Written testimony by Scott Henson, Sunshine Project for Police Accountability, submitted to the Texas House Urban Affairs Committee, 3-17-99. See also 3-10-97 testimony on HB 1531, a legislative analyisis of HB 1531, and a legislative analysis of SB1540,

The premise behind HB 1531 is that if complaints do not result in disciplinary actions, then they are "unfounded" or "frivolous." Nothing could be further from the truth. This chart breaks down the 481 complaints filed in 1997 against the Austin Police Department by outcome.

For cities that elect to be "civil service cities," under present civil service law (LGC 143.089), only documents related to complaints that "result in disciplinary action" are public. For Austin, only 8% of complaints resulted in disciplinary action in 1997. This means, for Austin, more than 2/3 of sustained complaints do not result in a disciplinary action and therefore the public may view no information about them under current law. If the Legislature enacts HB 1531, such complaints would also become closed in non-civil service cities, as well as to police supervisors.

 Equally important, for 55 percent of 1997 complaints against the APD, the department neither sustained the complaint nor exonerated the officer, most frequently because the complaint pitted the officers' word against the complainants' with no corroborating evidence on either side. These complaints are already closed in civil service cities. HB 1531 would close access to this information not only to the public in non-civil service cities, but also to police supervisors statewide who might use the information as part of their personnel management functions.

The following case study illustrates that police officers may commit serious offenses without receiving disciplinary action from their department, even after significant misconduct has occurred in the past. Police disciplinary records regarding the incident described below are closed under current rules for civil service cities, and would become closed in non-civil service cities and counties as well if HB 1531 is enacted.

After previously receiving a 90-day suspension in 1994 for firing his weapon during a dispute with his wife at her place of employment, in 1996 Austin Police Department Officer Richard Matta had another incident involving alleged spousal abuse. But this time the APD did not discipline him for it. According to the afffidavit filed with an arrest warrant, on May 11, 1996 officers arrested Matta for drunkenly assaulting his wife and evading arrest. Mrs. Matta exhibited "lacerations to her nose, chin and left cheek, swelling all over her face."

The affidavit states that two officers were informed that an Hispanic male wearing no shirt was "beating up a female and chasing her a short distance away." They recognized Matta as a police officer, but he "approached them in a belligerent manner and began to curse at them and asking irrational questions." At one point Matta told [the officers] "'F*** you, arrest me.'" Matta unsuccessfully tried to wrest an officer's flashlight from his hands, then ran off. As other units came in, Matta remained irrational. One officer reported that, while moving in front of his car's headlights, Matta slowed "and began to yell at him, cursing and daring [the officer] to shoot him." Ultimately, multiple officers and some private security guards cornered Officer Matta in a parking lot, where he was arrested. (Affidavit for warrant of arrest and detention, 6-25-96, in Travis County court file, cause # 462526; see also Affidavit for warrant of arrest and detention, 5-11-96, in Travis County cause #458312)

In the end, assault charges were dropped when Dorothy Matta did not show up for trial in December 1996, leaving only the count of evading arrest on Matta's record. (Source: Motion to Dismiss and Order in Travis County cause #458312) His plea bargain on evading arrest resulted in 180 days probation and a $500 fine. (Source: plea bargain agreement in court file, cause #462526) Despite the conviction, APD recorded no disciplinary action resulting from this event.

Though the Austin Police Department wasn't interested in disciplining Richard Matta, it's possible other government agencies might be. In May 1998 the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, the state agency which licenses all Texas peace officers, requested copies of Matta's court records related to this latter case as part of "the administrative action toward the defendant's (Matta's) license." (Source: Letter in court file from Jeff Olbrich, Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, to Dana DeBeauvoir, Travis County Clerk, May 20, 1998)

(Sources: material garnered from public court records and documents secured under the Texas Public Information Act.)