An Austin police commander’s career ended after his appeal was denied following an indefinite suspension related to allegations of assault during rough sex. Jason Dusterhoft was terminated in 2018 after a woman he was dating accused him of assault involving what she described as “sex strangulation.”
Dusterhoft maintained that the sexual encounters were consensual. Notably, Travis County prosecutors declined to press criminal charges in the case. However, an arbitrator upheld the indefinite suspension, citing Dusterhoft’s dishonesty with the Austin Police Department (APD) and destruction of evidence on his cell phone during the internal investigation, according to the Statesman.
While the District Attorney’s office declined prosecution on November 16, 2018, then-Austin Police Chief Brian Manley issued an indefinite suspension on December 20, 2018. The grounds for suspension included strangulation, statements made regarding the strangulation allegations, actions concerning the search of his cell phone, and associating with individuals who could bring discredit to the department. Hearing officer Norman Bennett detailed these reasons in his decision.
Dusterhoft appealed the termination on September 24, 2019. Bennett’s decision on the appeal noted that the woman initially consented to the strangulation and other physical contact, but later made the complaints after their relationship ended in August, as reported by KXAN.
The arbitrator’s decision further revealed that Dusterhoft was at a strip club on August 24, 2018, in Austin with the woman and others, including someone with alleged links to drug use. A conflict arose between Dusterhoft and the woman after she felt he was paying too much attention to another woman present. Two days later, Dusterhoft informed the woman he was ending their relationship, and that same night, she reported the allegations to members of the APD.
Bennett ultimately denied Dusterhoft’s appeal to regain his position, determining that he interfered with Internal Affairs investigators by deleting dating and texting apps, as well as sexually explicit videos depicting the alleged strangulation and assault, from his cell phone. Dusterhoft also failed to promptly provide his cell phone—containing the evidence—to investigators executing a search warrant, the decision stated. He left the phone at his ex-wife’s house on his attorney’s advice before a scheduled meeting with investigators, fully aware that they intended to examine it. He admitted to deleting the videos before handing over the phone to investigators because he “wanted to delete any personal information that would be embarrassing.” He claimed that he did not delete any work-related information and believed the investigation was focused on overtime sheets and sick time usage.
The decision further noted that it took a direct order from an assistant chief for Dusterhoft to produce the phone. Dusterhoft later showed two videos of his sexual encounters to investigators, stating that these were just some of the “many items” he deleted from the phone after the search warrant was issued and before consulting with his attorney.
“Clearly these videos were relevant to the pending investigation and should not have been deleted,” Bennett wrote.
Bennett concluded his decision by stating, “the evidence convinces that the Appellant (Dusterhoft) engaged in serious misconduct in this case.” He added, “It further establishes that such conduct, standing alone, supports the discipline of indefinite suspension. Therefore, the appeal is denied.”
Internal Affairs investigations often involve scrutiny of an officer’s conduct, both on and off duty, to maintain public trust and uphold the integrity of the police department. The destruction of evidence, as alleged in this case, can severely undermine the investigative process and lead to disciplinary action, regardless of whether criminal charges are filed.
Police Chief Manley’s decision to suspend Dusterhoft, even after the DA declined to prosecute, highlights the department’s commitment to holding its officers accountable for their actions and maintaining professional standards. The arbitrator’s ruling reinforces this commitment and underscores the importance of honesty and transparency in internal investigations.
Dishonesty within a police department can erode public trust and hinder the effectiveness of law enforcement. The decision to uphold Dusterhoft’s suspension sends a clear message that such behavior will not be tolerated.