Received by Civil Service Office
January 16, 2026 at 8:00 a.m.
OF USTIN TIN
FOUNDED
6181
MEMORANDUM
Austin Police Department
Office of the Chief of Police
TO:
Susan Sinz, Director of Civil Service
FROM:
Lisa Davis, Chief of Police
DATE:
January 15th, 2026
SUBJECT:
Temporary Suspension of Police Officer Mason Brown #8883
Internal Affairs Control Number 2025-01943
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 Mason Brown #8883 from duty as a City of Austin, Texas police
officer for a period of one (1) day. The temporary suspension is effective beginning on
January 16th, 2026, and continuing through January 16th, 2026.
I took this action because Officer Brown 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 Officer Brown in violation of Rule 10:
On June 20, 2025, at approximately 2:30 AM, Officer Mason Brown was traveling
eastbound on Rosewood Avenue. As Officer Brown approached the intersection of
Rosewood and Thompson Street, he noticed a black four-door sedan traveling northbound
on Thompson Street. The vehicle failed to stop at the intersection, ran the stop sign, and
made a right turn on Rosewood. Officer Brown attempted to approach the vehicle and
identify it, but the vehicle ran the stop sign at the intersection of Rosewood Avenue and
Bedford Street.
Past the intersection, Officer Brown identified the vehicle as a 2018 Black Hyundai Elantra.
Officer Brown prepared to perform a traffic stop but noticed the vehicle slowed down and
saw a gun fired from the passenger window, approximately six times in the direction of an
apartment complex. Officer Brown was not able to see if the shots were fired directly at
someone, but based on the time of night, he believed the residences to be occupied.
Officer Brown notified dispatch via radio he witnessed a shooting. Officer Brown activated
the lights and sirens on his patrol vehicle to conduct a traffic stop. The driver of the vehicle
failed to stop, and a pursuit ensued. Officer Brown asked officers to check on the possible
victims while he continued to pursue the suspect vehicle.
The pursuit lasted approximately fourteen minutes through a span of twenty-three miles.
Officer Brown conducted a Precision Immobilization Technique (PIT) on the Hyundai
Elantra at eighty-seven miles per hour. The driver of the vehicle evaded on foot, while the
passenger and suspect of the shooting remained and was taken into custody.
On July 15, 2025, Officer Brown's Commander submitted an Internal Complaint
Memorandum to Internal Affairs (IA). The complaint stated:
On 06/20/2025. Ofc. Mason Brown was on duty in a marked patrol vehicle when he
initiated a vehicle pursuit after observing a drive by shooting from the suspect
vehicle. Brown requested to conduct a high-speed PIT that was denied by the control
supervisor Sgt. Hutchins. Brown later stated that he was going to attempt to PIT after
the speed was reported to be 70mph. The new control supervisor, Sgt. Paredes told
Brown that he would need to slow down, below 40mph. Brown then conducted a PIT
at 87 mph. Officer Brown, by his actions may have violated APD General Orders.
During the course of the IA investigation Officer Brown was interviewed. Officer Brown
acknowledged he did not receive permission from a supervisor to conduct a PIT while
traveling above forty miles per hour. Officer Brown said he was unable to ask permission
to conduct a PIT when exceeding forty miles per hour due to radio traffic. Officer Brown
acknowledged he was aware he was traveling over forty miles per hour when he
administered the PIT.
2
Officer Brown was asked by IA if he violated APD Policy 214.6.3, Precision
Immobilization Technique. Even though he acknowledged that he did not have supervisor
approval to conduct a PIT at over 80 mph, Officer Brown replied,
"I did not violate this policy," and further explained, "I took everything into to
account in this policy, and I constantly re-evaluated during the entire pursuit. I
gave them a reasonable attempt to stop there was two units in the pursuit. I
considered the risk and that this suspect's risk to the public far outweighed the risk
of conducting the PIT. This is not normal circumstances to be clear. This is a violent
act of felony offense in my presence in front of a police officer in a fully marked
police car. I used every or I - I asked for every resource that we had available. And
I exhausted most options. I believe I had exigency in conducting this PIT based on
the location and if that pursuit continued, there was a high likelihood that the
suspects in this car were going to seriously hurt someone. And if I did terminate
that pursuit they were going to continue fleeing regardless of the police cars behind
there or not further putting risk to the public.
In determining the level of discipline in this case, I took into consideration some of the
following factors, including the danger and risks Officer Browns' actions posed, the fact
that he did not accept responsibility or remorse for his actions, including violating General
Orders. Additionally, I took into consideration Officer Browns' previous discipline in IA
Case number's 2023-0531 and 2023-0532, which involved similar conduct, including
administrating the PIT maneuver in a high-speed manner and/or striking other vehicle(s)
in a manner that posed a danger and a risk to himself and other motorists.
By these actions, Officer Brown 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 214.6.3(c)3(e): Vehicle Pursuits: Precision
Immobilization Technique
214.6.3(c)3(e) Precision Immobilization Technique
The use of the PIT should be approved in advance by the control supervisor.
Officers and supervisors should weigh the need to immediately stop the vehicle
based on the driving behavior and risk to the public versus apprehension of the
suspect, or termination of the pursuit.
(c) PIT Application
(3) Prior to deploying PIT officers shall:
(e) Under normal circumstances, a PIT maneuver at speeds
above 40 mph should not be applied. However, if exigent
3
circumstances exist, higher speeds may be authorized with
supervisor approval.
By copy of this memo, Officer Brown 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 Brown 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.
In addition, if this disciplinary suspension is for three (3) days or less, Officer Brown is
advised of the following provisions of Article 18, Section 1, of the Meet and Confer
Agreement:
The parties agree that when an officer is suspended for 1, 2, or 3 days the officer may
choose one of two methods of dealing with the suspensions as listed below.
a) Suspensions that may not be appealed. The officer may choose to use
vacation or holiday time to serve the suspension with no loss of paid
salary and no break in service for purposes of seniority, retirement,
promotion, or any other purpose. The officer must agree that there is no
right to appeal if this method of suspension is chosen.
b) Suspensions that may be appealed. The officer may appeal the
suspension to arbitration or the Civil Service Commission. If the officer
chooses to appeal the suspension, the arbitrator or Civil Service
Commission's authority is limited to ruling on whether or not the charges
against the officer are true or not true. If the arbitrator or Civil Service
Commission finds the charges to be true, there is no authority to mitigate
the punishment. If the arbitrator or Civil Service Commission finds the
charges to be not true, the officer shall be fully reinstated with no loss of
pay or benefit.
Arbitration Costs on Appealable Suspensions
4
In the event that an officer appeals a 1-, 2- or 3-day suspension to arbitration, it is agreed
that the party that loses the arbitration shall be responsible for all costs of the arbitrator,
including travel and lodging if necessary.
To facilitate such payment on the part of the officer he shall submit, at the time of appeal,
a signed payroll deduction agreement that if the arbitrator rules in favor of the City he
authorizes up to one hundred dollars ($100.00) per month to be deducted from his regular
pay until such time as what would usually be the City's portion of the arbitrator's costs
have been satisfied.
on BEHALF OF.
nall
5329
1.15.26
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 W in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government
Code.
1/15/26
Police Officer Mason Brown #8883
Date
5