Two Phoenix police officers who were suspended after repeatedly punching and tasing a deaf man with cerebral palsy have had those suspensions overturned by a city board, but the public may never learn exactly why because the appeals were heard behind closed doors and board members are not required to explain their votes.
ABC15 Arizona chief investigator Dave Biscobing returned to the case of Tyron McAlpin, whose violent August 2024 arrest drew national attention after body-camera footage showed Officers Benjamin Harris and Kyle Sue confronting him based on allegations that later proved false.
The officers eventually received 24-hour suspensions, but both appealed to Phoenix’s Civil Service Board. Sue’s suspension was overturned in a 4-1 vote in February, followed by Harris’s in a 3-1 vote in May.
Biscobing said ABC15 repeatedly asked board members to explain what persuaded them to eliminate the discipline, but none agreed to an interview.
“If you want to know why,” he said at the start of his report, “that’s a city secret, and the city won’t tell you.”
Arrest Began With a False Accusation
The original encounter happened on August 19, 2024, after Phoenix officers responded to a Circle K because another man had reportedly been causing problems and the store wanted him trespassed.
When police arrived, that man pointed across the street toward McAlpin and falsely claimed McAlpin had stolen his phone and assaulted him, according to Biscobing’s report.
Officers left the original caller and went after McAlpin.
Body-camera footage later showed Harris and Sue repeatedly punching and tasing him during the confrontation.
McAlpin, who is deaf and has cerebral palsy, was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and aggravated assault on police.
ABC15 learned about the case several weeks later from sources who were shocked that McAlpin was still jailed and facing criminal charges.
The station then obtained leaked body-camera footage and attended an October 1, 2024, probable-cause hearing where the officers defended the arrest.
Harris testified that McAlpin raised his hands in a way that made him believe he was about to be punched.
Sue testified that McAlpin had bitten him, although when he was asked to identify the exact moment on video, the view was obscured by Harris’s arm.
A judge nevertheless found probable cause, and the criminal case remained active until ABC15 publicly reported the arrest.
The charges against McAlpin were dropped the following week.
That sequence alone raises serious questions about how the case was allowed to progress as far as it did. When video evidence, disability, and the reliability of the original accusation are all disputed, meaningful review matters most before someone spends weeks in jail, not after public attention arrives.
Officers Received Only 24-Hour Suspensions
Phoenix police publicly announced discipline against Harris and Sue in March 2025.
Each officer received a 24-hour suspension.
Former Phoenix Police Chief Michael Sullivan said at the time that the department would learn from the incident and move forward as a stronger department and community.
Even that relatively limited punishment was controversial inside the department.
According to material included in Biscobing’s report, the police union said an internal investigation had originally found the officers within policy before Sullivan reversed course and imposed the suspensions.
Union officials criticized that decision in strong terms, calling it “shameful” and “pathetic.”
The disagreement shows that the case was divisive even within Phoenix police.
But whatever the internal dispute, the suspensions at least represented a formal disciplinary finding against the officers.
That changed when the Civil Service Board became involved.
Board Erased the Suspensions in Private
Phoenix’s Civil Service Board is made up of five members appointed by the City Council and hears appeals from city employees challenging discipline.
Biscobing emphasized that the board has substantial power but receives very little public attention.
At an employee’s request, disciplinary appeals can be heard confidentially, which means members of the public are removed while evidence and arguments are presented.
The city’s own report and recommendation regarding discipline is also treated as confidential, according to ABC15.
That left almost nothing publicly available explaining what happened in Harris and Sue’s appeals.
Sue’s suspension was overturned by a 4-1 vote in February.
Harris’s suspension was overturned 3-1 in May.
Board member Robbin Coulon was the only member who voted to preserve the suspensions in both cases, according to records obtained by ABC15.
The public documents themselves offered little detail beyond the witnesses, broad descriptions of the alleged policy violations, basic findings, and voting results.
Biscobing attended a later Civil Service Board meeting and directly invited members to speak with him about their reasoning.
None responded.
That silence is arguably the most troubling part of the story.
A disciplinary board does not necessarily owe the public agreement with police critics, but when it reverses discipline in a case that generated national concern, some explanation of its reasoning would provide basic accountability.
Disability Advocate Calls Decision a ‘Gut Punch’
Sarah Ruf, director of communications for the Arizona Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, also appeared before the board and criticized the lack of transparency.
She told Biscobing that learning the officers’ suspensions had been lifted came as a shock.
“Honestly, it was a total surprise,” Ruf said. “It was like a gut punch all over again.”
She described McAlpin’s case as particularly disturbing for the disability community and said advocates had not realized there was a private process capable of eliminating what little discipline had been imposed.
“We had no idea there was this process that was not transparent going on behind the scenes to really lift any meaningful disciplinary measures,” she said.
Biscobing asked whether investigators had consulted specialists familiar with cerebral palsy, disabilities, or movement disorders when evaluating how McAlpin moved and reacted during the arrest.
ABC15 confirmed that the city did not bring in disability or movement-disorder experts during the internal investigation or the disciplinary appeals.
Ruf said that perspective should have been available.
When Biscobing asked what McAlpin could realistically have done differently during the encounter, Ruf’s immediate response was, “Nothing.”
She added that watching the video was sickening and said she did not know what anyone in McAlpin’s position could have done differently.
Her comments highlight a basic concern in cases involving disabilities: behavior that officers interpret as resistance or aggression may not always mean what they assume it means.
That does not automatically make every use of force improper, but specialized knowledge can be crucial when disability affects communication, movement, balance, or responses to commands.
Police Chief Supported the Policy Findings
Current Phoenix Police Chief Matt Giordano appeared before the Civil Service Board during both appeals.
Biscobing said archive footage from the public portion of the May meeting showed Giordano greeting and speaking with the officers’ attorney shortly before the group entered the confidential portion of the hearing.
Giordano declined ABC15’s request for an interview.
A police spokesperson nevertheless provided a statement saying the chief supported the policy violations sustained against Sue and Harris even though the investigation had been completed before he became chief.
The spokesperson also stressed that the Civil Service Board operates independently and that no city department controls its decisions.
That detail makes the final outcome even more difficult to understand.
The police chief supported the violations, the officers had already received suspensions, and yet the independent board overturned those punishments without publicly explaining the evidence or reasoning that changed the result.
There may have been arguments presented in private that persuaded the majority.
The problem is that the public has no meaningful way to evaluate them.
City Council Members Also Declined to Explain
ABC15 also sought comment from Phoenix City Council members, who appoint the Civil Service Board.
None agreed to comment on the overturned suspensions, Biscobing reported.
That leaves residents with an unusual accountability gap.
The Police Department investigated the officers and imposed discipline. The Civil Service Board erased it. The board will not publicly explain why, and the elected officials responsible for appointing board members will not discuss the outcome.
Meanwhile, the records that might provide the clearest explanation remain confidential.
McAlpin has since filed a lawsuit, which Biscobing said remains pending.
That civil case may eventually produce more information about the arrest and the city’s handling of it, but it does not solve the immediate transparency problem surrounding the disciplinary appeals.
Accountability Without an Explanation
Civil-service protections exist for a reason.
Police officers and other government employees should have the ability to challenge discipline they believe is unfair, and an independent appeals process can protect workers from arbitrary punishment or political pressure.
But independence and secrecy are not the same thing.
When a board reverses discipline in a high-profile case involving the beating and tasing of an innocent deaf man with cerebral palsy, the public has a legitimate interest in understanding what evidence persuaded members to act.
Biscobing’s investigation does not establish that the board’s legal reasoning was wrong, because that reasoning remains largely hidden.
That is precisely the problem.
Without access to the evidence, findings, or a meaningful explanation from board members, residents are left to trust a process they are not allowed to examine.
The officers’ 24-hour suspensions are gone, McAlpin’s criminal charges were dismissed, and his civil lawsuit continues.
What remains unanswered is the simplest question of all: what did the Civil Service Board hear behind closed doors that convinced its members the officers should no longer be suspended?
For now, Phoenix residents may never know.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.
