Filed Date: May 31, 2007
Closed Date: 2011
Clearinghouse coding complete
On May 31, 2007, the Austin NAACP and Texas Civil Rights Project filed a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against the Austin Police Department (APD), opening this investigation. The NAACP alleged that the APD had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and asked the federal government to withhold nearly 3 million dollars in federal funds until the city eliminated its racial disparities.
The complaint alleged systemic police misconduct, citing that between 1999 and 2003 eleven people died from encounters with Austin police. Of these eleven individuals, only one was Caucasian, the rest were either Hispanic or African American. The DOJ informed officials it would undertake review in 2007.
In the resulting findings letter, dated December 23, 2008, the DOJ made 160 recommendations to improve the department's policies and procedures, most of which had been implemented by APD during the investigation period. These included: changes to the use-of-force policy; changes in the way officers report uses of force; and changes to the department's intake, classification, and the systemic handling of citizen complaints about officers, which the DOJ called "needlessly complex and fraught with opportunities to apply subjective judgment."
The recommendations additionally included: implementing a planned “early intervention system” to identify officers with a tendency to violate police policy and use of force; having the internal affairs division conduct investigations in “an objective and probing manner;” having review boards identify tactical or training issues that could be corrected to minimize uses of force against citizens; and allowing the Office of the Police Monitor to provide objective and public reports on the conduct of the internal affairs division.
On May 27, 2011, the DOJ officially ended its inquiry into the use-of-force practices of the APD, concluding that it found "no reasonable cause to believe that APD has engaged in a pattern or practice that violated the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Before the case closed, it made four more recommendations. First, the DOJ recommended that the APD "bring to fruition its planned, though not fully implemented" early intervention system, which is meant to identify officers who "demonstrate a tendency to violate APD." Second, Internal Affairs should be sure to "conduct investigations in an objective and probing manner," in keeping with the recommendations the DOJ made in 2008. Third, the department's use-of-force review process should "identify potential tactical or training issues" that could be "corrected to minimize uses of force." Finally, the DOJ recommended that the city's Office of the Police Monitor should provide "objective, public reports on the conduct of APD's internal affairs." While the police monitor's office has previously produced purely statistical reports – the number of complaints made to the office, for example – the DOJ recommended that APD "utilize OPM to produce timely reports not just on the number of internal affairs complaints ... but also to provide a qualitative analysis of the internal affairs system."
The matter is now closed.
Summary Authors
Ginny Lee (3/23/2017)
Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)
Douglas, David (Georgia)
Murphy, John E. (Texas)
Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)
Kennard, Karen M (Texas)
Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 2:36 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Texas
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 31, 2007
Closing Date: 2011
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Austin NAACP and Texas Civil Rights Project
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Austin Police Department, City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Order Duration: 2007 - 2011
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Issues
General:
Policing:
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
Race:
National Origin/Ethnicity: