Police complaint process criticized
Audit finds problems in every step of reporting officer misconduct.
Austin police don’t properly record complaints against officers, make it difficult for residents to log complaints and left “high profile” allegations of officer misconduct absent from investigation logs — even as officers assured the media that investigations were underway — according to a draft of an audit released Wednesday.
The inquiry, which Police Chief Art Acevedo requested city auditors undertake last year, found issues with every step of the Austin Police Department’s complaint process: It’s difficult to file complaints in the first place. Then, not all filed complaints are recorded. Those that are recorded aren’t handled consistently. Finally, the independent monitor who oversees the process has limited authority.
The department, which sent a representative unfamiliar with the audit to the City Council’s audit committee meeting Wednesday, was unable to respond to concerns raised by the report. Committee members said they will seek more information and likely set another meeting to discuss the audit’s findings.
The audit alludes to “high profile” incidents in which auditors found no records of formal complaints, including the controversial arrest of a jaywalking jogger in 2014 and a case in which the police union president punched a man this year on Sixth Street.
“Although a formal complaint may not have been filed in each incident, two were captured on video and were widely covered by local and national media,” the audit says. “Several articles quoted police officers saying the incidents had been investigated or were under review . ... This may discourage someone from actually filing a complaint if they think APD is already investigating.”
Austin is the only major Texas city with an independent monitor of police complaints, auditors said. But that person’s role is limited, as the monitor cannot be involved in investigations. In 8 percent of the cases reviewed, the monitor disagreed with the disciplinary action taken, but the audit found the monitor’s objections “appeared to have no impact.”
The department logged 1,200 complaints against officers between October 2013 and December 2015, according to the audit. Sixty percent were filed by members of the public, the rest from fellow officers.
Less than 5 percent of the complaints from the public resulted in officer discipline, the audit found. But the majority of complaints from officers led to discipline, typically an oral or written reprimand.
The number of complaints might be artificially low. Complaint forms require extensive information about the person filing them and must be notarized, a potentially significant disincentive to someone who has already had a bad experience with officers.
“The city’s culture has undermined outreach about the complaint process,” said Katie Houston, assistant city auditor.
Moreover, several supervisors said they wouldn’t forward complaints to Internal Affairs if the complainant seemed satisfied after a conversation, despite a clear policy stating all complaints should be forwarded. That keeps the city from having a complete list of complaints and identifying trends, the audit says.
“You may be looking at an officer and not know the full history of the officer because, if you’ve had complaints in the past, they may not have been recorded,” Council Member Kathie Tovo said.
The Police Department representative at the meeting, Lt. Kenneth Murphy, said “it’s very clear in policy” that all complaints should be sent to Internal Affairs and said he didn’t know why that wasn’t happening.
Investigations are generally timely and evidence is usually available, the audit says. However, record retention policies could cause evidence to disappear. Residents have up to 180 days to file a complaint that can lead to disciplinary action, but the department deletes audio and video recordings after 90 days.
Murphy said it would take significant funding to give police the storage capacity to double the retention time of all video and audio. Council members were concerned.
“You can’t just say ‘we ran out of space,’ ” said Council Member Leslie Pool.
Investigations sometimes result in inconsistent discipline, the audit found. In one case, five officers all violated the same policy. Two who had violated only that policy received three-day suspensions, but three who had violated that policy and other policies received only written reprimands. Auditors don’t know why.
Police management agreed with a list of audit recommendations including expanding public awareness of the complaint process, increasing internal awareness of complaint process requirements, creating administrative inquiries for high-profile incidents without specific complaints and increasing the monitor’s access.
But police management rejected a suggestion to “document justifications for discipline, including how disagreements with the Police Monitor are addressed.” Discipline less than suspension is confidential, by law, so there’s no point in documenting it, the police response says.