For police officers, conviction of DWI costlier than ever
The state agency that licenses Texas police officers has begun toughening its stance toward those convicted of drunken driving, a decision officials say could jeopardize the careers of more officers who commit the crime. Although the
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education revokes the professional licenses of convicted officers for 10 years — there were more than 100 in the past five years — some have avoided that outcome by appealing their cases. State administrative judges, who hear such appeals, have at times recommended only placing officers' licenses on probation, officials said.
But in a handful of more recent cases, the commission has begun rejecting those suggestions and instead has issued "hard suspensions" for a minimum of several months, blocking officers from taking any law enforcement action during that time, according to records and interviews.
Police departments must then decide whether to place officers in clerical civilian jobs during the suspension period — or fire them for lacking a valid license, the course
Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said he will take.
The trend could threaten the licenses of two Austin officers involved last year in high-profile drunken driving arrests if they are convicted.
"It has to do with the profession we are in," said Randall County Sheriff Joel W. Richardson, a commission member. "If we are going to enforce the laws, we certainly should be following them. It's something I have a pretty stiff belief about."
The commission's executive director, Tim Braaten, said this week that the group also is considering adopting a rule in which they would automatically make officers convicted of any Class A or Class B misdemeanor, including drunken driving, perjury or certain assaults, serve a 120-day hard suspension in addition to any other punishment they receive.
Commissioners said the harsher penalties, which began about three years ago, come as part of a turnover in its nine members and an increased scrutiny among those now in the group. They also said it reflects a belief that officers must be held to the highest standards and an overall greater social awareness in the dangers of drunken driving.
"We have a group that is asking a lot of questions," commission chairman and Midland County Constable Charles Hall said. "I do have a little harder attitude than most people. I've seen enough wrecks and worked enough fatality incidents."
According to information the commission has compiled, members have taken action on 143 licenses of officers convicted of alcohol-related offenses in the past five years. Most of them — all but 34 — did not appeal.
Those who fought for their license faced a variety of outcomes, records show. About 20 kept their licenses with probated suspensions, while another dozen received "hard suspensions." About 10 of those hard suspensions were dispensed from 2008 through 2011.
A drunken driving trial begins Monday in Williamson County against former Austin police officer Leonardo Quintana, who was arrested and charged with the crime last year — eight months after he fatally shot Nathaniel Sanders II.
Acevedo fired Quintana after the arrest in Leander, but an arbitrator in October reinstated him with a 15-day suspension. Quintana's lawyers successfully argued that Quintana was unfairly treated because other officers who had been charged with drunken driving were not fired.
Upon reinstatement, Acevedo fired Quintana a second time amid an assault allegation involving Quintana's former girlfriend.
A drunken driving case also is pending in Travis County against Austin officer Michael Hamilton, who was arrested and charged in December after crashing his unmarked patrol car in South Austin. Hamilton, who was assigned to the department's SWAT team, had been at a party with fellow officers before the crash.
Hamilton has not yet faced departmental discipline.
Austin police Detective Daniel Pareso was among officers statewide whom the commission placed on a hard suspension. They ordered Pareso in June 2008 to be without a license for six months.
Police Department records show that during that time, officials assigned Pareso to serve as an administrative assistant in a neighborhood liaison program.
Acevedo said he does not plan for the department to make similar accommodations in future cases.
"If you lose your license, you are done," he said. "You don't have a job. The bottom line is that the minimum requirement to be a police officer is that you have a valid license.
"Officers need to know when you drink and drive, you are putting your career at risk," Acevedo said.
It's difficult to compare how Texas and other states handle licenses of officers convicted of drunken driving.
Patrick Judge , executive director of the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training , said some states have similar practices, although others lack that authority.
"Texas is one of the leaders in that effort, but they aren't the only one," he said.
According to state law, Texas law enforcement agencies are required to notify the commission when an officer is convicted of drunken driving, among other misdemeanor and felony offenses.
In 2003, commission staffers who review the cases began increasing the usual suspension period from five to 10 years in a step to become more aggressive on convicted officers.
However, officers can appeal that decision to the State Office of Administrative Hearings, which usually conducts trial-like meetings in which they learn more about the case, including any mitigating factors. In some instances, the administrative law judges reduce the penalty.
"We are fact finders, but we do make recommendations about what the consequences should be," said Kerry Sullivan, general counsel for the state agency.
Former commission executive director Jim Dozier said previous groups often felt compelled to follow administrative judges' recommendations because they had heard a full airing of evidence involving the officers, as well as any special circumstances such as employment history, commendations and any treatment effort the officers had made.
"I don't think we were ever easy on them," Dozier said. "I think overall the community is getting more and more concerned about the driving while intoxicated offense."
Tyler Police Chief Gary Swindle, who served on the commission from February 2002 to August 2009, was among those who began supporting hard suspensions. He said he was often concerned about inequities — the group sometimes allowed officers convicted of drunken driving to keep serving, while generally not permitting applicants with a conviction in the past 10 years from getting a license.
"The hard suspension, even when it is six months to a year, that gets their attention," he said.
However, Bob Armbruster , a Houston attorney who has represented officers in license proceedings, has a different opinion.
He said his clients must be evaluated for and participate in treatment if doctors and other professionals deem it necessary. Many have often completed that treatment before their licenses are up for review, he said. "If it's a punishment issue, that's one thing," he said. "We may have a philosophical difference about that, but I think we have a better product when we get through than when we started."
Acevedo said he thinks a hard suspension is appropriate in most cases. He thinks it will raise the bar on those who serve. "It is a wake-up call for cops," he said. "It is a deterrent, and it forces them to get help on the front end. That may save some careers, and hopefully it will save some lives."
