SAN ANTONIO – A San Antonio police officer fired over a 2019 use of force case has won back his job, after a third-party arbitrator ruled Thursday that Chief William McManus appeared to not have a strong command of all the facts of the case when he testified at the hearing last summer.
The indefinite suspension of Officer Andre Vargas was rescinded and replaced with a five-day temporary suspension, according to the award issued by arbitrator Lori LaConta.
Recommended Videos
Vargas, who was terminated in June 2020 for rule violations covering conduct and behavior, treatment of prisoners and use of force, was ordered to be reinstated with full back pay and benefits, the award shows.
SAPD officials on Friday did not respond to a request for comment on the arbitrator’s decision.
Vargas’ hearing played out over several days in June 2023 before being completed last December.
Vargas was among a group of SAPD officers who responded to a parking lot near Commercial Avenue and Grosvenor Boulevard on Nov. 26, 2019, for reports of a man trying to take a child from a woman.
Vargas, according to dash camera and body camera videos, was able to block suspect Matthew Garza’s vehicle as he attempted to leave the scene.
Vargas is heard on his own body camera calling Garza a “f---ing idiot” before driving after the suspect.
Vargas is then heard repeatedly yelling at Garza to “get the f--- out of the car!”
Vargas throughout the footage repeatedly cursed at Garza and insulted him, criticizing the suspect for attempting to leave the scene.
Garza was later charged with evading arrest with a vehicle.
He filed a formal complaint with SAPD against Vargas and a second officer, Michael Brewer, in late January 2020.
Brewer was later indicted for unlawful restraint, only to have prosecutors dismiss the charge in May 2023.
Brewer is tentatively scheduled to have his reinstatement case go before a third-party arbitrator in early 2025, an attorney familiar with the case told KSAT Friday.
Arbitrator critical of McManus in Vargas’ award
LaConta, in her 26-page award, stated that McManus had “just cause” to discipline Vargas for the 2019 incident.
However, LaConta wrote that the indefinite suspension of Vargas should be adjusted to a level of discipline appropriate to the facts of the case.
“It appears that Chief McManus did not have a strong command of ALL the facts to get a very clear picture of the situation Vargas had encountered before he engaged with Garza verbally and ultimately deployed his taser to subdue and arrest him. Chief McManus may not have had an opportunity to fully grasp what had transpired before Vargas used his taser on Garza when he concluded that Vargas had used excessive force. During the arbitration hearing, Chief McManus testified that he looks at an officer individually and the totality of circumstances, and there were no exigent circumstances requiring Vargas to jump out with his firearm drawn, and he should have waited on the other officer. The Chief’s assessment demonstrates that he did not fully grasp the totality of the circumstances leading up to Vargas’ encounter with Garza. Apparently, Chief McManus did not know about the vehicle pursuit around the Family Dollar store parking lot for almost four laps with Vargas’ overhead bar lights illuminated the entire time. Chief McManus testified that he incorrectly believed that Vargas had failed to turn on his lights and that Garza did not know he was being pursued by police,” LaConta wrote near the end of her ruling.
LaConta also pointed out in her ruling that McManus testified he had never had “taser” training while Vargas “on the other hand, demonstrated proficient knowledge with SAPD training for taser use and his ability to ascertain whether a suspect is actively resisting and posing a potential threat to his safety.”
McManus and Vargas’ attorney, Ben Sifuentes, had sparred during the chief’s testimony at the hearing in June 2023.
Sifuentes repeatedly questioned McManus’ memory of the internal affairs investigation that led the chief to terminate Vargas and Brewer in 2020.
At one point, McManus answered, “Maybe,” when asked by Sifuentes if he thought the attorney was lying to him about information pertaining to the case.
Read more reporting on the KSAT Investigates page.