Received by Civil Service Office
November 10, 2025 at 8:52 p.m.
-cg
CITYO OF SUSTIN
FOUNDED
18
MEMORANDUM
Austin Police Department
Office of the Chief of Police
TO:
Susan Sinz, Director of Civil Service
FROM:
Lisa Davis, Chief of Police
DATE:
November 10, 2025
SUBJECT: Temporary Suspension of Police Officer Christine Manzanal-Gomez #10034
Internal Affairs Control Number 2025-01178
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 Christine Manzanal-Gomez #10034 from duty as a City of Austin,
Texas police officer for a period of three (3) days. The temporary suspension is effective
beginning on November 11, 2025 and continuing through November 14, 2025.
I took this action because Officer Manzanal-Gomez 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:
E.
Discourtesy to the public or to a fellow employee
while in the line of duty
L.
Violation of any of the rules and regulations of the Fire
Department or Police Department or of special orders,
as applicable.
The following are the specific acts committed by Officer Manzanal-Gomez in violation of
Rule 10:
The April 26, 2025 Incident:
On April 26, 2025, Austin Police Department (APD) Officers Jodean Reed (aka Reed-
Dixon) and Christine Manzanal-Gomez worked patrol duties. Both Officers Reed and
Manzanal-Gomez were in uniform. They were both equipped with APD-issued body-worn
cameras. The body-worn cameras functioned properly during the incident. Their APD
patrol vehicle(s) were also equipped with video and audio recording equipment.
They responded to a Check Welfare Urgent call. The call text stated an 11-year-old child
had been left alone and did not know where she was or how to get home. Officers Reed and
Manzanal-Gomez were able to locate the child's residence and transported the child there.
It was determined by the officers that the child's stepmother (the "suspect"), who was present
at the child's residence, would be arrested and charged with Abandoning or Endangering a
Child-without intent to return, a 3rd degree felony.
After the officers placed the suspect in handcuffs and while they were walking her towards
the patrol vehicle, the suspect began resisting the officers. The suspect's physical resistance
escalated as the officers searched her. As the officers tried to place the handcuffed suspect
into the backseat of the patrol vehicle, the suspect kicked both Officers Reed and Manzanal-
Gomez. The suspect kicked Officer Reed in the face and kicked Officer Manzanal-Gomez
in the chest. As a result of the suspect's actions during her arrest, she was charged
additionally with Resisting Arrest and Assault on a Peace Officer.
Officers Reed and Manzanal-Gomez attempted to subdue the handcuffed suspect and secure
her in the APD vehicle. At this time, Officer Manzanal-Gomez told the suspect (referencing
Officer Reed), "You're not going to fucking hit her!" multiple times. She followed-up with,
"You fucking understand me?" As she and Officer Reed were moving the suspect into the
backseat of the marked APD vehicle, Officer Manzanal-Gomez told the suspect, "Get the
fuck in the car." As the suspect continued to yell insults and obscenities, Officer Manzanal-
Gomez told the suspect to "Shut the fuck up!"
Several minutes after the assault and after the suspect had been secured, Officer Manzanal-
Gomez told the suspect that police needed to search her belongings before transporting her
to jail. In response, the suspect replied: "Ain't nothing in there my
take me to jail!"
Officer Manzanal-Gomez responded by stating, "I'm not your
so you need to relax." The
suspect responded, "It ain't
bitch!" Officer Manzanal-Gomez responded,
,
I'm not your
ok, so relax, and lets, lets, let's just breath."
Ultimately, Officer Manzanal-Gomez transported the suspect to jail. During the ride to the
jail, Officer Manzanal-Gomez engaged in a lengthy and unprofessional argument with the
suspect.
2
The Internal Affairs Investigation:
Following an internal complaint from Officer Manzanal-Gomez's chain of command, the
Internal Affairs Division (IA) conducted an investigation to determine if Officer Manzanal-
Gomez violated any APD general orders.
During her IA interview, the investigator confronted Officer Manzanal-Gomez with the
body-worn camera video of both her initial use of profanity towards the suspect and her
subsequent use of racial slurs. When asked about her initial use of profanity, Officer
Manzanal-Gomez said that she used the profanity because she was hurt from being kicked
and she was concerned about her fellow officer. She characterized her language ("You'r
not going to fucking hit her!"; "You fucking understand me?"; "Get the fuck in the car."; and
"Shut the fuck up!") as "excited utterances[s]," explaining that she did not use the language
to "belittle her [the suspect], discriminate against her, treat her poorly or anything of that
such. My concern was my partner's safety."
When asked about her use of racial slurs that occurred several minutes later, Officer
Manzanal-Gomez told the IA investigator:
When she-I did not call her that word-I did not call her that word as far
as, like, trying to like belittling her, discrimination towards her, or anything.
I was stating to her that, 'Do not call me that. I felt offended. Again, my
And I don't take that
term lightly. So that's what exactly occurred at that point.
Officer Manzanal-Gomez emphasized that she was merely repeating what the suspect had
called her. She also told IA that she felt obligated to call out the suspect's initial use of the
racial slur, saying so I believe that when you see something or hear something that is not
appropriate, you should state it, right? Again that's how racism starts because nobody
says anything. Everybody stays quiet. And I'm not gonna stay quiet considering that she
stated something offensive to me when my
Officer Manzanal-Gomez noted
that she had ignored other profane and insulting language from the suspect, but that she could
not ignore the suspect calling her a racial slur.
Ultimately, Manzanal-Gomez denied violating APD General Orders, but allowed that in the
future she would stay quiet, rather than "correct it or say something even though it's
offensive, and it an inappropriate word."
Conclusion:
After reviewing the evidence in this matter, including the explanations Officer Manzanal-
Gomez gave for her language, I have determined that a three (3) temporary suspension is
appropriate discipline. Officer Manzanal-Gomez's use of profanity (including, telling the
I IA investigated both Officer Manzanal-Gomez and Officer Reed under a single IA Control Number.
Although this memorandum does not concern any allegations against Officer Reed, all of the evidence gathered
in that single IA case is considered here.
3
suspect to "Shut the fuck up") and her extended and unprofessional argument with the
suspect are deserving of corrective discipline, training, or both. Anytime an officer uses
coarse language while interacting with a member of the public it harms the professional
image of police, the Austin Police Department, and the officer. In this case, Officer
Manzanal-Gomez's language, including telling the suspect to "Get the fuck in the car," and
to "Shut the fuck up," demonstrates a police officer who was not treating the suspect with
objectivity and impartiality, but an officer who had lost control and professional perspective.
The language certainly did not show an officer who was striving to interact with the suspect
in a positive manner.
Having been a police officer for over 30 years, I can understand (although not condone) how
Officer Manzanal-Gomez might have lost her cool for a moment and used profanity under
the circumstances, or how she got into an extended and unprofessional argument with the
suspect. But much more serious, and what I cannot understand or tolerate, is Officer
Manzanal-Gomez repeating a hateful and offensive racial slur while interacting with the
suspect. In this case, I accept Officer Manzanal-Gomez's explanation that she did not direct
the epithet at the suspect in a directly discriminatory manner. But the use of racial slurs is
inherently unprofessional and demeaning. The use of racial slurs while in uniform and
representing the APD degrades Officer Manzanal-Gomez's professionalism and objectivity
as a police officer.
Police officers-as a core part of their professional purpose-must rise above insults, bad
language, and crude acts to enforce the law without favor or prejudice. Officer Manzanal-
Gomez missed the mark by a wide margin. Her language reflects discourtesy and a negative
attitude towards the suspect. Her language and use of racial slurs do not paint the portrait of
an officer with an intent to treat the suspect professionally, but show an officer who is
seeking to insult, demean, and sink down to the level of the person she arrested. Therefore,
I find that Officer Manzanal-Gomez violated APD General Orders and the Civil Service
Rules and that a disciplinary suspension, without education based discipline for this serious
matter, is appropriate.
In determining the length of the discipline, I considered the fact that Officer Manzanal-
Gomez, during her disciplinary meeting, accepted responsibility for her actions and admitted
that she violated APD General Orders. She has taken proactive steps, including training and
seeking out mentors, to improve her professionalism. I also considered that Manzanal-
Gomez, although she has a relatively short time with APD, has never been disciplined. She
has received several commendations and demonstrated a desire to serve the community. I
believe that Officer Manzanal-Gomez will learn from this experience and discipline, will not
repeat this behavior, and will be a valuable police officer for the Austin Police Department.
By these actions, Officer Manzanal-Gomez violated Rule 10.03(E) of the Civil Service Rules
by showing discourtesy to a member of the public and Rule 10.03(L) of the Civil Service
Rules by violating the following rules and regulations of the Austin Police Department:
4
Austin Police Department Policy 301.2(e): Responsibility to the Community:
Impartial Attitude and Courtesy
301.2(e) Impartial Attitude and Courtesy
Employees shall provide equal and fair protection of all rights under local, state, and
federal law for all members of the community. Law enforcement will be conducted
in an impartial and equitable manner.
In an effort to create an organizational culture that is inclusive and
nondiscriminatory, employees shall act professionally, treat all persons fairly and
equally, and strive to interact with the community in a positive manner. Employees
will perform all duties objectively and without regard to personal feelings,
animosities, friendships, financial status, occupation or employment status, sex,
disability status, housing status, mental health or ability, citizenship, language,
national origin, creed, color, race, religion, age, political beliefs, sexual orientation,
gender identity, gender expression, ethnicity, or social or ethnic background.
Employees will endeavor to understand and respect cultural, national, racial,
religious, physical, mental, and other differences.
(e)
Employees will not use indecent or profane language or gestures
while interacting with, or in the vicinity of, members of the
community. Officers are expected to use professional language at all
times, however, there may be intense circumstances in which the use
of profanity is an excited utterance and not intended to demean or
humiliate. These circumstances will be reviewed on a case by case
basis. Examples may include, but are not limited to, an officer being
injured, assaulted, or is experiencing pain.
By copy of this memo, Officer Manzanal-Gomez 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 Manzanal-Gomez 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
5
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, because this disciplinary suspension is for three (3) days or less, Officer
Manzanal-Gomez is advised of the following provisions of Article 17, 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
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.
#3141
NOVEMBER 2025
LISA DAVIS Chief of Police
Date
ROBIN HENDERSON
CHIERDAVIS
6
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.
(hustune Mangant Cey#10034
11/10/2025
Police Officer Christine Manzanal-Gomez #10034
Date
7