Key findings from Statesman review into safety of Travis officials, including District Attorney José Garza

The American-Statesman, following up on reports in August, began investigating the personal safety of Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza after learning that county authorities took unprecedented steps earlier this year to protect his home.

The report included details about what potential threats prompted Garza to take protective action, how those threats compared to other elected and appointed officials, and what security services or improvements are being publicly funded.

The Statesman confirmed that county officials took steps to protect Garza’s home after his address was posted on social media in late January, along with a screenshot of a campaign finance report easily found on the county’s website. (The address was later removed.)

The posting of his address on social media came after the Travis County Sheriff’s Office in 2023 investigated two pieces of what it deemed “concerning communications” directed at Garza. One involved a letter sent to his residential address that officials sent to the U.S. Postal Inspector for review. The other involved an email sent to the county that sheriff’s investigators did not consider a credible threat.

The Statesman found that threats against officials have generally increased, and the county is on track to receive at least 100 threats against judges and other officials in 2024, up from 74 last year.

Government transparency groups have criticized county officials’ decisions about how commissioners responded to Garza’s security request, saying the county lacked a consistent way to assess threats and that the level of protection Garza received was not equal to that provided by other officials.

Travis County Reserves Selected to Protect District Attorney’s Home

In August, the Statesman reported that commissioners had unanimously voted in the spring to withdraw $115,000 from county reserves and transfer the funds to the Travis County District Attorney’s Office to ensure Garza’s safety.

The decision came after Garza addressed the commissioners directly in executive session.

“He wanted something done to keep him safe,” recalled Commissioner Margaret Gomez.

Commissioner Ann Howard acknowledged that the money was used to improve security at Garza’s home, but declined to provide details. Other commissioners also declined to discuss specifics, as did District Judge Andy Brown, who employs Garza’s wife as his chief of staff.

A Statesman examination of dispatch records showed that county police officers have been providing security at Garza’s home at night and on weekends since February — a security force mobilized within days of his address being posted on social media.

It is unclear whether the $115,000 will be used to repay this collateral.

Security forces continued to operate despite multiple law enforcement agencies confirming to the Statesman that they were not aware of any current threats to Garza and were not conducting any investigations regarding his safety.

The district attorney’s office declined to release examples of threats Garza has received, but said in a statement that Garza has received “numerous politically motivated threats of violence over the past 12 months, including threats against his life and residence.”

Mystery reigns – so far

Legal experts say the county’s transfer of $115,000 from county reserves to Garza’s office likely occurred as a result of a legally insufficient agenda item at the Commissioners Court meeting that failed to adequately inform the public about how taxpayer money was being spent.

Houston attorney Joe Larsen, a board member of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said he believes the initial posting about the transaction “did not comply with the Open Meetings Act. It’s pretty clear they’re trying to obfuscate what this is about in every way they can.”

County officials have opposed releasing security spending records in more than a half-dozen requests filed by the Statesman under the Texas Freedom of Information Act, citing security concerns.

The Attorney General’s Office is expected to issue a decision in October on whether county officials must release the documents.

New security team

Travis County officials are currently working to establish a new security team that will ensure uniformity in assessing potential threats and making decisions about implementing security measures.

The $1.8 million team, which is included in the upcoming county budget, is to include a law enforcement supervisor, three officers and an analyst. Travis County 5th District Constable Carlos Lopez will sponsor the officers’ licenses, but they will report to the county’s director of technology and operations, officials said.

The team is expected to perform security duties for appointed and elected officials and county employees. It will also do “front-end work” to ensure officials’ safety when they attend public events, for example.

The team is expected to be ready in the first months of 2025.

Officials would not comment on whether they would reassess security at Garza under new protocols to assess safety and the need for protection.

This article originally appeared in the Austin American-Statesman: Key findings from the American-Statesman’s Travis County safety review