Temporary suspension of Officer William Clarkson

OF
MEMORANDUM
Austin Police Department
Office of the Chief of Police
TO:
Rebecca Kennedy, Interim Director of Civil Service
FROM:
Robin J. Henderson, Interim Chief of Police
DATE:
March 19, 2024
SUBJECT:
Temporary Suspension of Police Officer William Clarkson #9385
Internal Affairs Control Number 2023-0906
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 William Clarkson #9385 from duty as a City of Austin, Texas
police officer for a period of Seven (7) days. The temporary suspension is effective
beginning on March 20, 2024 and continuing through March 27, 2024.
I took this action because Ofc. Clarkson 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 Ofc. Clarkson in violation of Rule 10:
On September 27, 2023, at 3:55 a.m., Ofc. William Clarkson responded to a "suspicious
person" call in southeast Austin. The complainant advised the 9-1-1 call taker that an
unknown male riding a bicycle attempted to take something from his balcony. At the 4:33
marker of Ofc. Clarkson's Body Worn Camera (BWC) the complainant can be heard
directing Ofc. Clarkson to a black backpack that was on the ground in front of the apartment
door in the breezeway.
Thereafter, Ofc. Clarkson opened the backpack and removed a hammer and a medium-
sized hand-held butane torch. He shined his flashlight inside the bag and moved it around
to search for more contents. Ofc. Clarkson took possession of the backpack including its
contents and walked out of the breezeway. He told the complainant that he would provide
him a case number and write a report at the 6:07 marker of his BWC. Ofc. Clarkson then
placed the backpack in the trunk of his patrol vehicle, and cleared the scene at 4:16 a.m.
Later that same day at 12:23 p.m., another officer responded to a 9-1-1 call at a business
in southeast Austin. The business was near the apartment complex where Ofc. Clarkson
had retrieved the backpack and its contents earlier that day. The complainant advised the
9-1-1 call taker the following:
"comp says at 4:58 this morning their [security] camera caught 2 ofers in 2 police
cars one ofcr grabbed a black bag out of the trunk and left it in front of the
salon it's still there now one car# was 8763, can't see the other comp says
inside of the bag there is a used hammer, broken torch, lighter and a rope, etc."
The early afternoon shift officer made contact with the complainant and took a report from
her. The complainant described to the officer what was captured on security cameras:
"There's two police officers parked right there. One gets out the car, he opens his
trunk and just drops a black bag right there."
The officer asked the complainant if the bag was left in the parking lot accidentally. She
proceeded to show the officer security camera footage of the incident and stated:
"To me it looked like he opened up the trunk specifically just to put that down
We literally have a sign right there that says not to leave trash."
The officer then asked the complainant if she wanted to file a complaint. She stated that
she did and wanted to speak to a supervisor. She also told the responding officer:
"The items are really suspicious. It's a hammer It's a blow torch and a
lighter I feel like if the propane thing is full and let's say a car was not even
paying attention and just driving in and hit it, I don't know if that could be a
potential fire hazard."
2
The officer collected the backpack from the parking lot which contained a hammer, blow
torch, kitchen knife, and a small lighter. While at the scene, the officer recorded a sign
posted on the property, near where the backpack was left, that prohibited littering. The
items were later submitted into evidence as found property.
The responding officer notified his Sergeant, who then spoke to the complainant. The
complainant reiterated her complaint to the Sergeant, including:
"It was just left in the front so what if somebody would've ran over it and it could
have cause an explosion Or a random person came with ill-intent and grabbed
the hammer and started hitting our stuff Endless possibilities that we just don't
even know And we have a sign that literally says no littering in the front."
Using the information provided by the complainant, the Sergeant was able to discern that
Ofc. Clarkson was the officer who disposed of the items in the parking lot. He notified
Ofc. Clarkson's Chain-of-Command (COC). Ofc. Clarkson's Commander then filed the
following Internal Complaint Memorandum:
"On 9/27/2023 at approximately 0400 hours, Ofc. Clarkson responded to a call
[in southeast Austin] During the call, Ofc. Clarkson was directed to property
that was left in the breezeway near the stairs. Ofc. Clarkson took possession of the
property and told the complainant he would write a report Ofc. Clarkson
left
the scene and relocated [to parking lot of a business in southeast Austin] Ofc.
Clarkson removed the property and left it on the ground next to his patrol car."
Ofc. Clarkson's Commander requested Internal Affairs (IA) conduct an Administrative
Investigation to determine if Ofc. Clarkson's conduct complied with APD Policy, Civil
Service Rules, Municipal Civil Service Rules, and State Law.
Internal Affairs Investigation
Upon receiving the complaint, IA conducted an investigation of this matter. IA was able to
verify all of the abovementioned facts. Moreover, their investigation, including interviews,
revealed that, until the complainant notified APD, no other APD officer (outside of Ofc.
Clarkson) knew that Ofc. Clarkson had left the bag in the business' parking lot.
During Ofc. Clarkson's IA interview, IA asked him why he took possession of the
backpack and placed it in the trunk of his patrol vehicle. Ofc. Clarkson stated, "It was
worrying the caller. It was making them feel uneasy, and so I- I seized it." Ofc. Clarkson
then acknowledged that he did not submit the items into evidence and that he disposed
them in the aforementioned business' parking lot.
IA then asked Ofc. Clarkson to specify why he took this course of action. He stated:
"I walked to the trunk, opened it, removed the bag, and just placed it on the ground
in the parking lot In my opinion, the bag wasn't evidence of any crime. The bag,
3
I couldn't submit it for safekeeping because we essentially didn't know who it
belonged to, and so I- I just left it in the parking lot."
IA described all of the items found inside of the backpack (butane torch, small lighter,
hammer, and a knife) and asked Ofc. Clarkson if he believed the items constituted a hazard
to public safety. Ofc. Clarkson stated:
"I guess, in hindsight, theoretically, maybe I mean, in and of itself a hammer
isn't dangerous, but it could be used in a fashion that makes it dangerous."
IA asked Ofc. Clarkson if he believed it was safe to abandon the backpack and items in a
high crime area. He stated:
"I mean, in hindsight- I wouldn't have left the bag there in the middle for anyone
to- just anyone to walk up on. Sure.. It was just a bad decision."
IA asked if Ofc. Clarkson if he violated APD General Order 900.3.2 Acts Bringing
Discredit Upon the Department to which he replied, "Yes. Obviously, my action raised
enough concern with a business owner that they felt the necessity to report it."
In sum, Ofc. Clarkson's COC and I [Chief Robin J. Henderson] agree with his admission
that he violated APD General Order 900.3.2. We are embarrassed, disappointed, and
surprised that he did not thoroughly search the bag, did not turn it into evidence or store it
for safekeeping, and inexplicably abandoned the bag in a private parking lot.
Notwithstanding his denial to IA, Ofc. Clarkson should have submitted the items into
evidence pursuant to APD General Order Property and Evidence Collection Procedure
618.4.2. It is also baffling to us that it took hindsight for Ofc. Clarkson to recognize that
his actions were outrageous, disconcerting, and unacceptable from the onset.
By these actions, Ofc. Clarkson 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 618.4.2: Property and Evidence Collection
Procedures: Found Property
618.4.2 Found Property
(a)
Employees will only seize items of abandoned or found property
which:
1.
Are readily identifiable and traceable; or
2.
Are of value, such as money and jewelry; or
3.
Appear to have been involved in a criminal offense; or
4.
Constitute a hazard to the public safety; or
5.
May be offensive to public morals or sensitivities.
4
(b)
Employees will make a reasonable effort to return the property to
the owner immediately when the owner of the property is known.
(c)
Employees will treat the property as though it was stolen if the
facts and circumstances suggest that is the case.
Austin Police Department Policy 900.3.2: General Conduct and
Responsibilities: Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department
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.
(a)
Employees will not commit any act which tends to destroy public
confidence in, and respect for, the Department or which is
prejudicial to the good order, efficiency, or discipline of the
Department.
By copy of this memo, Ofc. Clarkson 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, Ofc. Clarkson is hereby advised that such section provide 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 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.
By copy of this memo, Ofc. Clarkson is hereby advised that this temporary suspension may
be taken into consideration in my determination as to whether a valid reason may exist to
bypass him for promotion in accordance with Austin Police Department Policy 919.
3/19/2024
ROBIN HENDERSON, Interim Chief of Police
Date
5
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I hereby acknowledge receipt of the above and foregoing memorandum of temporary
suspension and I have been advised that if I desire to appeal that I have ten (10) calendar
days from the date of this receipt to file written notice of appeal with the Director of Civil
Service in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government
Code.
Wh 9385
3/19/24
Police Officer William Clarkson #9385
Date
6