Judge Rules That City, APD Have “Unlawfully” Maintained Secret Police File

A Travis County judge ruled that the city of Austin and Austin Police Department have “unlawfully” maintained a secret police personnel file known as the “G file” that was outlawed by the Austin Police Oversight Act.

“[City Manager T.C.] Broadnax and [Police Chief Lisa] Davis have unlawfully failed to perform their mandatory duty to end the City of Austin’s use of the ‘g file’ in violation” of the APOA, District Judge Maria Cantú Hexsel wrote in a hotly anticipated ruling issued late Friday afternoon, Aug. 30. The ruling followed a hearing in the lawsuit filed by Equity Action, the justice advocacy organization that wrote the APOA and sued the city over failure to fully implement it, before Cantú Hexsel in June.

The city does not appear ready to fight the ruling (Mayor Kirk Watson wrote in a newsletter, Sept. 3, he sees “no reason to appeal”).

The ruling is unprecedented in Texas and a major victory for police accountability and transparency, Equity Action said. Police accountability advocates have maintained, for years, that Texas cities opting to maintain a G file do so at their discretion. Now, a court has agreed. “This is a momentous day for Austin,” Alycia Castillo, Equity Action board chair, said. “We hope the sunlight offered through the full, forthcoming implementation of the APOA will bring about the meaningful deterrent to police misconduct and brutality our city voted for back in 2023.”

Now, the city will have to stop using the G file. “We are working through the decision’s impact,” a city spokesperson said, “including immediate next steps such as consultation with [City] Council, its effect on [contract] negotiations, and logistical and technical ramifications.” The lawsuit remains active with other complaints lodged by Equity Action awaiting resolution, but the group hopes that the ruling will motivate the city to settle on the other claims.

Part of the purpose of the G file is to keep unsubstantiated complaints against officers from harming their reputations. But critically, the G file can include complaints that were substantiated but that officers were not disciplined for. APD says when this happens, it’s because the officer in question agreed to terms in lieu of formal discipline from the department (like resigning or participating in additional training). Equity Action says the department allows this to happen to shield officers from accountability.

The G file has also been a key part of negotiations between the city and the Austin Police Association over a long term labor contract. Previously, the city and APA had agreed to keep some disciplinary investigation records locked away in the G file as one piece of the new contract, which is still under negotiation. It is unclear how Cantú Hexsel’s ruling will affect those negotiations.

The G file has also been a key part of negotiations between the city and the Austin Police Association over a long-term labor contract. Previously, the city and APA had agreed to keep some disciplinary investigation records locked away in the G file as one piece of the new contract, which is still under negotiation. Now, the city is proposing to retain that agreement as a “backstop” in case G file rules change again. At a bargaining session, Sept. 4, city negotiators laid out their counteroffer on pay and benefits. Officers would get a 7% raise in year one of the contract, 6.5% in year two, 4% in year three, and 3.5% in years four and five (APA’s initial offer sought a 12% raise in year one; this year, other city employees will get a 4% raise).

Editor's note Friday, Aug. 30 7:15pm: The story has been updated to include statements from a city spokesperson and Kirk Watson.