OPO and IAD outline case‑review process; commissioners press for data access, laptops and clear timelines

Office of Police Oversight (OPO) complaint supervisor Kevin Masters and Lieutenant Eric Wilson of the Austin Police Department Internal Affairs Division briefed the Commission on Police Oversight on June 20 about the process for presenting completed investigations and for commissioners to access case materials.

Masters told commissioners that when an internal affairs investigation is completed and routed to APD’s chain of command, Internal Affairs will notify OPO. OPO then prepares a summary and will notify the commission that the case is ready for review. Masters said the OPO aims to complete its summary work within about a calendar week after notification so the commission will have sufficient time to request a briefing and prepare a recommendation to the chief before the chief’s final determination.

Lieutenant Eric Wilson described the planned digital case folder that will be made available to commissioners. The folder will include the investigative summary, photos, body‑worn‑camera footage and other materials the investigator collected, with redactions limited to information that would compromise safety (for example an officer’s home address). Wilson said investigators and a lieutenant can attend commission briefings to present factual findings and answer questions; he estimated a briefing could take 45–60 minutes.

Staff and commissioners discussed confidentiality and meeting format. Masters and Wilson said briefings will be scheduled on days the commission meets but that those briefings will not be open to the public (they characterized the briefings as occurring in closed session or outside the public portion of the meeting). OPO staff emphasized the commission would receive the same evidentiary materials the chief of police sees when making a decision; Masters said the goal is that “you’ll see what the chief of police sees.”

Data systems and access: OPO staff explained that historical complaints are stored in ICMS and that APD implemented a new case‑management system, Axon, in April 2025; moving forward new complaints will be in Axon. OPO staff said their analysts are CJIS‑cleared and that state rules and criminal‑justice information‑system requirements mean commissioners may need to complete background checks and CJIS training to receive unredacted criminal‑justice data. Commissioners asked OPO to request a list of completed investigations within the 365‑day window so commissioners can pick files for review rather than rely on a filter that would “spoon‑feed” cases to the commission.

Practical items and timeline: Staff said they will identify two previously adjudicated closed cases by July 5 and provide them for training and role‑play review in July. Commissioners requested government laptops to access the shared drive and OPO said five laptops were available at the meeting with additional devices expected in roughly two weeks. Masters and Wilson said they will notify the commission in writing within 24 hours of the next business day after a case goes to chain of command so the commission is aware of new cases as they arise.

Communication and process concerns: Several commissioners said email has not supported effective, compliant communication and asked staff to propose an internal communications protocol (limited‑recipient messages, tools for non‑deliberative information sharing, timelines). Commissioners also discussed how the commission will balance open‑meeting constraints with the need to communicate between meetings; the chair asked members to send agenda‑topic suggestions to staff so items can be scheduled. The commission also asked OPO to request from APD a list of investigations in the 365‑day window so commissioners can begin triaging which cases to request for briefing.

Vote: The commission approved a working group to review and propose bylaw amendments. Commissioner Floyd (moved) and a second were recorded; the motion passed with one abstention. The commission also approved, without full roll call recorded in the transcript, the May 16 meeting minutes (the transcript records affirmative “Aye” from at least two commissioners; full tally not specified).

Why it matters: The procedures described lay out how the new oversight commission will receive case materials, the timelines for summaries and recommendations, and the technical and legal constraints (data systems, CJIS access and potential redactions) that will shape the commission’s ability to review serious misconduct investigations.