Steen, 32, had dropped out of school in 10th grade. He had bounced back and forth between Austin, Las Vegas and New Mexico, working at whatever jobs he could find. He said his occasional crack cocaine use had accelerated into a daily habit a few months before he was shot.
 
That night, Steen said, he met his drug dealer and they went to 504 San Jose St., a house the police knew well. According to court records, officers had made several arrests, mostly for drugs, at or near the home. In a lawsuit filed early this year, authorities called the house a public nuisance because of the level of drug activity there.

 
 
That's why Steen was there. ``I wanted a hit of crack,'' he said. ``I wanted to get high.'' He said eight or nine people were in the house. He said he got high and was in a back room chatting with others when someone told him the police were outside.
 
Steen had been on probation since early 1997, when he pleaded guilty to possession of crack cocaine. He said he had burglary and assault convictions in other states.
 
He also had a pending charge of assault on a police officer in Travis County. Police said Steen resisted arrest during a traffic stop a month before the shooting. The police said an officer was injured when she was thrown to the ground, cutting her elbow and finger, as Steen broke free of her grasp. Steen said he didn't throw the officer to the ground but simply broke free and ran.
 
Steen said he knew being caught at the house meant a probation violation and possibly prison. That , he said, is why he broke out a back window and jumped. That's when he said he heard the shots.
 
``I heard two shots; I kept running; I jumped over the fence. . . . Then I passed out,'' he said.
 
Steen said he's innocent of the robbery charge. ``There was no gun. . . . There was no robbery,'' he said. ``I was a visitor in the house, just like everybody else."
 
Police account
 
That night the police told a different version in a news release:
 
Two armed African American men entered the house to rob the people there. Some people escaped and called police.
 
As officers entered the house, the suspects attempted to flee. ``A confrontation occurred, and Officer Sheffield fired his service weapon, '' according to the press release. An investigation was ordered. 
Most details of the investigation remain confidential. A grand jury in October declined to indict the officer but wrote the police chief about its concerns. The police, who apparently have the only copy of the grand jury letter, have not released it.
 
Monica Ross, an employee at the Austin Convention Center and one of the 12 grand jurors, remembers writing the letter. ``We thought he (Sheffield) was within his limits, but we urged more caution,'' Ross said.
 
The Police Department has denied the American-Statesman's request for records from the investigation of the shooting. Typically, police records are made public once a case is closed. Although a grand jury declined to indict Sheffield and he did not appeal the chief's decision to discipline him, lawyers for the police are arguing that the case is not closed until Steen is prosecuted.

 
 
``We're caught in the middle,'' said Knee, citing the possibility of a lawsuit against the police. ``I wish we could tell you more."
 
As is the department's practice, the Steen shooting was investigated twice -- once by internal affairs and again by homicide detectives. Then it was reviewed by Sheffield's commanders and finally the chief.
 
The practice not only allows different officers to investigate the case; it also is an attempt to keep the internal affairs reports confidential as part of an officer's personnel file. In a state lawsuit, Knee contended he has to disclose only his three-page memo outlining disciplinary action taken against Sheffield , and not the internal affairs investigation. The separate homicide investigation, which does not include all the same information as the internal affairs report, is given to the grand jury. Ultimately, if the police release a report to the public, it will be the report by the homicide detectives.
 
Jennifer Riggs, an attorney who sometimes represents the newspaper in such cases, argued that police should release the investigation of the shooting now.
 
``My opinion is, if homicide does a separate investigation, that should be released now that there is a no-bill from the grand jury,'' she said.
 
The police disagree and have appealed the newspaper's request to the state attorney general.
 
Hearing this week
 
Steen's lawyer, David Frank, said he has met with the same resistance from police and prosecutors. He subpoenaed the chief and Sheffield' s records for a pretrial hearing this week. The Police Department is likely to fight the subpoena.
 
Frank said the police have not proved there was a robbery and have not found a weapon. He said Sheffield fired prematurely. ``It really does sound to me like they made a really horrible judgment and then tried to clean it up by arresting (Steen) for a crime he had no connection to,'' Frank said.
 
Prosecutors deny that.
 
As for Sheffield's punishment, the law allows the police chief to suspend an officer for up to 15 days or fire him. Knee said he rarely discusses personnel issues. In this case, Knee said, ``When you have a good officer who made a mistake -- taking into consideration everything happening out there -- you must ensure he makes sound decisions in the future." 
Thus, Knee waived the one-day suspension, pending completion of the training on when and when not to shoot.
 
The Police Department's critics were unaware of that waiver, because the disciplinary actions are filed with the city's human resources department. The waiver, however, is kept in the Police Department' s confidential personnel files.
 
Told that Sheffield's one-day suspension was waived, the NAACP's White said: ``That's a shocker. It's a disgrace."
 
It may be months, if ever, before the details of the shooting are disclosed. Ann del Llano, who is doubling as Steen's co-counsel and as the local ACLU president, said it is time to open up the system.
 
``The police investigate the police. The police are the only people who get the sworn statements, who can force the cops to talk, and who are the only ones to see what they say,'' she said. Last month, the local ACLU board voted to begin lobbying for a change.
 
White said: ``Regardless of Steen's criminal record, he's got rights. If the police don't reprimand their officers, the next time it may be me who gets shot."
 
Tom Stribling, the lawyer for the Austin Police Association, the union that represents about 97 percent of the force's roughly 1,035 officers, defended the system. If the public is unhappy about the grand jury review, it can hold the Travis County district attorney accountable, he said. If the public is concerned about the police investigations or a one-day suspension, it can hold the chief, the city manager and the Austin City Council responsible, he said.
 
``They have the ability to have their elected and appointed officials account to them,'' Stribling said. ``The system works."
 
The shooting in question
 
This is what happened at 504 San Jose St. in the early morning hours of Oct. 11, according to interviews and a memo by Austin Police Chief Stan Knee.
 
Answering an armed robbery call, more than 20 Austin police officers surrounded a North Austin house. Officer Keith Sheffield watched the back of the house from a neighbor's yard, some 60 feet away. It was dark and raining heavily.
 
Gregory Steen jumped from the window and fell. As he rose, Officer Keith Sheffield fired twice.
 
Steen ran away, clearing two short fences before collapsing from a gunshot wound to the back.
 
  Copyright © 1998, The Austin American-Statesman 
Laylan Copelin, Dave Harmon, Shooting brings new focus on police review: Officer's suspension is waived; fairness of self-investigation is questioned., 06-15-1998.