Austin-cop-fired-after-breathalyzer-showed-possible-intoxication. We used to joke that Austin Police Officers didn’t like anybody: I guess that includes themselves. This is a cautionary tale for all those folks that think cops always cover for each other.

An officer comes to work on day shift after a hard night’s drinking. He attends the briefing, gets his assignment and vehicle and heads down to the jail to run intoxilyzer tests. Inroxilyzer operators have to perform three tests or three simulated tests a month to show proficiency and maintain their certification. It appears he had one test to his credit and needed two more.

Intoxilyzer test records are sequentially numbered and are tracked through carbons and a log book. I’m going back thirty years, so bear with me. In the case of a test, that would be the name on the record. The operator would provide a sample which should be zero. The instrument buzz, clicks, and whirs and requires a second sample, again provided by the operator, and it also should be zero. The results are recorded. The instrument does a self-diagnostic and then asks for a simulator sample. The simulator contains a known solution of alcohol, and this is recorded. If the simulator test result is +/- .02, the test is valid and complete.

In this instance, the operator recorded a breath sample of 0.064 and 0.065. The state presumptive limit is 0.08. The accused officer finished his testing and returned to the substation and told his Sergeant what happened. The Sergeant told him to stay in the station and not drive.

From a criminal standpoint, this case would never get filed, the only person who could testify to the breath test procedure and put the officer behind the wheel was the accused officer. He cannot be required to testify against himself, in a criminal matter.

However, the Department is not prosecuting him for a criminal offense. Instead, the department is pursuing administrative remedies by initiating a job action and firing him. Now Catch-22 applies. As the accused, if he testifies against himself the PD will prove the charge against him and fire him. He is fucked. If he stands on his rights, the Department cannot prove its case and therefore cannot fire him. To stand on his rights, the officer must first disobey a direct order requiring him to tell all he knows. To do anything less is insubordinate. Insubordination is grounds for firing, and he is fucked.

This guy has been fired based on the unsupported evidence of the technical supervisor, that in his opinion the officer was likely over the legal limit one to two hours previously. Yup, cops covering for one another.