A representative of New Braunfels Feed and Supply reported that someone had tried to cash a counterfeit check for more than $2,000. Officer Beverly Fraga’s report later recorded that the business did not want to pursue charges. When a supervisor returned two days later, the business said it did. That contradiction turned a routine fraud call into a months-long Internal Affairs case, a one-day unpaid suspension and new questions about how one unasked question can shape whether a felony investigation moves forward.

Newly released New Braunfels Police Department records show Fraga never directly asked whether the business wanted charges pursued. The records say she also failed to provide the business with a fraud packet, submitted a narrative that did not fully explain a potential suspect and left body-camera footage identified under the wrong category. Internal Affairs initially treated the report’s inaccuracies as dishonesty, but Police Chief Osbaldo Flores drew an important line between a flawed report and an intentional lie. He sustained other violations while declining to uphold the department’s three specific truthfulness allegations in the pre-disciplinary notice reviewed by The Hawk’s Eye.

A Fraud Call Ends With the Wrong Answer

Fraga responded to New Braunfels Feed and Supply on September 16, 2025, after the business learned that someone had tried to cash a counterfeit check drawn on its account. She gathered information about the check, discussed possible evidence and obtained an email address from the business representative, Janet Curry. The body-camera record showed Fraga saying she might email Curry a fraud packet, a form used to gather the information needed to evaluate and investigate the case. She then searched her patrol vehicle for one, with the investigator writing that Fraga could be heard repeating, “fraud packet, fraud packet,” before she closed her files without finding it.

Fraga left Curry a business card and case number, but she did not leave the packet or send one later by email. Her report stated, “Because little to no information is known, the complainant opted to not fill out the fraud packet.” In a separate report field asking whether the victim wanted prosecution, Fraga selected “NO.” The records show she had not asked Curry that question, and Curry had not said she wanted the matter dropped.

Corporal Ryan reviewed the report and went back to the business on September 18. Curry told him Fraga had not provided a packet in person or by email, and the business confirmed that it did want charges pursued. Ryan supplied the packet, explained it and filed a follow-up report correcting the record. What appeared on paper as a victim declining to move forward was, according to the department’s own follow-up, a victim who had never been directly asked.

The review found two more problems. Fraga’s report narrative said no suspects were being considered, although a potential suspect appeared elsewhere in the report without an explanation of how that person had been identified. Fraga also left her body-camera and in-car recordings labeled “Misc” even though her report classified the alleged check fraud as a felony. Fraga said “Misc” was an automatic default applied to her body-camera recording, but the investigator said department rules still required her to correct the category. Investigators said the “Misc” category had a different deletion schedule and that the error could have caused evidence to be lost, although the footage was preserved and reviewed in this case.

Fraga Calls It a Lapse, Not a Lie

In an October 8, written response, Fraga acknowledged that she failed to provide the packet and did not update the narrative after identifying a potential suspect. “This was a lapse of judgement on my part when I construed the complainant’s statement as a refusal to complete the packet,” she wrote. Fraga said she believed the packet would add little because Curry had limited information about the check. “In hindsight, it would have been a better choice to clarify the complainant’s wishes or at least leave her a fraud packet to complete if and when she saw fit,” she wrote.

Fraga nevertheless rejected the investigator’s conclusion that she had deliberately misrepresented what happened. She argued that Curry’s comments left room for interpretation because Curry did not expressly say she would complete the packet. “I should have clarified her desire and been clearer in my communication with her, but I deny being purposefully untruthful,” Fraga wrote. The distinction between a mistaken inference and an intentional falsehood would later become the dividing line between the internal investigator’s findings and the police chief’s review.

During a March 5, interview, Fraga acknowledged that she had not asked Curry a direct yes-or-no question about pursuing charges, according to the department’s written overview. Fraga said she forgot and had instead inferred Curry’s wishes from a statement about having little information to provide. When asked to identify the relevant moment, Fraga pointed investigators to an exchange in which Curry said, “Um, I don’t know. I mean all I know is what’s on that check. I mean, really, that’s all I have. You know?” After reviewing the footage repeatedly, the investigator found no statement in which Curry declined a packet or said the business did not want charges.

Lieutenant James Bell, who conducted the Internal Affairs investigation, acknowledged that an officer can make an honest error. “Officer Fraga is human and is liable to make mistakes,” Bell wrote. “However, this mistake does not translate into a non-prosecution statement.” Bell concluded that Fraga had substituted an assumption for a direct answer and that the problem “could have been rectified with a simple question.”

A Dispute Over Training, and Support

Fraga’s defense went beyond the disputed wording of the report. She said she had returned to regular patrol work after roughly 10 months away and received only about six hours shadowing a veteran officer, despite an assurance that she would have a full weekend to readjust. Fraga also said the department had moved forms to a newer internal platform, that the patrol-room supply area lacked English fraud packets and that even a lieutenant had difficulty finding the current version. “Neither my corporal nor my sergeant offered a shred of actionable support or constructive criticism,” she wrote.

Fraga argued that her supervisors denied her the ordinary opportunity to correct the report and instead escalated the matter through the chain of command. She also wrote that female officers often carry the same professional workload as men while shouldering domestic responsibilities “with little acknowledgment or grace.” The investigator rejected those points as explanations for what happened on the fraud call, noting that Fraga had worked in an investigative assignment for part of the period she described as time away from patrol and had said she was ready to work independently. Even so, Bell acknowledged a broader weakness, writing that the department’s process for returning officers to patrol “should be formalized and have a verifiable process.”

The investigation found no documented request from Fraga for more shadowing time after the partial shift, and it said she did not seek help from another officer or supervisor when she could not find a fraud packet. The fraud call occurred 18 days after her return to independent patrol, according to the records. Bell wrote that concerns about reintegration or Fraga’s claim that a sergeant treated her differently could be examined separately if they met the standard for review. In his view, however, those issues did not change what the report, video and follow-up interview showed about the handling of the fraud complaint.

Investigator Uses Strong Language; Chief Draws a Line

Bell initially sustained all nine allegations presented to him and identified two related policy issues that had not been separately charged. His conclusion used some of the strongest language in the file, declaring, “The Truth is not even a cornerstone of law enforcement responsibility, it is the very bedrock of it.” He found that Fraga’s inaccurate report, incomplete investigation and camera-labeling error violated department rules. He also wrote that the number of overlapping policy violations was not intended to inflate the seriousness of the case, but reflected how often accuracy is embedded in police rules.

Flores did not adopt the investigator’s entire truthfulness analysis. In a March 5 pre-disciplinary notice, the chief wrote that a sustained truthfulness charge can affect an officer, the profession and the community, requiring evidence of “clear intent and purpose.” “Because of the serious implications associated with sustaining such a charge, the findings must meet a high threshold demonstrating clear intent and purpose,” Flores wrote. “Based on my initial review, that threshold has not been met to support sustaining an administrative violation” of the three truthfulness policies identified in the notice.

That decision did not clear Fraga of the remaining conduct. Flores sustained an integrity-related finding tied to the inaccurate report, along with findings involving the missing paperwork, incomplete investigation, incorrect camera label and failure to know the procedures governing her assignment. The sustained integrity finding warned that the inaccurate report “may cause her testimony in any future cases to be questioned or dismissed.” The chief’s notice also left intact a finding that Fraga had been inefficient or unprepared in carrying out the felony investigation. 

A 10-Hour Suspension and Follow-Up Outside the Department

The department’s case file identifies the discipline as a 10-hour suspension. A March 19, entry says Fraga chose to serve the one-day suspension without pay on March 21, in compliance with Flores’ decision. The log shows that a pre-disciplinary hearing occurred March 9 and identifies a final decision letter dated March 11. That final letter is named in the log but is not reproduced in the records supplied to The Hawk’s Eye.

Part of a Broader Public Record

The fraud investigation is not the first time Fraga’s conduct has drawn discipline or appeared in public litigation. In July 2025, The Hawk’s Eye reported that Fraga received a 30-hour suspension after a 123 mph pursuit ended with her patrol vehicle striking a civilian SUV at 111 mph⁠; unlike this case, records showed she was allowed to surrender vacation time instead of losing pay. Fraga was also named in a federal lawsuit examined in “New Braunfels PD: Constitutional Rights Optional”⁠, which alleged that officers prolonged a traffic stop, ignored a driver’s invocation of his right to remain silent and arrested him without probable cause. A December 2025 update⁠ reported that claims against the individual officers survived an early attempt to dismiss the case, although that ruling did not decide whether the lawsuit’s allegations were true.

Fraga has also faced misconduct accusations from Corners News over a different traffic stop. In a Facebook video post⁠, Corners News said the driver obtained body-camera and dash-camera footage after all citations were dismissed and alleged the recordings showed Fraga “lied to conduct a traffic stop;” the post also claimed Sergeant Hobbs later described the driver as “baiting” Fraga into pulling him over. A related April 2022 video published by the Corners channel on YouTube⁠ carried the title, “Officer Beverly Fraga Fabricating a traffic stop & committing aggravated perjury.” Those are allegations made by Corners News.

---

---

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

---