City Council is set to approve the settlement with Arellano on May 8, per a filing submitted by her attorneys last week. If that happens, she will withdraw from the trial.

However, the Gonzales plaintiffs can continue with a trial, which could be set within the next week or so.

Two sets of plaintiffs (Arellano and Gonzales' mother)sued the officers and the city.

3 weeks ago, a judge ruled that plaintiffs could take the city to trial over allegations that the Austin Police Department was to blame for the shooting for creating a "culture of impunity" among officers.

The suit was brought ove a shooting that began w/a road rage incident between an off-duty Austin Police officer and Alex Gonzales, who was driving with his girlfriend, Jessica Arellano & their son. The officer shot Gonzales & Arellano; later, a different officer killed Gonzales

Ptiman's opinion is not without precedent, even in Austin, but it is extraordinary. You can read the full document here. t.co/AMVNB8orGa

Taking all of that evidence together, Pitman concluded that the city "had a practice of permitting excessive force by under-investigating and under-disciplining the majority of officers who engaged in excessive force" that a jury could conclude led to the fatal shooting.

The plaintiffs produced key pieces of evidence that allowed them to overcome the steep legal hill that protects cities in these lawsuits.

- 19 high profile police violence cases
- independent investigations into APD's IA division
- Testimony from three former APD chiefs

Judge Robert Pitman's decision is a rare one in lawsuits brought over police shootings. Typically, only claims brought against individual officers succeed. But Pitman wrote that the city's Internal Affairs process could have resulted in this shooting and a jury should hear more.

Cities that don't clear out camps themselves will have to reimburse the Texas Department of Public Safety for doing it instead. Bill is in the House now.

Seriously?? Good for them. Long overdue policy change.

Kind of head-spinning to think that three entities outside of APD told the city that the G file was bad for transparency and accountability -- including the justice department! -- but the city just kept on using it. And now, after Austin voters finally took it away, lawmakers may give it right back.

It is remarkable that even a single police chief was asked about disciplinary investigations while under oath, but even more so that three police chiefs were asked about them.

I've written so much about the G file and have thought a lot lately, though, about this story about three former Austin police chiefs deposed in a civil lawsuit where they more or less acknowledged the G file is bad for accountability and transparency. www.austinchronicle.com/news/2024-09...

For Austin, specifically, these bills would create an avenue for the Austin Police Department to regain the G file, which voters dismantled through a 2023 ballot initiative.

A leader for the statewide police union in Texas accidentally let that one slip in a hearing on one of the bills.

here's the financial statement. Again, this is from 2021. Unsure what their financial situation looks like in 24-25, but I'm trying to find out. www.safeaustin.org/wp-content/u...

part of what I'm struggling with in trying to report out local impact is figuring out who to even call because, as you point out, it seems like orgs providing every kind of social service could be impacted.

"The consequences of that kind of uncertainty could be dire," Mollica said. "It's just cruel."

Mollica also points to the potential chilling effect an order like this could have even if it's struck down in court. Service providers may be more reluctant to apply for federal grants, Mollica said, if "they feel like the rug can be pulled out from underneath them."

"This can quickly create cash flow problems for organizations trying to provide housing, shelter, and care to people on the streets," Mollica said. "It could become a huge problem."