Fired Austin police officers in stun gun case to be reinstated with back pay
Austin TX May 10 2020 The use of a stun gun on a kneeling man should be reinstated to the Austin Police Department with back pay.
Donald Petraitis and Robert Pfaff were not fired with just cause, arbiter LeRoy R. Bartman concluded Thursday. The decision was delivered to Petraitis and Pfaff’s attorneys Friday.
Pfaff used a stun gun in 2018 on Quentin Perkins at the scene of a shooting. Perkins later sued the city and won a $75,000 settlement after arguing that the officers had discriminated against him because he was black and used the stun gun while he was on the ground with his hands up. After the incident, Pfaff and Petraitis wrote in their reports that it appeared Perkins was attempting to flee. Austin Police Chief Brian Manley said body camera footage contradicted that account.
“Pfaff and Petraitis were consistent in their reports that to the best of their recollection, what they saw was what they recollected,” Bartman wrote in the ruling. “No evidence was presented that they colluded to intentionally give false and/or misleading reports. Mr. Perkins was non-compliant and was defensive/resistant when tased.”
After the 2018 incident, the two officers were charged with several crimes, including tampering with physical evidence and official oppression. A jury acquitted both officers, but Manley later fired them from the Police Department.
“I find it improbable that both officers came up with a similar version of events, which included things that did not happen … as well as not recalling what actually did happen,” Manley wrote in the disciplinary memo when he fired them. “I have serious concerns that Officer Pfaff and Petraitis got their stories straight before they spoke with (a supervisor) and prepared their reports and the probable cause affidavit.”
But in summarizing the Austin police union’s stance on the case, Bartman wrote that “the mere fact that the chief did not believe Officers Pfaff and Petraitis is not sufficient on its own to meet the city’s burden of proof.”
In a statement released Friday, city of Austin officials said they were unhappy with the ruling.
“We are surprised and very disappointed by this ruling,” the statement says. “We maintain that the officers’ actions do not meet the high standards we expect from our police force.”
The shooting happened Feb. 16, 2018, in the 1100 block of Red River Street. Before Petraitis and Pfaff arrived, about 10 people were standing over the shooting victim, and a different officer told the people to get on the ground.
Multiple officers testified that they were concerned that the shooter could have been among the people at the scene, the arbitration summary says.
Perkins was the only person who did not comply and instead walked away from the group, the document says. As Pfaff and Petraitis drove up, Perkins stopped walking and began to walk back. As he did, the officers saw Perkins looking over his shoulder, the document says.
Then, Perkins got down on his knees and kept his hands in full view, the document says. Perkins did not lie on his face, as officers demanded, and Pfaff used the stun gun, which hit Perkins, the document says.
“Perkins refused to comply and moved towards the darkened area of the parking lot where Waller Creek is located,” Pfaff wrote in Perkins’ arrest affidavit. “Officer Petraitis and I continued to give Perkins commands but he refused to comply. … Perkins refused to comply and looked back towards the creek as if to escape, at which point I deployed my Taser.”
Bartman said the use of the stun gun was justified.
“Given the serious nature of the situation they found themselves and the real possibility Mr. Perkins was the shooter, it was essential that they act quickly to secure the scene,” he wrote.
The Austin police union said in a statement Friday that they were “disappointed in how Chief Manley decided to approach this case from the start,” but they were glad the arbitration sided with Pfaff and Petraitis.
“We are extremely pleased with Dr. Bartman’s decision,” the statement says. “From the day that these two officers were indefinitely suspended, the leadership of the (union) felt that the decision was one made for political reasons, and we felt that an independent third party would see the flaws in the investigation and decision-making by Chief Brian Manley.”
Pfaff and Petraitis’ attorneys also said Friday they were happy with the outcome.
“We sincerely hope this entire unfortunate event has taught important lessons to police and prosecuting agencies regarding the error of assuming body-worn camera footage tells a complete story,” the attorneys said.
In his 2019 memo, Manley wrote that some things the two officers told their supervisors were “simply not true,” such as that Perkins began to turn away from the officers just before they used the stun gun on him. Bartman’s arbitration document does not address that issue. However, Bartman does contend that Manley’s allegation that Pfaff and Petraitis had stated that Perkins was standing was based on their supervisors’ assumptions from what they read in the reports. Pfaff and Petraitis did not write that Perkins was standing.
Bartman also summarizes testimony from a University of Texas professor who testified about how humans perceive things in the dark, because the incident took place in the evening. Bartman argued that because Perkins’ hoodie had a reflective design on it, that made it difficult for the officers to see Perkins’ arms, legs and hands.
“While Perkins’ chest appears brightly lit, at times even appearing to be its own light source, Perkins’ arms, hands and legs are dark, and significantly darker in comparison to the reflective lettering on his chest,” Bartman wrote. “Common human experience shows us that when something is shining brightly at us in the dark, it becomes difficult to see anything immediately around it in the darkness.”
Chris Harris, with the criminal justice reform group Austin Justice Coalition, expressed concern that Bartman was arguing that it was harder for officers to see what Perkins was doing because he was black.
“Taken to its logical extreme, police with guns drawn could commit any act of brutality against a black person at night because they can’t tell if they are on their knees with their hands up or starting to run away,” Harris said.
