Tears close out detective's job hearing

AUSTIN (KXAN) - In a tear-filled testimony, former Austin Police Department Detective Chris Dunn testified for four hours on Friday morning in an arbitration hearing to get his job back.

"This is the worst thing to happen to me and my family," Dunn said.

Dunn's emotional testimony highlighted a week-long hearing by an independent arbitrator over whether Dunn should get his detective job back. Dunn was fired over e-mails he wrote last year during an internal affairs inquiry into whether Austin police officer Leonardo Quintana used excessive force in the May shooting death of Nathaniel Sanders, then 19. Police said Sanders was shot because they thought he was pulling a gun on them.

Austin Police Department Chief Art Acevedo fired Dunn , who was helping conduct the police inquiry into the shooting, for failing to maintain an impartial attitude during the investigation and bringing discredit on the department.

During his testimony, Dunn mentioned the family tragedies that happened during his suspension, including the deaths of his father and brother and his mother's stroke.

"I'm a good cop," a tearful Dunn said. "I'm not the best cop, but I'm a good cop. And I'm being told that I'm a piece of [expletive], but I'm not."

During the fifth day of Dunn's reinstatement hearing, Dunn's attorney Tom Stribling asked specifically about the e-mail Dunn sent to fellow investigators Sgt. Gutierrez, Sgt. Patrick Connor and retired Detective Shawn Harkin who testified Thursday and who had also received disciplinary action.

In the e-mail in question, Dunn suggested investigators could use Sander's criminal history as a causation of the shooting. He also bragged in a subsequent e-mail about how smart that idea was.

When asked if he remembered the e-mail, Dunn responded, "Unfortunately I do."

Just before 11 a.m. Friday, Assistant City Attorney Connie Acosta cross-examined Dunn.

Towards the end of her cross-examination of Dunn,  Acosta asked Dunn about his reaction to Acevedo's conversation with Dunn after the e-mails were discovered in which the chief referred to Dunn as "damaged goods" and said he would not be allowed to bring "discredit to the department."

"I expected a chewing like I've never had at anytime in my life because of what this all looked like," he said.

Acosta asked: "When the chief (Acevado) asked if the investigation you had was fair and impartial, you said 'absolutely not'. Correct?"

"Yes ma'am" Dunn replied.

Acosta's questioning was about Dunn's loss of credibility, asking "What happens when it's your word against a victim's? What happens when it's your word against a confession taken by a felon that denies it?"

Dunn answered that he'd have to prove himself to the department and to the public again.

"It's always going to come into question for a period of time until my track record is proven again," he said.

Later Acosta followed with: "There is no guarantee that you would never do the same thing again in the future."

Dunn replied: "I will never do the same thing again."

When his attorney, Gary Stribling, asked about him pinning Sanders as the cause of the shooting Dunn replied: "I wish I could tell you what my thought process was. There's no excuse, obviously. Poorly written, opened my mouth and put my foot in."

Other questions from Stribling included the use of leading questions used during the investigation and proper traffic-stop procedure of suspects - with specific reference to the incidents involving former officers Julie Schroeder and Mike Olsen. Both were officer-involved shootings of suspects.

Acevedo took the stand Thursday and said he stood by his decision to rid the department of someone he has referred to before as "damaged goods."

"He was biased and that was completely contrary to the ethics subscribed to by the members of the Police Department," Acevedo said." Most certainly, extremely egregious when it's done by a member of internal affairs who are suppose to be the gatekeepers of the organization."