Austin police officer re-instated after DWI

[A-R]

This is a long ongoing story in Austin that started when this officer (justifiable, in my opinion) shot and killed a young man after they struggled for a gun. He was reprimanded and suspended for not activating his patrol car camera, but cleared by APD for any wrongdoing involving the shooting. He was also cleared by a Grand Jury. But a civil case is still pending (and has had its own share of insanity). And there was an outside consulting firm that disagreed with APD's findings etc.

In addition to all that, our good cop - months later - was arrested for DWI in Williamson County and the APD Chief Aceveda fired him for that (plus some other minor complaints) based on the arrest (the case is still pending, no conviction yet - though that seems a foregone conclusion). He's been fighting to get his job back, and an arbitrator reinstated him yesterday.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/fir ... _frontpage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting ongoing story/stories from many angles, and I'll state again that I believe based on all I've been able to read about the circumstances of the shooting (the local paper has covered this story like the JFK assassination) that he was justified.

But specifically what is interesting as relates to CHL is this ...

If a CHL holder was arrested and convicted of DWI (a Class B misdemeanor), by law his CHL would be revoked for 5 years (I believe I have all this correct).

So how is it that not only this police officer, but apparently numerous other APD officers (other officers were not fired for DWI, which is sighted in the story as justification for reinstating this officer) are allowed to continue carrying a gun legally as police officers (and one would assume under LEOSA) after a DWI arrest? Is it because they plea bargain their arrest to a non-Class B conviction? Or does the law not specifically revoke a LEO's right to carry for Class B offense?

I realize by asking this question, I'm adding to the ongoing debate here about LEOSA and other "us vs. them" arguments between CHL and LEO rights. And this is probably why the question popped into my head.

But let me be clear that I AM NOT posting this to bash police officers. My personal beliefs about the bravery and self-sacrifice of most peace officers is well documented here. Just like veterans deserve all the perks they get (VA care etc) and more, LEOs deserve some perks as well for the jobs they do.

But do they deserve a different set of standards under the law for what level of criminal offense will result in the suspension of their 2A rights?

[texasjeep44]

No they should not be treated differently under the law.

In addition to a CHL holder loosing his license for any number of years, they would also loose their driving privilages.

I don't like double standards. If the LEO was treated the same way as everyone else he would be unable to perform his duties, by not being able to drive since the license would be suspended.

As a CHL holder we would still be able to carry a gun in our car or home after having our CHL revoked but that is it. If the officer was held to the same standard, they would not be able to perform their duties either, and would not be able to carry under LEOSA.

I am all for supporing LEO's but if they are caught violating the law, they should receive the same restrictions as the general public.

[C-dub]

Whatever the rationale is for suspending or revoking any of my rights or privileges should also apply to LEOs when guilty of the same offense. That's just too bad if they are unable to continue to function as a LEO. We wouldn't argue the point of a child molester not being able to continue working at a daycare facility because of the terms of their crime. They would have to find work elsewhere. They should try and hold themselves to the same standards as CHLees. The trouble is that LEOs are people too and some think that they are the law or are above the law. That's just plain wrong whether one is LE or not.

[gigag04]

You automatically lose you're state commission upon conviction for class B or above.

I imagine they are fighting to get them dropped, or pled down.

[A-R]

You automatically lose you're state commission upon conviction for class B or above.

I imagine they are fighting to get them dropped, or pled down.

Thanks for the clarification.

What about a Class C Disorderly Conduct?

Anyway, in this case, it would appear that APD jumped the gun by firing this officer before his guilt was proven in court? But I assume there are clauses in police employment contracts that give PDs the power to fire an officer for an arrest and not have to wait for a conviction? I know the Austin police union was fighting APD on this decision - but not privy to all the details other than what I read in the paper.

[C-dub]

Wouldn't my license be suspended after just the arrest and even before a conviction at which point it would be revoked?

[gigag04]

If an officer is charged with a crime, there will be two investigations.

One is the criminal investigation done by the charging agency. In this case, whichever agency arrested him for DWI. The second investigation is the Internal Affairs/Professional Standards Division (whichever name the dept employs) investigation. For the criminal investigation, you have the full protection of the law against self incrimination, rules of evidence, etc. For the IA/PSD investigation, you MUST cooperate. You will be read a Garrity warning (http://www.aele.org/law/warnings.html, and then asked questions about the situation.

Usually, I have seen the internal investigation occur only after the final resolution of the criminal efforts. If there is a conviction, then TCLEOSE revokes your license, and the internal investigation is a moot point. Not sure why the APD officer was fired, but based on the process I'm familiar with, it's not surprising for him to be reinstated...especially if the dept did not follow procedure.

Also looks like I jumped the gun on my previous posting. Technically, I guess you can keep your commission, but I haven't seen it done in my limited experience.

(d) Except as provided by subsection (a) of this section, the commission may revoke the license of a person who is either convicted of a misdemeanor offense or placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a misdemeanor or felony offense, if the offense directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of any related office held by that person. In determining whether a criminal offense directly relates to such office, the commission shall, under this subsection, consider:
(1) the nature and seriousness of the crime;
(2) the relationship of the crime to the purpose for requiring a license for such office;
(3) the extent to which a license might offer an opportunity to engage in further criminal activity of the same type as that in which the person previously had been involved; and
(4) the relationship of the crime to the ability, capacity, or fitness required to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of such office.

Direct Link to the code: http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/rea ... =223&rl=19" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[C-dub]

So, there is a difference. An officer gets to keep carrying their weapon until convicted or an internal investigation determines otherwise, but I will not until acquitted. Is this correct?

[wheelgun1958]

So, there is a difference. An officer gets to keep carrying their weapon until convicted or an internal investigation determines otherwise, but I will not until acquitted. Is this correct?

We wouldn't want a disgruntled peasant walking around armed, would we?

[gigag04]

So, there is a difference. An officer gets to keep carrying their weapon until convicted or an internal investigation determines otherwise, but I will not until acquitted. Is this correct?

Not exactly. Because of public scrutiny, these officers in question are often (read almost always) suspended administratively while the criminal investigation takes place. While suspended it may not be the stereotypical "give me your badge and gun." However, you are not to carry around PD issued weapons, or display or carry your badge, etc.

This is why some of us LEOs get a CHL. You guys do realize though, that a TCLEOSE Commission card is not JUST a license to carry where CHL's can't. It is not a super CHL or anything like that. It is a professional license that allows the licensee to be employed in a certain capacity, which provides for his or her family. When an LEO loses that license because of a choice he made, he loses far more than his ability to carry a firearm. I know this is a gun forum, but there is more to LE than carrying a gun wherever you want.

[cling]

It is a professional license that allows the licensee to be employed in a certain capacity, which provides for his or her family. When an LEO loses that license because of a choice he made, he loses far more than his ability to carry a firearm.

That means a licensee should be extra careful to not break laws that could get the license revoked, same as a CPA license, or any number of other professional licenses with a "good moral character" requirement.

[gigag04]

It is a professional license that allows the licensee to be employed in a certain capacity, which provides for his or her family. When an LEO loses that license because of a choice he made, he loses far more than his ability to carry a firearm.

That means a licensee should be extra careful to not break laws that could get the license revoked, same as a CPA license, or any number of other professional licenses with a "good moral character" requirement.

Couldn't agree more. Nobody is drafted into such line of work. And the moral expectation is there from day one.

Until we get constitutional carry, the same goes for a CHL.

[xdfanatic]

Couldn't have said it better myself, besides there always have and always will be those who choose not to follow the law. It's those that do that usually are not recognized, while the guys that don't are. In any case I personally think all LEO are subject to mistakes because they are human but because they have to be held to a higher standard they must be prepared to deal with those consequences. In this officers case he should be terminated upon conviction, period and hopefully suspended until then. The standard of innocent until proven guilty should apply for him as well.
Xd

[HankB]

Police officers have far more training in the law than most of us, and are given far, FAR more authority than the rest of us. Why? Because it's their job to carry a gun. So we demand they be held to a high standard as regards their personal conduct.

If I get convicted of DWI, my CHL - my right to carry a gun outside my home - will be REVOKED. The legislature, quite reasonably, doesn't want DRUNKS carrying guns.

I see no compelling reason for an exception to be made when the DRUNK happens to be a police officer. He made a choice to drive drunk, he endangered others.

If Mr. Quintana is convicted of DWI, he should have his right to carry a gun revoked, just like my CHL would be. If that means he no longer can work as an LEO . . . so be it.

[WildBill]

Do you know what usually happens when a doctor, dentist or pharmacist is caught violating drug laws? Does he immediately get fired, go to jail and lose his medical license forever? No he doesn't. He is usually given a chance to go for treatment and gets a term of probation. Meanwhile he can continue to practice his profession, sometimes with restrictions. Are these punishments too lenient? Or are we being to harsh on others?