RCVD: HRD, CS OFFICI
CLAIM OF MUSTINY
2025 DEC 4 AM9:24
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:
December 3, 2025
SUBJECT:
Indefinite Suspension of Police Officer Joseph Spees #7796
Internal Affairs Control Number 2024-1258
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 indefinitely
suspended Police Officer Joseph Spees #7796 from duty as a City of Austin, Texas police
officer effective December 3, 2025.
I took this action because Officer Spees 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.
The following are the specific acts committed by Officer Spees in violation of Rule 10:
RCVD: HRD, CS OFFICI
2025 DEC 4 AM9:24
The December 7, 2024, Incident:
On December 7, 2024, at approximately 3:02 a.m., Officer Joseph Spees #7796 responded
to a disturbance call at the Marriott Hotel located at 304 E. Cesar Chavez St. Specifically,
a physical disturbance had allegedly occurred between an intoxicated woman (later
identified as
) and hotel staff. Officer Spees was in uniform and activated
his body worn-camera (BWC) video. Officer Spees is assigned to work in DTAC
(Downtown Area Command) and was not working his regular shift but was working a
DTAC overtime assignment. The encounter between Officer Spees and
was
also captured on hotel security cameras. Officer Spees did not have a backup officer
responding because officers in the area were diverted to another higher-priority call.
Officer Spees approached
as she stood in front of the hotel arguing with hotel
staff.
appeared to be in her mid-twenties to early thirties. She was barefoot
and dressed for bars or clubs.
could be heard slightly slurring her words. Officer Spees later wrote in his report-which
he completed after watching his body-worn camera video that he observed
exhibiting several signs of intoxication.
Upon his approach Officer Spees identified himself as an Austin Police Officer and
immediately commanded
to turn around and place her hands behind her back.
initially pulled away from Officer Spees. He turned on his taser, pointed it at
her and gave a second command to turn around with her hands behind her back.
complied with this command.
Officer Spees handcuffed
with both hands behind her back and began to
escort her to his patrol vehicle located a short distance away across a brick lined and
concrete driveway. Body-worn camera and hotel video depict
walking with
an upright steady gait in spite of being intoxicated. As Officer Spees escorted
to his patrol vehicle, he held
left arm with his left hand. Just a few steps from
where they started,
appeared to drop something on the ground. Immediately
afterwards, she abruptly stopped in front of Officer Spees, and lowered herself into a partial
squatted position while stating, "I got to pick up my fucking li Before she could finish
the sentence, and without warning Officer Spees performed a takedown by forcefully
pulling
in a circular motion so powerful that her body continued to spin when
she hit the ground.
Officer Spees wrote in his report that he performed a takedown to maintain control of
when she pulled away from him. Officer Spees did not note in his report that he
let
go before she hit the ground.
hit the ground, with the contact
from her head creating an audible thud. At the time Officer Spees performed this
takedown, he knew that
was intoxicated, handcuffed with her hands behind
her back, and unable to break her fall.
After
violently hit the ground Officer Spees exclaimed, "You are not going
to resist me. When
landed on the ground she began to moan. Officer Spees
further stated, "You" under arrest now, Before he positioned
in an upright
position and before he viewed any injuries, Officer Spees called on his radio to report a
level three response to resistance and stated, "start EMS¹." After approximately 25
seconds, Officer Spees abruptly stood
up and began walking her to his patrol
vehicle. A large amount of blood, which came from
head, was left on the
pavement where
hit the ground. Unlike before the takedown,
balance was noticeably unsure. Officer Spees continued to state "Stop" and "You are not
going to fight everybody and fight the police."
As Officer Spees escorted
to his patrol vehicle a few more steps away, he
recognized her ability to slip out of handcuffs. While continuing to moan,
complained about the handcuffs and appeared to try to pull her hand out of them. She also
refused to comply with Officer Spees' instructions to sit in the backseat of his patrol
vehicle. As Officer Spees adjusted the cuffs by removing one pair and replacing them with
another pair that
would be less likely to slip out of, he stated, "I am not going
to let you slip out of cuffs; it not going to happen. At this point,
removed
her right hand from the right cuff that Officer Spees had just replaced. In response, Officer
Spees secured
right arm and left arm behind her and forcefully pushed her
headfirst into the back seat of the patrol vehicle, making a loud thud.
immediately exclaimed, "Owww!!" as she cried, "Why did you fucking do that? When
Officer Spees eventually got
seated, there was a pool of blood in the back
seat where her head came to rest.
After EMS arrived to evaluate
, they took her to Dell Seton Medical Center
at The University of Texas (MCUT) emergency room. Medical staff determined that she
had a
and
was ultimately charged with a Class C misdemeanor, Public Intoxication.
Internal Affairs Investigation (IA)
Because
was admitted to the hospital due to her injuries, Officer Spees' use
of force was escalated to the highest level of required use of force reporting, a Level 1².
All Level I use of force incidents are investigated by both the Internal Affairs Division
(IA) and the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).
IA reviewed the following in relation to the Administrative Investigation of the incident
that occurred on December 7, 2024:
SIU case file under SIU case 2024-5031055
I Emergency Medical Personnel
2
There are four levels of use of force that require reporting with Level 4 being the lowest and Level I being the highest
A Level I use of force is defined in APD GO 211.2.1, in applicable part, as any force resulting in death. substantial risk
of death. intentional firearm discharge at a person, vehicle, or structure, regardless of injury, and any force that resulted
in serious bodily injury requiring admittance to the hospital, beyond emergency room treatment and release.
Versadex incident reports filed under APD case 24-3420226
Probable Cause Affidavit written by Officer Spees
24-3420226 Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) sheet
APD 911 audio
Officer Spees #7796 Body Worn Camera (BWC) footage 24-3420226
Officer Spees #7796 Digital Mobile Audio Video (DMAV) footage 24-3420226
Officer Spees #7796 Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) data
Axon Evidence photos 24-3420226
Austin Police Use of Force Training
Officer Spees #7796 Training Record
Austin Marriott Downtown (304 E. Cesar Chavez) surveillance video footage
On February 26, 2025, IA conducted an interview with Officer Spees. Officer Spees gave
a lengthy explanation of his actions. When asked by IA what level type of resistance
posed when he initially encountered her, he described it (on a scale of 1-10, with
1 being little or no danger and 10 being extreme danger), he said "Give you a seven on
that."
Officer Spees told IA that his intent, as he escorted
away from the hotel staff
was to interview her concerning the alleged assault and get her side of the story. Officer
Spees described to IA that:
As she's, walking, she's pulling away from me. I remember at the time,
pulling back on her arm. I did not recognize, that she had dug in her feet,
which I did see later on, in a body-worn camera video, but at the time, I did
not realize that she had kinda dug in her feet, to push back. I felt her pulling
away, I pulled back on her arm and I feel her going down. And so, I just
reevaluated and determined the easiest way to stop this resistance is just to
go down with her and let the momentum go down with her. So, as she went
down to the ground, I observed her go down towards her rear end and then
she wrapped around to, her chest and apparently hit her head on the ground
on the way down.
When asked by IA what danger level (using the same scale)
posed when he
escorted her away from the hotel, while handcuffed, he responded: "I would say an eight
on the scale."
Officer Spees explained to IA that he had
two weeks prior to the event. He still
had
and was trying to avoid any takedowns or other force to avoid discomfort and
pain. Officer Spees explained that he was not intending to perform a takedown on
He said that "I didn't mean for her to go down I didn't slam her down I don't
remember the rotation she was under. When asked why he reported the action as a
takedown, Officer Spees said that "I'm gonna over report it."
Officer Spees explained to IA that he intentionally released
when he pulled
her. He said that he thought she would fall straight back and that if he "disengaged, that it
would minimize any injury to me or her during that use of force I thought she went rear
end first. But based on the moment it appears that she twisted around after she had hit her
rear end." Ofc. Spees repeatedly explained to IA that he believed letting
fall
would reduce his discomfort and her likelihood of injury.
Ofc. Spees admitted to IA that he did not write in his report that he did not intend to perform
a takedown or that he let
go and fall to the ground when he performed the
takedown/pulled her. He also told IA that he did not hear
explain that she
was trying to retrieve her license when he used force.
Finally, Officer Spees told IA that, considering all of the facts and circumstances, he
believed that his "use of force was correct and reasonable based on the totality." He also
denied violating other referenced APD General Orders, including 200.2 De-escalation,
402.2.4 Report Writing, and 900.4.3(h) Neglect of Duty.
Sustained Allegations and Austin Police Oversight's recommendation
Officer Spees' Chain of Command conducted a review of the IA investigation into
allegations of misconduct against him and on November 14, 2025, the highest member of
the chain of command, Assistant Chief Michael Chancellor, recommended that Officer
Spees be sustained violations of the following APD General Orders:
200.2 De-escalation
200.4 Response to Resistance
4002.2.4 Report Writing
900.03.1 Honesty
900.3.2 Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department
Further, the Austin Police Oversight Office (APO)³ reviewed the IA investigation and
issued a Discipline Recommendation on November 18, 2025. APO recommended the
indefinite suspension of Officer Spees citing, among other things, that Officer Spees failed
to take responsibility for his actions; he provided inconsistent accounts of the use of force;
and he attempted to place blame for the takedown on the actions of the subject in custody.
APO noted that Officer Spees initially denied to IA that a takedown had occurred, while
simultaneously attempting to justify actions that would have warranted him performing a
takedown. The APO further believed his use of force during this incident was unnecessary
and excessive.
Conclusions and Findings
I agree with each of the sustained violations, except as indicated below, and I further agree
with the APO's recommendation to indefinitely suspend Officer Spees. By way of further
explanation, I make the following conclusions and findings:
1 The Austin Police Oversight (APO) is appointed by the City Manager of the City of Austin. The APO's
mission is to provide impartial oversight of the Austin Police Department's conduct, practices, and policies
to enhance accountability, inform the public to increase transparency, and create sustainable partnerships
throughout the community.
200.4 Response to Resistance #1 - Officer Spees' Takedown of
The video evidence in this case demonstrates that Officer Spees violated APD GO 200.4
Response to Resistance when he performed a takedown of
The force used
by Officer Spees was not objectively reasonable under the circumstances. At the time he
used force,
was in handcuffs with her hands behind her back. She had
minimal ability to flee (she was barefoot and in handcuffs) or to cause harm to Officer
Spees or anyone else. Indeed, Officer Spees had an overwhelming size and strength
advantage over
Nonetheless, Officer Spees used force on
immediately after she attempted to
stop her forward momentum and turned her body to her right to retrieve her identification
(ID) card that she dropped on the ground. Officer Spees did not engage in de-escalation
techniques, including, but not limited to, explaining why he took a specific action, advising
of noncompliance, or providing
with reasonably sufficient time within which
to respond to directives before throwing her to the ground on her head while handcuffed.
was not under arrest at the time, and ultimately was only arrested for a Class
C misdemeanor. Nonetheless, Officer Spees used considerable force and did so without
due regard for the possibility of inflicting serious injury on
It is deeply concerning to me that Officer Spees did not recognize nor acknowledge his
errors during his interview with IA. I do not believe that any objectively reasonable officer
could share Officer Spees' judgment that
posed a level 8 out of 10 threat
while she was handcuffed and he was escorting her to his patrol car. Any objectively
reasonable officer-and especially an experienced and well-trained officer like Officer
Spees- should have been able to handle
minimal resistance without
immediately resorting to a violent takedown that caused
considerable injury.
It is important to note that if this were the only sustained violation, I would have made the
decision to indefinitely suspend Officer Spees for this violation alone, without
consideration of the other violations in this Memorandum.
200.4 Response to Resistance #2 - Officer Spees' Shove of
at the Patrol
Vehicle
I also find that Officer Spees violated APD General 200.4 when he shoved
into the patrol vehicle, causing her head to hit the hard plastic seat. Once Officer Spees
escorted
to his patrol vehicle he recognized her ability to slip out of the
handcuffs.
continued to moan repeatedly after sustaining the initial head
injury. As Officer Spees adjusted the cuffs by removing one pair and replacing them with
another, in her intoxicated state,
continued to move around. Officer Spees
4 I considered the fact that the Travis County District Attorney reviewed this case and declined prosecution.
That decision on a potential criminal case, however, does not foreclose my finding that Officer Spees used
objectively unreasonable force in violation of APD General Orders.
"
stated, "I am not going to let you slip out of cuffs: it 's not going to happen. At this point,
slipped her right hand out of the right cuff. I note here that
made
no additional aggressive movements other than to slip her hand out of the loose cuff before
Officer Spees immediately gained control of her right and left arm. After Officer Spees
secured
right arm and left arm he forcefully shoved her headfirst into the
back seat of the patrol vehicle without regard to her
as she clearly and audibly
continued to moan in pain. A loud thud is heard on the recorded video and
immediately exclaimed, "Owww!!" as she cried, "Why did you fucking do that? When
Officer Spees eventually sat
in the back of the patrol vehicle, there was a
pool of blood in the seat where her head came to rest.
I believe that no reasonable officer in Officer Spees' position would have shoved
into the patrol vehicle, causing her to hit her head a second time, knowing she
already had sustained a head injury from being thrown to the pavement. I acknowledge
that
exhibited resistance by slipping out of her handcuffs, but she otherwise
made no aggressive moves towards Officer Spees, and he had her arms secured behind her
back. Moreover, any reasonable officer would have known that
had already
suffered an
Officer Spees saw the blood
had left on the
pavement after his takedown, heard her moaning, and felt her unsteady gait. An objectively
reasonable officer would have exhibited greater care for an injured person with their hands
held behind their back, than to shove them headfirst.
Although it cannot be known the extent of the injury or additional injury caused by this
second use of force, there is no question that a considerable amount of blood is present
after Officer Spees lifted
from the back seat.
It is important to note that if this were the only sustained violation, I would have made the
decision to indefinitely suspend Officer Spees for this alone, without consideration of the
other violations in this Memorandum.
400.2.4 Report Writing - Officer Spees' Report is Inconsistent and Omits Important
Details
Officer Spees violated APD General Order 402.2.4. In Officer Spees' report he wrote that
he performed a "takedown" by pulling
to the ground. He also reported
defensive resistance twice in his description of
actions of stopping her
forward momentum and turning her body to her right, to apparently draw attention to or to
retrieve her ID that was visible on the ground. The written report described
as continuing to pull away, thereby causing him to lose control of her arm. Officer Spees
watched his body-worn camera before completing his report, yet he distorted and concealed
the manner in which
resisted and his purported loss of control; his body-worn
camera conflicts with his assertions. Additional footage from hotel cameras offers
additional perspectives and neither angle depict Officer Spees losing control of the subject
before taking her forcefully down to the ground.
Officer Spees wrote in his report that
actions caused him to perform a
takedown by pulling her to the ground, yet during his IA interview, he stated, "I was not
intending on even taking her down. I was intending on pulling her back towards me. But
as she twisted around with that pull at the same time, / just went with that momentum and
- and result in her falling to the ground. (emphasis added). This statement contradicts the
report and what the video evidence shows, including his own body-worn camera. The
takedown was obviously intentional based on the amount of force used to take
down to the ground and the violent way she spun and hit the ground.
When he wrote his report, Officer Spees omitted and distorted important and relevant
information. He only offered information regarding letting
go during the IA
investigation after watching his body-worn camera footage for a second time and after
video footage was produced from the hotel. When asked by IA if he remembered that night
that he had disengaged and let go of
, Spees responded, "Not prior to writing
my report, no. I only saw that when I reviewed my body worn camera for the second time
at SIU almost months later." (emphasis added).
Officer Spees omitted the fact that he disengaged/dropped
from his written
report in an attempt to conceal the information. This information is pertinent and crucial to
report a response to resistance. Officer Spees later explained to IA why he let her go. He
explained that he was working DTAC on a Saturday night on a voluntarily scheduled shift
with a known personal/medical condition that compromised his ability to engage force if
needed. He stated to IA, "She pushed against me. And that's what caused me some
discomfort based upon my
that I had And initially based on my memory and
body worn camera video, I did not identify that I twisted around with her. This statement
contradicted the statement that he intended to pull her back towards him. This statement
further contradicted his written report and his acknowledgment to a supervisor at the scene
on December 7, 2024, that he had performed a takedown.
An additional important fact omitted from his report is his action of shoving
into the backseat of the patrol vehicle headfirst and her audible pain response. This part of
the incident is described in detail above. This action clearly was a response to resistance
and the pool of blood in the backseat should have caused Officer Spees to include details
of this interaction in his report. Instead, he "generalizes" or otherwise, minimized the facts
in his report and/or omitted important facts in order to suppress, conceal or otherwise
distort the amount of force he used and the extent
injury.
What is even more problematic is Officer Spees' explanation of how he routinely writes
his reports. When asked by IA how what he wrote in his report concerning this case lines
up with what he eventually reported to IA, Officer Spees stated,
"So, again, when I wrote my report, I did that based solely on memory and
then tried to adjust it after I reviewed my body-worn cam video. And I used
my body-worn cam video to validate what I wrote. So, it's just a method of
which I write the reports For example, her twisting, pulling away. losing
my grasp. Those are all just general terms that I use in my report when I
feel like that occurred within that use of force incident. And I believe that at
the time, these things were occurring."
From this explanation Officer Spees explained his omission as a means to validate what he
remembered, not to recall facts or add factual details after viewing his body-worn camera
at the time of the incident; only to the extent that it validated what he already wrote.
Officer Spees was no longer able to validate what he wrote once an IA investigation was
initiated. The subsequent review of his body-worn camera revealed that he clearly let
fall to the ground when he performed his takedown. He should have detailed this
vital information in his report, especially after watching his body-worn camera video. He
eventually not only recalled this fact, but also provided the reason why he let her go. These
facts were available to him when he wrote his report. He further could not deny this fact
when he was confronted with the Marriot Hotel video.
In his report, Officer Spees described
actions as defensive resistance. During
the IA investigation he recounts the suspect losing her footing. If taken as true, his report
distorts facts by stating he performed a takedown and the events that led to it. In his report
he calls his response a soft hand-controlled takedown, which does not reflect video
evidence. I cannot trust the statements that Officer Spees wrote in his report, coupled with
his explanations to IA, as it is clear that he is not telling the whole truth, but one that is
convenient for him under the circumstances. This method of stating convenient truths is
not acceptable from an APD officer.
It is important to note that if this were the only sustained violation, I would have made the
decision to indefinitely suspend Officer Spees for this alone, without consideration of the
other violations in this Memorandum.
200.2 De-escalation
Officer Spees violated APD General Order 200.2 by failing to take advantage of multiple
opportunities to engage in reasonable de-escalation techniques before using force on
by taking her to the ground. These opportunities would have included a warning
and explaining to
that he intended to use force. Given that
was
handcuffed and barefoot, there was no emergency or exigency that required the immediate
use of force. Crucially, the takedown may not have occurred as the evidence shows that
was not actively resisting, but was in fact retrieving her license visible on the
ground; a fact Officer Spees never gave her the opportunity to explain. What is more
apparent is that Officer Spees was intentional in his manner of takedown to incapacitate
the suspect rather than to engage in any de-escalation tactics, made clear by his statement
"You are not going to resist me. The result of the violent takedown supports this
conclusion. Moreover, if
was pulling away as Officer Spees described, his
act of throwing her to the ground on her head with her hands handcuffed behind her back
without first trying to de-escalate the situation is unjustifiable and inexcusable.
It is important to note that if this were the only sustained violation, I would have made the
decision to indefinitely suspend Officer Spees for this alone, without consideration of the
other violations in this Memorandum.
900.3.1 Honesty
Although I have significant concerns with manner in which Officer Spees wrote his report
and described his acts in this case, I have decided that the preponderance of the evidence
does not support a finding that Officer Spees was intentionally dishonest in this matter.
900.3.2 Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department
Finally, Officer Spees violation APD General Order 900.3.2. Officer Spees' interactions
and use of force on
were observed by several members of the public. When
Officer Spees approached the scene several members of the public were visible in his body-
worn camera footage and hotel footage. In spite of the fact that
was obviously
engaged in a heated discussion with people who were later identified as hotel staff, other
people in the video appear to be unconcerned and did not appear threatened by the
confrontation. When Officer Spees performed the takedown,
hit impacting
the pavement made an audible noise. It brought discredit to APD for multiple members of
the public to witness Officer Spees' takedown of
and his objectively
unreasonable use of force, which left
blood on the pavement. It undermines
APD's standing in the community for members of the public to believe that Officer Spees'
actions were acceptable or tolerated by APD. Accordingly, those acts brought significant
discredit.
It is important to note that if this were the only sustained violation, I would have made the
decision to indefinitely suspend Officer Spees for this alone, without consideration of the
other violations in this Memorandum.
Conclusion
Officer Spees' actions on December 7, 2024, represent an extreme departure from my
expectations as the Austin Chief of Police. I would be doing a disservice to the community
members of Austin if I retained Officer Spees for a multitude of individual General Order
violations. Moreover, I have no reason to confidently trust his words for a multitude of
reasons. The way officer Spees reacted to the intoxicated suspect in this case does not
reflect an acceptable response from an 11-year veteran APD officer. The fact that Officer
Spees refused to take accountability, purported
threat level as an 8 out of 10
with 10 being the highest, the amount of deception and his callousness of reflection; that
he would not have done anything substantially different after a person sustained severe
injury during an interaction with him pursuant to the misdemeanor charge of public
intoxication is reprehensible and not a reflection of the type of police force I intend to lead
and develop. Moreover, the fact that Officer Spees used excessive force in public, in front
of several people at the hotel, brought significant discredit to APD.
10
In making my decision, I carefully considered the information provided regarding Officer
Spees' multiple commendations and his performance reviews. I acknowledge that Officer
Spees has not previously been disciplined and that he has had a positive career with APD.
Nonetheless, his failure to accept meaningful accountability for his actions leads me to
conclude that I cannot trust Officer Spees' judgment and that he cannot continue as an APD
officer.
Therefore, after careful deliberation and consideration of all of these factors, I have made
the decision to indefinitely suspend Officer Spees.
By these actions, Officer Spees 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 200.2: Response to Resistance: De-Escalation
200.2 De-Escalation
When safe and reasonable under the totality of circumstances, officers shall use de-
escalation techniques to reduce the likelihood for force and increase the likelihood
of voluntary compliance.
Nothing in this de-escalation policy requires an officer to place themselves in
harm's way to attempt to de-escalate a situation. Recognizing that circumstances
may rapidly change, officers may need to abandon de-escalation efforts after they
have commenced. Understanding that no policy can realistically predict every
situation an officer might encounter, the Department recognizes that each officer
must be entrusted with well-reasoned discretion in determining the reasonable de-
escalation techniques to use in a situation. This discretion is subject to supervisory
review. It is the duty of supervisors to ensure that subordinates utilize the tactics
and techniques required by this order. This de-escalation order is intended to
complement, not replace or supersede, other portions of the APD General Orders
or specific officer training that addresses de-escalation.
Austin Police Department Policy 200.4: Response to Resistance: Response to
Resistance
200.4 Response to Resistance
All responses to resistance must be objectively reasonable. In other words, another
reasonable officer, faced with the same circumstances, could believe that the
officer's response to resistance was reasonable based on the threat, level of
resistance, and totality of the circumstances.
While the type and extent of force may vary, it is the policy of this department that
officers use only that amount of objectively reasonable force which appears
necessary under the circumstances to successfully accomplish the legitimate law
enforcement purpose in accordance with this order.
(a)
Assessment shall be ongoing - As the circumstances of a situation
change, the force necessary to affect a detention, arrest, search, or
transportation of a subject or to protect officer or other persons from
imminent harm may also change. Officers will therefore need to re-
evaluate their determination of the appropriate response to
resistance as circumstances change.
(b)
Officer Discretion - Understanding that no order can realistically
predict every situation an officer might encounter, it is recognized
that each officer must be entrusted with well-reasoned discretion in
determining the objectively reasonable response to resistance in
each incident.
(c)
Unless engaged in a lethal force encounter, officers are prohibited
from using any of the following techniques: chokeholds,
strangleholds, vascular neck restraints, or carotid neck restraints.
(1) Chokeholds and strangleholds are defined as applying direct
or indirect pressure by any means to an individual's throat,
windpipe, trachea, or airway in a manner that is reasonably
likely or intended to prevent, reduce, or hinder the intake of
air, block the ability to breathe, or compress the airway.
(2) Vascular and carotid neck restraints are defined as applying
direct or indirect pressure to an individual's neck in a manner
that is reasonably likely or intended to prevent, reduce, or
hinder the blood flow to the brain through the vascular system
or carotid arteries.
(d)
Improvising Permitted - Circumstances may arise in which officers
reasonably believe that it would be impracticable or ineffective to
use a standard tool, weapon, or method provided by the Department.
Officers may find it more effective or practicable to improvise their
response to rapidly unfolding conditions they are confronting. In
such circumstances, the use of any improvised device or method
must still be objectively reasonable and used only to the extent
which reasonably appears necessary to accomplish a legitimate law
enforcement purpose.
(e)
Injury to Officer Not Required - While it is the ultimate objective of
every law enforcement encounter to minimize injury to everyone
12
involved, nothing in this order requires an officer to actually sustain
physical injury before applying objectively reasonable force.
(f)
Reporting Required - Any complaint by a subject that an officer
caused pain or injury shall be treated as a response to resistance
force incident, except complaints of minor discomfort from
unresisted handcuffing.
Austin Police Department Policy 402.2.4: Incident Reporting and
Documentation: Report Writing
402.2.4 Report Writing
(a)
All reports shall accurately reflect:
(1) The identity of the persons involved.
(2) All pertinent information seen, heard, or assimilated by any
other sense.
(3) Any action(s) taken.
(4) Any property which the employee takes possession of, clearly
documenting the:
(a) Events that led up to the taking possession of the
property
(b) Purpose for taking the property
(c) Identification of the property by name and/or description
(d) Location where the property was taken
(e) Complete identifiers, as available, for anyone who may
claim ownership of the property.
(b)
Employees shall not suppress, conceal or distort the facts of any
reported incident, nor shall any employee make a false report orally
or in writing.
(c)
Generally, the reporting employee's opinions should not be included
in reports unless specifically identified as such.
(d)
Sentences with proper structure should express complete thoughts.
When writing the narrative portion of an incident report, personnel
should avoid writing:
(1) Sentence fragments which do not convey or express a
complete thought.
(2) Run-on sentences where two or more complete ideas are
joined without punctuation.
13
Austin Police Department Policy 900.3.2: General Conduct and
Responsibilities: Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department
900.3.2 Acts Bringing Discredit Upon the Department
Since the conduct of personnel both on-duty or off-duty may reflect directly upon
the Department, employees must conduct themselves at all times in a manner which
does not bring reproach, discredit, or embarrassment to the Department or to the
City.
(a) Employees will not commit any act which tends to destroy public
confidence in, and respect for, the Department or which is prejudicial to
the good order, efficiency, or discipline of the Department.
By copy of this memo, Officer Spees is hereby advised of this indefinite 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 Spees 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.
L.
12.3.25
an)
LISA DAVIS, Chief of Police
Date
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I hereby acknowledge receipt of the above and foregoing memorandum of indefinite
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.
Spees #7796
12/5/25
Police Officer Joseph Spees #7796
Date
14