Photo by Getty Images
New disciplinary memos published by the Austin Police Department and the Office of Police Oversight show that an Austin police corporal resigned while under investigation for showing up for a shift with a blood alcohol content three times the legal limit in Texas.
The memos also show that the corporal’s supervisor was suspended for 35 days because he waited four days to notify department leaders of the situation after receiving credible information about the corporal’s conduct.
Two officers (unnamed in the disciplinary memo issued by APD’s former Interim Chief Robin Henderson on Sept. 4) told Sgt. Scott Gunter that they thought Cpl. Jonathan Pax was intoxicated when they worked a car crash with him during their March 28 shift. Gunter put off doing anything about it for four days – apparently because he had time off scheduled for Easter.
In Gunter’s absence, Pax was left as acting supervisor of the Southeast Austin patrol sector they worked, which Henderson wrote “contributed to the potential continued danger [Pax] posed to not only himself, his subordinates, but also to members of the Greater Austin Community.”
When Gunter returned to work, April 1, Gunter told Internal Affairs investigators that he and Pax began “catching up” or “talkin’ business.” After that conversation, Gunter noticed signs of intoxication in Pax and notified his chain of command. Later that day, Pax took a blood test which showed his BAC to be .243 (the legal limit to drive is .08).
Pax would later resign after Internal Affairs began investigating his conduct. In 2019, former APD Chief Brian Manley suspended Pax for 60 days because he made “inappropriate comments regarding various racial and cultural demographic areas of the city” while arguing with two East Austinites when responding to a 911 call.
Henderson’s memo does not name Pax, but the OPO memo (which is dated Aug. 19 but was not actually posted until the week of Oct. 14) does. The discrepancy between the APD and OPO memos is not clear, but an APD spokesperson says sometimes such identification is unnecessary.
Later, Gunter’s supervisors began investigating him for failing to immediately act on the complaint against Pax, as department policy requires. Initially, in IA interviews, Gunter downplayed the credibility of the allegation against Pax. “I had some issues with those observations,” Gunter told investigators of the claims made by the two unnamed officers. Gunter worked with Pax during the same shift and said he didn’t notice any signs of intoxication – instead, Gunter said, he thought it could have been an aftershave Pax was known to wear that emitted an alcohol odor.
Gunter told investigators his plan, upon returning to work, was to review body-worn camera footage from the crash the two officers mentioned and then talk with a third officer they said also witnessed the misconduct. As to why he didn’t take those actions immediately, Gunter told investigators “it seemed like there was nothing evidentiary that was actionable at that second, except to verify the credibility of what [the two officers] were saying and tell my chain of command the next time I was at work.”
Asked if he would do anything differently if he encountered a similar situation, Gunter said he would not. But during a second interview with investigators a month later, Gunter acknowledged having prior knowledge of Pax allegedly “drinking a lot” and that he should have notified his lieutenant of the allegation against Pax immediately.
Gunter’s second statement was not very convincing for Henderson, apparently. In the memo, Henderson wrote that she was “troubled by the fact that [Gunter] specifically denied any responsibility or wrongdoing in his first IA interview” and that “even with a month of reflection, [he] was defiant, unremorseful, and defensive, and took no personal accountability in that first IA interview.”
