested in establishing a strong civilian oversight body
in
their communities.
Click here to view the panel discussion.
NACOLE 2022 Annual Conference
On September 12, 2022, OPO was invited to speak on a panel at the annual conference of the National
Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) held in Fort Worth.
The in-person panel, titled "The Changing Landscape of Civilian Oversight in Texas," was a continuation of the
virtual panel hosted by the Fort Worth Office of the Police Oversight Monitor in January 2022.
As in January 2022, OPO discussed our work alongside civilian oversight professionals from the cities of Fort
Worth, Dallas, and Houston.
This speaking engagement allowed OPO to share our work at a national and international level, with an audience
made up of oversight professionals and individuals interested in establishing a strong civilian oversight body in
their communities.
NACOLE Membership
The Office of Police Oversight is a National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE)
member. This non-profit organization works to create a community of support for independent civilian oversight
entities that seek to make their local law enforcement agencies transparent, accountable, and responsive to the
communities they serve.
Communications and Community Engagement Division
The Communications Division consists of communications and community engagement professionals who bring
the work and services of the Office of Police Oversight to the community in an accessible, transparent manner.
How the communications division strives to bridge the gap between Austin police and the community
In 2022, OPO's Communications and Community Engagement Division:
25
Attended 41 community meetings to promote OPO's programs and services,
Hosted four virtual meetings and collected 525 surveys to gather community feedback on APD's body-
worn and dashboard camera policies,
Held a joint in-person and virtual event to highlight the experiences of people living with disabilities and
their interactions with policing in Austin,
Received 113,683 unique pageviews on the OPO website.
Our community engagement strategy
How we engaged diverse populations across Austin
The Office of Police Oversight's Communications and Community Engagement team uses a framework that
prioritizes consultation and collaboration with the community while providing education on resources and
services. We center our work around listening to community members' feedback and encourage them to work
alongside our office to create change and deepen understanding.
In
2022, OPO engaged community members to discuss topics such as:
How to file a complaint or compliment
Knowing your rights when interacting with law enforcement
The unique experiences that people with disabilities have when interacting with APD
Feedback on APD's current policy manual, including the body-worn camera and dashboard camera
policies
Transparency at the heart of our work
OPO's Communications and Community Engagement team leveraged traditional and digital media to promote
our work to the community.
We published bi-monthly newsletters with the latest opportunities for community members to
engage in transforming public safety.
We published social media posts on Facebook to inform the community about our work,
upcoming events, and when and where we will be in the community.
We published articles to share our work with other City departments and the community.
Collaborating with the community
Collaborating with the community to reform APD's body-worn camera and dashboard policies
In January 2022, OPO published its Phase I report examining whether APD's body-worn and dashboard camera
policies aligned with best practices, relevant laws, and the City of Austin's policies, goals, and values. In the
report, OPO identified several areas for improvement and turned to the community for their feedback.
In February 2022, OPO launched Phase II of the rewrite process with a community engagement campaign.
26
Between February and April 2022, OPO gathered community feedback on APD's body-worn and dashboard
camera policies and OPO's recommendations. The campaign resulted in four virtual events and 525 survey
submissions.
In April 2022, OPO began Phase III of the rewrite process, compiling and analyzing the data collected in Phase II.
During Phase III, OPO also contacted police departments and/or civilian oversight offices in 15 cities across the
country to learn more about their policy development processes. OPO concluded Phase III by incorporating
community feedback and research findings into final policy recommendations. The final policy
recommendations can be found here.
Prioritizing accessibility in our work
In response to community feedback shared at a town hall event hosted in 2021, the Office of Police Oversight
hosted our first hybrid event in June 2022 to further learn from people living with disabilities and their
experiences with law enforcement. OPO, along with the Mayor's Office, the Equity Office, and the Mayor's
Committee for People Living with Disabilities, recruited a wide range of community experts to join the planning
committee, including SAFE Alliance, Texas Parent to Parent, ArtSpark, and U.R. Our Hope. Together, the
planning committee identified best practices in accessibility, formed questions designed for small group
discussions, and assisted in executing the event.
The second town hall was a hybrid event held on June 25, 2022, hosted both in person at the Asian American
Resource Center and online over Zoom. The conversations during the event were small group discussions
centered around intersectionality and community engagement. City of Austin employees facilitated discussions
tackling questions about what the concept of intersectionality means and how it affects community members'
experiences.
In total, 75 community members, four APD officers, and 18 additional City of Austin employees attended the
event online and in person, providing 191 thoughtful pieces of feedback. After reviewing all data and
conducting a data synthesis, OPO transformed community insights into recommendations for the Austin Police
Department. The final recommendations can be found here.
27
2022 Community Police Review Commission (CPRC)
CPRC is a group of volunteers appointed by the City Manager as another tool for accountability
and transparency in policing.
In 2022, under the meet and confer, Commissioners:
Made policy-level recommendations regarding APD's discipline, training, community
relations, and the Office of Police Oversight's (OPO) complaint process
Reviewed critical incidents
Addressed any other issues of concern by the community
Reviewed patterns and practices of the Austin Police Department (APD)
Assessed critical incidents and review individual cases of police misconduct
Made fair and objective recommendations, and make decisions based only on the
facts and evidence
Assessed the effectiveness of OPO
OPO provides administrative support to the Community Police Review Commission, including
during public meetings. In 2022, CPRC hosted eight public meetings. You can access information
about these meetings including agendas and recordings on ATXN.org.
28