October 14, 2025
Temporary Suspension of APD Officer Drew Doiron
Chief of Police Lisa Davis determined that Officer Drew Doiron's actions violated Civil Service Commission Rule 10.03 and suspended him for 10 days. An Internal Affairs investigation found Officer Doiron violated multiple APD policies by mishandling evidence. He collected evidence but discarded it in a trash bin instead of submitting it as evidence, despite admitting the items had value and possible evidentiary importance. His actions constituted neglect of duty and failure to follow proper property and evidence procedures under APD policy.
Document
Temporary Suspension of APD Officer Drew Doiron377.94 KBPDF Content
Disclaimer: The following text was extracted from the PDF file to make this document more accessible. This machine-generated content may contain styling errors due to redactions. In some instances, text may not load if the original file is a scanned image or has not been made searchable. For the full version of the document, please view the PDF.CITY OF AUSTIN
RCVD: HRD, CS OFFICE
2025 OCT 16 PM12:08
FOUNDED
6.81
MEMORANDUM
Austin Police Department
Office of the Chief of Police
TO:
Susan Sinz, Director of Civil Service
FROM:
Lisa Davis, Chief of Police
DATE:
October 14, 2025
SUBJECT: Temporary Suspension of Police Officer Drew Doiron #9366
Internal Affairs Control Numbers 2025-00498
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 Drew Doiron #9366 from duty as a City of Austin, Texas police
officer for a period of ten (10) days. The temporary suspension is effective beginning on
October 25, 2025, and continuing through November 3, 2025.
I took this action because Officer Doiron 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,
Police or EMS Departments, or of special orders, as
applicable.
The following are the specific acts committed by Officer Doiron in violation of Rule 10:
1
On April 14, 2025, Internal Affairs (IA) received a complaint requesting IA initiate an
administrative investigation to determine if Officer Doiron's conduct complied with
Department policy, Civil Service Rules, Municipal Civil Rules, and State Law.
On April 4, 2025, at approximately 15:42, Officer Doiron responded to a collision
involving a motorcycle and SUV in the 9200 BLK of Burnet Rd. The person operating the
motorcycle fled the scene on foot after the accident. Ofc. Nunez arrived on scene and took
lead on the crash investigation. Austin Travis County Emergency Services also arrived on
scene and located a motorcycle helmet and backpack. Officer Doiron stated in his IA
interview that there were multiple eyewitnesses at the scene who identified the person
operating the motorcycle as the person who discarded the backpack and helmet while
fleeing the scene of the collision.
"Um, I arrived at the auto body shop. EMS was there as well.
They - when I first got there, I got out of my patrol car and I observed them,
um, going through, uh, a backpack. They handed me what they believed to
have been a firearm. And they were in- informing that they were going
through the bag to try to get any identifying information on the subject
because to their knowledge he was no longer, um, at the accident scene.
Um, there was another employee of the auto body shop that came out. He
told me that, uh, I believe that some of his employees had seen somebody
like discard a backpack. And then continue, uh, past the auto body shop.
Officer Doiron confirmed that the helmet and backpack were indeed left by the operator of
the motorcycle who fled the scene on foot. The backpack contained two BB pistols, a laptop
computer, two electronic tablets, and other miscellaneous items. Officer Doiron took
possession of these items along with the helmet. He later submitted one of the BB pistols
into evidence but failed to submit any of the other items. He admitted to IA that he threw
the items away rather than submit them as evidence or for safekeeping.
"Uh, I related to the LTS collision in the fact that it belonged to the subject.
Um, because we had eyewitnesses that saw the subject going from the
accident scene to the auto body shop and then discarding it.
At the end of my shift, um, I work out of the north sub, so I went to the north
sub. I submitted, uh, the firearm or what I thought was a firearm into
evidence. And the - as far as the rest of the property, which was the
backpack and the helmet.
So I was kinda under the assumption that it was abandoned property.
Like, it's either the front seat or wherever and, uh, got rid of the trash. And
the backpack and the helmet, um, was thrown away."
2
On April 8, 2025, a City of Austin civilian employee discovered the discarded evidence
including the backpack, two BB pistols, a laptop, tablets, the helmet and other
miscellaneous items in a trash receptacle in the parking lot of the North Sub Station.
Officer Doiron failed to properly handle the property that he took possession of even
though the property clearly had value. Of greater concern is the fact that he did not
recognize, or did not care, that the items had potential value as evidence of serious crimes.
In this case, a motorcycle operator fled the scene of a minor accident, which is inconsistent
with how most law-abiding citizens handle their involvement in minor collisions. Officer
Doiron admitted in his IA interview that a leaving the scene of a collision (LTS) offense
had occurred and there could have "possibly" been other offenses committed.
"Um, because the - the crime was LTS. And those items weren't directly
involved in an LTS criminal offense.'
IA: Do you think they could have been involved with any
other offense?
"Possibly."
Officer Doiron discovered at the scene that the motorcycle operator discarded a firearm, a
BB pistol that bears a strong resemblance to a firearm, a laptop and two electronic tablets.
The totality of the circumstances would strongly indicate that the items collected may
possibly be evidence of more serious crimes. Officer Doiron did not even run the serial
number of the laptop.
IA: Do you believe there was any monetary value associated
with any of the items that I listed?
"Looking back on it, yes, I do."
After turning in the BB pistol assumed to be a firearm into evidence, Officer Doiron
discarded the rest of the items in the trash. At the very least this was not a satisfactory
performance of his duties. In addition, he failed to take appropriate action on the occasion
of a crime, disorder, investigation or other condition deserving police attention.
IA: If you encountered the situation again, would you do
anything differently?
"Yes, sir. "
IA: What would you do?
"Submit, um, the backpack and helmet as either evidence or safekeeping.
3
Um, because I did not satisfactorily perform my duty by seizing the
property."
In sum, Ofc. Doiron's COC and I [Chief Lisa Davis] agree with his admission that he
violated APD General Order 900.4.3. We are embarrassed, disappointed, and surprised that
he did not thoroughly search the backpack's contents, did not turn in evidence or store for
safekeeping the helmet or the BB gun that bears a strong resemblance to a firearm and he
inexplicably threw the items in the trash. Ofc. Doiron agrees that he should have submitted
the discarded items into evidence pursuant to APD General Order Property and Evidence
Collection Procedure 618.4.2. It should not take hindsight for Ofc. Doiron to recognize that
his actions were outrageous, disconcerting, and unacceptable from the onset. The action of
discarding items of value collected during the investigation of a crime and not recognizing
their evidentiary value ignores the most basic steps in the investigative process.
By these actions, Officer Doiron 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.
(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 900.4.3: General Conduct and
Responsibilities: Neglect of Duty
900.4.3 Neglect of Duty
Employees will satisfactorily perform their duties. Examples of unsatisfactory
performance include, but are not limited to:
4
(a)
Lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be
enforced.
(b)
Unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks.
(c)
Failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime,
disorder, investigation or other condition deserving police attention.
Officer Doiron is advised that this suspension may be considered by the Chief of Police in
a future promotional decision pursuant to General Order 919.
By copy of this memo, Officer Doiron 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, Officer Doiron is hereby advised that such section and the Agreement Between the
City of Austin and the Austin Police Association provide for an appeal to an independent
third-party hearing examiner, in accordance with the provisions of such Agreement. 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.
M. CHANCELLOR FOR CHIEF L. DINIS
noso
10.14.25
LISA DAVIS, Chief of Police
Date
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.
anDe
10/14/25
Police Officer Doiron Drew #9366
Date
5
RCVD: HRD, CS OFFICE
2025 OCT 16 PM12:08
FOUNDED
6.81
MEMORANDUM
Austin Police Department
Office of the Chief of Police
TO:
Susan Sinz, Director of Civil Service
FROM:
Lisa Davis, Chief of Police
DATE:
October 14, 2025
SUBJECT: Temporary Suspension of Police Officer Drew Doiron #9366
Internal Affairs Control Numbers 2025-00498
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 Drew Doiron #9366 from duty as a City of Austin, Texas police
officer for a period of ten (10) days. The temporary suspension is effective beginning on
October 25, 2025, and continuing through November 3, 2025.
I took this action because Officer Doiron 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,
Police or EMS Departments, or of special orders, as
applicable.
The following are the specific acts committed by Officer Doiron in violation of Rule 10:
1
On April 14, 2025, Internal Affairs (IA) received a complaint requesting IA initiate an
administrative investigation to determine if Officer Doiron's conduct complied with
Department policy, Civil Service Rules, Municipal Civil Rules, and State Law.
On April 4, 2025, at approximately 15:42, Officer Doiron responded to a collision
involving a motorcycle and SUV in the 9200 BLK of Burnet Rd. The person operating the
motorcycle fled the scene on foot after the accident. Ofc. Nunez arrived on scene and took
lead on the crash investigation. Austin Travis County Emergency Services also arrived on
scene and located a motorcycle helmet and backpack. Officer Doiron stated in his IA
interview that there were multiple eyewitnesses at the scene who identified the person
operating the motorcycle as the person who discarded the backpack and helmet while
fleeing the scene of the collision.
"Um, I arrived at the auto body shop. EMS was there as well.
They - when I first got there, I got out of my patrol car and I observed them,
um, going through, uh, a backpack. They handed me what they believed to
have been a firearm. And they were in- informing that they were going
through the bag to try to get any identifying information on the subject
because to their knowledge he was no longer, um, at the accident scene.
Um, there was another employee of the auto body shop that came out. He
told me that, uh, I believe that some of his employees had seen somebody
like discard a backpack. And then continue, uh, past the auto body shop.
Officer Doiron confirmed that the helmet and backpack were indeed left by the operator of
the motorcycle who fled the scene on foot. The backpack contained two BB pistols, a laptop
computer, two electronic tablets, and other miscellaneous items. Officer Doiron took
possession of these items along with the helmet. He later submitted one of the BB pistols
into evidence but failed to submit any of the other items. He admitted to IA that he threw
the items away rather than submit them as evidence or for safekeeping.
"Uh, I related to the LTS collision in the fact that it belonged to the subject.
Um, because we had eyewitnesses that saw the subject going from the
accident scene to the auto body shop and then discarding it.
At the end of my shift, um, I work out of the north sub, so I went to the north
sub. I submitted, uh, the firearm or what I thought was a firearm into
evidence. And the - as far as the rest of the property, which was the
backpack and the helmet.
So I was kinda under the assumption that it was abandoned property.
Like, it's either the front seat or wherever and, uh, got rid of the trash. And
the backpack and the helmet, um, was thrown away."
2
On April 8, 2025, a City of Austin civilian employee discovered the discarded evidence
including the backpack, two BB pistols, a laptop, tablets, the helmet and other
miscellaneous items in a trash receptacle in the parking lot of the North Sub Station.
Officer Doiron failed to properly handle the property that he took possession of even
though the property clearly had value. Of greater concern is the fact that he did not
recognize, or did not care, that the items had potential value as evidence of serious crimes.
In this case, a motorcycle operator fled the scene of a minor accident, which is inconsistent
with how most law-abiding citizens handle their involvement in minor collisions. Officer
Doiron admitted in his IA interview that a leaving the scene of a collision (LTS) offense
had occurred and there could have "possibly" been other offenses committed.
"Um, because the - the crime was LTS. And those items weren't directly
involved in an LTS criminal offense.'
IA: Do you think they could have been involved with any
other offense?
"Possibly."
Officer Doiron discovered at the scene that the motorcycle operator discarded a firearm, a
BB pistol that bears a strong resemblance to a firearm, a laptop and two electronic tablets.
The totality of the circumstances would strongly indicate that the items collected may
possibly be evidence of more serious crimes. Officer Doiron did not even run the serial
number of the laptop.
IA: Do you believe there was any monetary value associated
with any of the items that I listed?
"Looking back on it, yes, I do."
After turning in the BB pistol assumed to be a firearm into evidence, Officer Doiron
discarded the rest of the items in the trash. At the very least this was not a satisfactory
performance of his duties. In addition, he failed to take appropriate action on the occasion
of a crime, disorder, investigation or other condition deserving police attention.
IA: If you encountered the situation again, would you do
anything differently?
"Yes, sir. "
IA: What would you do?
"Submit, um, the backpack and helmet as either evidence or safekeeping.
3
Um, because I did not satisfactorily perform my duty by seizing the
property."
In sum, Ofc. Doiron's COC and I [Chief Lisa Davis] agree with his admission that he
violated APD General Order 900.4.3. We are embarrassed, disappointed, and surprised that
he did not thoroughly search the backpack's contents, did not turn in evidence or store for
safekeeping the helmet or the BB gun that bears a strong resemblance to a firearm and he
inexplicably threw the items in the trash. Ofc. Doiron agrees that he should have submitted
the discarded items into evidence pursuant to APD General Order Property and Evidence
Collection Procedure 618.4.2. It should not take hindsight for Ofc. Doiron to recognize that
his actions were outrageous, disconcerting, and unacceptable from the onset. The action of
discarding items of value collected during the investigation of a crime and not recognizing
their evidentiary value ignores the most basic steps in the investigative process.
By these actions, Officer Doiron 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.
(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 900.4.3: General Conduct and
Responsibilities: Neglect of Duty
900.4.3 Neglect of Duty
Employees will satisfactorily perform their duties. Examples of unsatisfactory
performance include, but are not limited to:
4
(a)
Lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be
enforced.
(b)
Unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks.
(c)
Failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime,
disorder, investigation or other condition deserving police attention.
Officer Doiron is advised that this suspension may be considered by the Chief of Police in
a future promotional decision pursuant to General Order 919.
By copy of this memo, Officer Doiron 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, Officer Doiron is hereby advised that such section and the Agreement Between the
City of Austin and the Austin Police Association provide for an appeal to an independent
third-party hearing examiner, in accordance with the provisions of such Agreement. 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.
M. CHANCELLOR FOR CHIEF L. DINIS
noso
10.14.25
LISA DAVIS, Chief of Police
Date
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.
anDe
10/14/25
Police Officer Doiron Drew #9366
Date
5