Firing of an Austin Police Officer: More than meets the eye

Posted on: January 11, 2012 at 3:00PM

KVUE TV did a report on Austin Police Officer Scott Garner who was handed an indefinite suspension for insubordination and dishonesty.  Something about this does not seem right.  A police officer would not have been fired, or placed on indefinite suspension for either of these violations in times past; if it was a first offense anyway.

The case began when Officer Scott Garner responded to a car stopped under the MoPac bridge with a 25 year old intoxicated man inside.  That man was taken by ambulance to a hospital.  Officer Garner followed the ambulance to the hospital and was ordered by Sergeant Jeff Stone to arrest him for either public intoxication or DWI.  Instead, Officer Garner drove the suspect home.  An internal investigation was then launched.  The investigation apparently found that Officer Garner had been insubordinate and dishonest over the matter.

When asked about this case, Bubba Cates an Investigator with our office, said "In years past many officers have driven DWI and/or Public Intoxication suspects home, but that was a different time; Austin was smaller and the officers knew their patrol beats and the citizens that lived there much better than they do today."

"Nonetheless," Cates said, "if a superior had ordered an arrest even back in the day, you would have had to effect the arrest.  You can't just disregard what a superior tells you to do unless it's an illegal order.  The question I have, though, is if there was a disagreement between Officer Garner and Sergeant Stone, then why didn't Stone just make the arrest?  Why order someone else to do something you have the authority to do yourself?"

According to the news article, an indefinite suspension is the same thing effectively as being fired.  The only reason they don't call it a firing is because Officer Garner has the right to appeal the departments action.  "It's a shame," Cates said, "that an officer would be fired for giving a citizen a break.  We don't know all the details yet, but officers are supposed to have discretion.  Now they can be fired for using that discretion in favor of a citizen?  That doesn't make sense."  

It doesn't make sense to me either.  How about you?



Comments:

Name:
Email:
Website:
I wonder the same thing, why didn't Stone make the arrest?
By on January 1, 2012 at 6:35PM
I know Officer Garner personally and know him to be a safety conscious, wonderful, Christian family man. He is honorable and trustworthy! He has served for many years and has had numerous citations. He is a devoted officer and friend to any community in which he works or lives. The problem with the "firing" is not just the injustice of the loss of his APD job. It will not only haunt him in his future job searches but how would his partners feel if he's reinstated. If he is "re-hired" how would you feel if you had ANY doubt in an officer/partner? I have NO doubt in Officer Garner's abilities and decisions...(-even though, and I may lose you or be in trouble here, I personally believe ANY DUI/DWI should be loss of license/jailed/harsh punishment b/c there's just NO excuse).... Also Officer Garner was not the only officer at the original scene. And where was Sergent Stone when they were at the hospital? And since when does the APD babysit people and take them home...last I heard this would call for a TAXI! If you were a cop, told to take/follow a drunk to the hospital, wait till he's released take him home and then arrest him...what would you think? What does Sergent Stone have to say?
By AJ on February 2, 2012 at 12:18AM