SAN ANTONIO – An outside arbitrator ruled a San Antonio police officer should be reinstated who, along with another member of the street crimes unit, forced his way into a home and repeatedly punched a man who had walked away from an attempted traffic stop.
Diego Jesús Peña presided over a two-day hearing in October 2024, during which SAPD officer Thomas Villareal tried to get his indefinite suspension — tantamount to a firing — overturned.
In his Jan. 24 ruling, which KSAT obtained this week, Peña agreed Villarreal had violated department procedures for warrantless searches and use of force during the January 2020 incident on the East Side. However, he said there was ”insufficient evidence" to support Villarreal being fired and knocked his punishment down to a 45-day suspension.
Peña focused on SAPD Chief William McManus’ decision to fire Villarreal after initially considering a much lighter punishment. Peña said the city should have explained the change but left many questions about it lingering instead.
“Chief McManus’ failure to remember why he issued Villarreal a contemplated 15-day suspension and when, why and how he rescinded the contemplated 15-day suspension casts a shadow of doubt on the certainty of his decision to indefinitely suspend Villarreal,” Peña wrote.
Peña said the reinstated officer is entitled to his pay and benefits from the time he was fired in July 2020.
It’s not clear how much Villarreal’s approximately four-and-a-half years of backpay is worth. A city spokesperson said the city is still working on it.
In the meantime, Villarreal is assigned to downtown patrol.
Carlos Castro, the second officer from the January 2020 arrest, was also fired. His appeal hearing is scheduled for June.
Both officers were also criminally charged with aggravated assault by a public servant over the incident, which carries a sentence of up to life in prison.
However, their trial in October 2023 resulted in a mistrial, and prosecutors eventually dismissed the charges against both men.
‘Show me your f------ hands’: Body cam footage reveals arrest of man by Villarreal and Castro
On the night of Jan. 16, 2020, SAPD said officers pulled over a car traveling 48 mph on North Walters Street, where the speed limit is 35 mph. The car also failed to signal prior to turning onto Lamar Street, police said.
Officers activated their emergency lights and approached the car, which had pulled into a driveway on Lamar Street.
Police body cam footage that played in court during Villarreal and Castro’s trial showed Eric Wilson walking away from his car into the front door of his home on Lamar Street as at least one officer drew his gun and shouted for him to stop and show his hands.
The video then shows Villarreal and Castro trying to force their way in by kicking the door and lodging a chair into it once it partially opens. Villarreal also tries unsuccessfully to use his Taser.
As police yell for Wilson to put his hands up, he can be heard saying through the door that the officers don’t have a warrant.
Once they get through, the body cam video shows Wilson being taken to the ground and officers landing numerous blows while shouting, “Show me your f------ hands!”
According to Peña’s ruling, Castro hit Wilson 11 times in the face and head, and Villarreal hit him six times. Eventually, the officers got Wilson in handcuffs.
An outside attorney representing the city during Villarreal’s hearing said Wilson ended up in the hospital for three days with a broken nose and broken orbital bone. His mugshot shows injuries around both of his eyes.
Both Villarreal and Castro had Wilson’s blood on their bodies, according to the police report. Villarreal sustained a bruised hand from the incident.
Wilson has a criminal record that includes a conviction for murder. He was on federal supervised release and was later found to have drugs in his car.
However, the city argued the only thing the officers had against him at the time was a possible traffic violation and evading officers on foot.
The narcotics and evading arrest charges against Wilson from that night were later dismissed.
SAPD training academy instructors sign off on Villarreal’s actions, but the arbitrator does not
Villarreal and Castro were granted a mistrial in their criminal case after their attorneys learned three expert witnesses for the state had stated during pretrial interviews the officers were constitutionally justified in arresting Wilson and were justified in entering Wilson’s residence and searching his car.
What appeared to be the same three experts — current and former SAPD training academy instructors — testified during Villarreal’s October arbitration hearing and said they had not crossed a line.
Retired SAPD officer James McDonald taught arrest, search, seizure, the constitution, and the criminal code of procedures at the academy before retiring in November 2023.
McDonald said he testified during a fact-finding hearing that Villarreal and Castro “did have exigency to get inside the house.”
McDonald said an SAPD unit’s emergency lights were already going off when Wilson got out of his car in his driveway, but he still walked away despite the lights and officers telling him to stop.
McDonald also said one of the officers had smelled marijuana coming from the car.
“So, now it changes over to, ‘Is he going inside to destroy evidence?‘” McDonald said.
Officer Juan Mandujano, one of the academy’s lead tactics instructors, and Officer William Badders, who was an instructor on the mechanics of arrest for two years at the academy, signed off on using force.
“From what I saw, from this officer, it didn’t appear, in my opinion, that it (the use of force) was ... excessive,” said Mandujano, who had also instructed Villarreal at the academy.
The city’s outside counsel for the arbitration, Donna McElroy, suggested during the hearing the instructors had not had all the facts. She also noted that a fourth instructor, who teaches the use of force at the academy, had testified during the criminal case that it was not a reasonable use of force.
In his written opinion, Peña said nothing showed McManus was wrong or had abused his discretion when he determined Villarreal had violated department procedures.
Instead, he said, the evidence supported the Chief’s conclusions.
“While Mr. Wilson’s actions frustrated the officers and Villarreal, there was insufficient evidence that immediate action justified a warrantless search,” Peña wrote.
The arbitrator also agreed with McManus that Villarreal’s use of force was “over the top” and said Mandujano and Badders’ conclusions lacked “factual persuasiveness” because they did not review the entire internal affairs file and all the video.
“Without legal justification to enter the residence, Villarreal and the other officers had no lawful police purpose to detain Mr. Wilson,” Peña wrote. “For this reason, Villarreal had no justification for using force against Mr. Wilson.”
Arbitrator questions justification for firing as discrepancies in disciplinary notices raise due process concerns
However, the arbitrator wasn’t convinced McManus was justified in firing Villarreal either.
Villarreal received a notice from McManus’ office on Jun. 9, 2020, that was considering a 15-day suspension. Less than a week later, Villarreal was notified that the chief was considering firing him.
During the October 2024 hearing, McManus said he didn’t recall any conversation about a 15-day suspension.
Peña pointed out differences in the two notices, which could affect the level of discipline.
The factual statement in the first notice states Wilson believed “a single officer used an unreasonable amount of force against him” but the investigation found “Officer Villarreal also used force.” Peña said that language implied another officer. Presumably, Castro initiated the use of force, and Villarreal followed.
However, the later notice for the indefinite suspension stated, “It was determined Officer Villarreal used unreasonable force against Mr. Wilson when he and another officer struck Mr. Wilson multiple times with a closed fist,” which Peña said reinforced that Villarreal acted jointly with the other officer.
He said there was no evidence of whether the chief had discussed the change with Villarreal, raising concerns about due process.
Peña raised numerous questions he said the city should have addressed and answered, such as why the higher level discipline wasn’t issued first, and why the chief had changed the factual statements and added more grounds for suspension.
He also said the chief had not explained why firing Villarreal was “reasonable and consistent, under a totality of the circumstances and evidence given that he issued Villarreal a contemplated 15-day suspension” or whether other officers had been fired for similar violations.
An appropriate penalty, Peña ruled, is a 45-day suspension.
Reactions to Villarreal’s reinstatement
Act 4 SA Executive Director Ananda Tomas, a police accountability activist, believes Villarreal’s firing should have been upheld.
“I mean, these kinds of decisions are why the public continues to lose trust in our system, especially related to officers being held accountable,“ Tomas said. ”This was egregious behavior. The police chief said, ‘This is not the type of officer I want on the force,’ and an arbitrator once again overturned that decision."
San Antonio Police Officers’ Association President Danny Diaz declined to comment for this story, citing Castro’s ongoing appeal and a wider disagreement the union has with the city over the firing process for officers.
Read also:
