An Edinburg Police Department sergeant was suspended without pay after an internal investigation found he continued a narcotics surveillance operation outside city limits despite orders from two supervisors. Sgt. Joaquin Mendoza – a fourteen year veteran with the department – clocked out, returned home, left his unmarked police unit and drove his personal vehicle back toward the surveillance area, according to disciplinary records recently released to The Hawk’s Eye after a Texas Attorney General ruling. A lieutenant reported that Mendoza later described himself as “working for free” while continuing to look for the suspected narcotics courier. Mendoza ultimately accepted a seven-day unpaid suspension, took responsibility under the agreement and waived his right to appeal.

Supervisors Ordered Mendoza Back Into Edinburg

The incident began on January 21, 2026, while Mendoza was supervising investigators conducting surveillance based on information about a suspected narcotics courier traveling through Edinburg. At approximately 2:21 p.m., Mendoza told Lt. Primitivo Rodriguez that he was conducting surveillance near Shary Road and State Highway 107, outside Edinburg’s jurisdiction. Rodriguez documented concerns that Mendoza appeared to be working alone, had not notified him before beginning the operation and was outside the city despite previous instructions. After consulting with Assistant Chief Chad Dufner, Rodriguez instructed Mendoza to return to Edinburg or provide the information to the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office or officers assigned to a task force.

According to the records, Mendoza expressed dissatisfaction with the decision and asked to speak directly with Dufner. Mendoza then contacted Dufner, who again told him to remain within Edinburg and follow Rodriguez’s order. The investigators were allowed to continue working inside the city until approximately 5 p.m., and Mendoza reported at about 4:55 p.m. that they were “calling it a day.” What happened after the investigators clocked out became the focus of the internal affairs investigation.

Mendoza Clocked Out And Continued Looking

At approximately 6:42 p.m., Mendoza called Rodriguez and reported that he had independently decided to continue looking for the suspect outside Edinburg while off duty. Mendoza explained that he had returned home, dropped off his unmarked police vehicle and driven his personal vehicle back toward the Shary Road and State Highway 107 area. Rodriguez reported that Mendoza described himself as working “for free” and said patrol officers had arrested the target of the surveillance operation. Mendoza also requested permission to call additional investigators back to work to assist with a search warrant, but that request was denied.

Patrol Lt. Gabriel Vela told internal affairs that he remained in the area after Mendoza and K-9 Sgt. Juan Gonzalez ended their workday. Vela eventually located the suspect inside Edinburg, conducted a traffic stop and made an arrest. Mendoza later arrived at the traffic stop in his personal vehicle, but Vela said Mendoza never disclosed that he had been independently conducting surveillance while off duty. Investigator Efrain Martinez also reported seeing Mendoza at the arrest scene while reviewing body-camera recordings and initially believed Mendoza had either worked late or been called back to duty.

Martinez told investigators that Mendoza later said internal affairs would likely be “looking at him” because he had traveled outside the city in his own vehicle while off duty. Gonzalez similarly reported speaking with Mendoza the following day and said Mendoza believed he was probably going to get in trouble for conducting surveillance while off duty. Those statements were included among the witness accounts reviewed during the administrative investigation. The investigation also examined Mendoza’s own written response and his explanation for returning to the area.

Mendoza Said He Believed He Had Complied

Mendoza appeared with his attorney on February 5, 2026, and submitted a written response to the personnel complaint. He confirmed that supervisors instructed him to conduct surveillance from inside Edinburg and refer the matter to the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office or DEA task force officers if assistance was needed outside the city. However, Mendoza said he did not intend to take enforcement action or conduct stationary surveillance after returning in his personal vehicle. He maintained that he was only driving through the area and intended to notify marked patrol units if he located the suspect.

Mendoza said he saw no problem with his actions because he was “working off the clock” and was not using department resources. He also said he did not believe he needed to notify department leadership and believed he had complied with the original directive by returning inside Edinburg while he was still on duty. According to Mendoza, Rodriguez later told him that he was fine but should not do it again. Mendoza said he interpreted that conversation as a coaching session rather than notice that formal discipline would follow.

Internal Affairs Sustained Policy Violations

The department rejected Mendoza’s interpretation and concluded that his conduct constituted misconduct. Investigators found that Mendoza resumed surveillance activities outside the city after being directed by Rodriguez and Dufner to remain within Edinburg. The department also determined that Mendoza acted without notifying his supervisor or obtaining authorization to continue working after his scheduled hours. The allegations against him were sustained.

Edinburg officials cited the department’s prohibition against disobeying a legal directive or order issued by a higher-ranking employee. The city also cited a human resources policy prohibiting employees from beginning work early or continuing after scheduled hours without supervisory approval. Additional violations were sustained under Edinburg’s civil service rules and Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code. The agreed disciplinary notice stated that Police Chief Jaime Ayala had considered discipline ranging from suspension days to an indefinite suspension.

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing about a Texas judge filing a lawsuit over same-sex wedding refusals.

Or you may find our publishing on a TABC agent receiving a stipend for a degree he didn’t hold, of interest. 

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---