Monthly Archives: December 2013

Catholic college police officer kills student after struggle.

Still think an on-campus shooting could never happen at ASU? At University of the Incarnate Word, a Catholic college in Alamo Heights, TX, an officer shot and killed a student after a struggle following a traffic stop. According to CNN:

The incident began when Cpl. Christopher Carter, a police officer with the University of the Incarnate Word in Alamo Heights, saw Robert Cameron Redus near campus “driving erratically at a high rate of speed” Friday, a university statement said.

“Carter was obligated to pull the suspect over to ensure the public’s safety,” the statement said.

Redus pulled into an apartment complex, and Carter followed, mistakenly reporting the wrong street location to police dispatchers, which prompted his call to be routed from the Alamo Heights Police Department to its San Antonio counterparts, the statement said. This caused a delay of several minutes in response time.

“During the wait for assistance, the officer tried to restrain the suspect who repeatedly resisted,” the statement said. “During the struggle, the officer attempted to subdue the suspect with his baton. … The baton was taken by the suspect who used it to hit the officer.

“The officer drew his firearm and was able to knock the baton from the suspect who continued to resist arrest. Shots were fired.”

We checked out the crime statistics for the university to see what sort of issues their department deals with; for 2012, the university had a total of 16 alcohol arrests, 3 drug arrests, 1 weapons violation, and 2 burglaries. THAT’S IT. If an officer-involved shooting can transpire at a university with relatively NO crime, it can definitely happen at a university with a significant amount of crime (ASU). The question ASUPD should be asking isn’t IF it will happen, but WHEN. Additionally, ASU needs to actually plan for some sort of major event, whether it is a shooting, or an active shooter scenario instead of focusing on stolen bicycles.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Michael Crow: We have issues but they’re not unmanagable!

In an recent editorial interview with The State Press, ASU President Michael Crow had some interesting words to say about the university’s crime problem.

After being asked about the negative image the student population is projecting of ASU as a whole (as a result of many violent attacks, rising crime stats almost across the board), Crow stated: “Look at our statistics…Yes, we have issues, but they are issues that are not unmanageable … (and) all students are held accountable.” REALLY!?

We looked at your crime statistics several months ago, and yes, they’re unmanageable. They became so when your PD became UNABLE to respond as the primary unit for the majority of its calls. Why are they unable to respond? They’re so short-staffed they can’t even work their own special events. Of course sir, you wouldn’t have the slightest notion of this assertion, because when someone from your office calls to report a “suspicious package” (ie, a BANANA!), Chief Pickens sends out the entire department to a NON-CRIME RELATED CALL.

As for holding your students accountable? We’re all for it. You should also hold your staff accountable, especially the ones that oversee the management of the police department. Hold those people accountable who have looked the other way when millions of dollars was thrown down the drain.

Ironically, the article winds down with Crow stating, “We have a number of behavioral issues in and around the University, and they’re complex things that we’re working on. We need as much help and ideas as possible to be able to create the safest environment that we can create.”

On this blog, we’ve laid out almost every issue that desperately needs attention at ASUPD, in hopes that someone would read it and secure a safer and better environments for students and staff alike. Having s0me of “your people” investigate the merits of our claims is a step in the right direction, however, the exigency of the situation is quickly overtaking your ability to control it.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to the news media, Vista Del Sol ISN’T on ASU’S campus!


Initial reports of the ecstasy lab found at Vista Del Sol were reported as occurring on ASU’s Tempe campus, now it is nearly impossible to find a link to the original story on ANY of the major media outlets. On (where we pulled the original link from), the news story isn’t on the site AT ALL. The links are still live, and you can still search them from google, but when you are navigating news stories on the site, it is nowhere to be found. (You can read about Tempe news from a week or more earlier, but this story is missing).

Other media outlets that have since updated the story, such as CBS 5, have referred to the dorm where the drug lab was found (Vista Del Sol) as an “apartment in Tempe” near “Apache and Rural Roads”. The title itself even refers to the drug lab as being “near ASU’s campus”. Last time we checked, Vista is a privately managed dorm LOCATED ON ASU’S TEMPE CAMPUS, NOT NEAR IT OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT. If that were the case, why does ASUPD respond to Vista calls, NOT Tempe PD?

ASU’s spokeperson Julie Newberg makes it seem like the university cares by stating that violations to the Student Code of Conduct could result in punishment up to/including expulsion from ASU. She also throws in a tidbit about how “the apartment complex is housing for juniors and senior at ASU”, as if to assuage any parents reading the article.

This is a pretty obvious and blatant attempt to minimize the damage done to ASU and also the PD. In reality, ASU has NO concept of the crime problem directly under their noses because they’re too concerned about minimizing bad press so the university won’t lose any revenue generating students due to a poor reputation. If the parent populous KNEW how unsafe their children were at ASU,  they wouldn’t be spending the big out of state money to send them here. Disgusting and sad.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

DPS uncovers ecstasy manufacturing operation in ASU dorm room

Yet another side effect of having a PD completely paralyzed by staffing issues: they are completely unable to function in a police capacity. Prime example is this major drug bust DPS did on a dorm room at Vista Del Sol. The irony here is Vista is merely a few blocks from the PD.


TEMPE, AZ – Arizona Department of Public Safety detectives have uncovered an ecstasy manufacturing operation inside an Arizona State University dorm room.

A DPS officer on Wednesday stopped a vehicle on Interstate 17 near Thomas Road for an HOV violation.

During a search of the vehicle, the officer found the 20-year-old driver’s backpack to be filled with ecstasy pills and cocaine, DPS said.

DPS was able to secure search warrants for the suspect’s home in Goodyear and for his dorm room at Apache and Rural roads near the ASU campus.

According to DPS, detectives found 30 pounds of product used to make ecstasy pills in his dorm room. They also found thousands of ecstasy pills.

DPS said the dorm room was “essentially a pill factory which included a ‘pill press’ complete with a motor.”

The 20-year-old is facing the following charges: possession of marijuana, possession of a dangerous drug, possession of a dangerous drug for sale, transportation of a dangerous drug for sale, manufacturing of a dangerous drug and conducting an illegal enterprise and conspiracy.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What causes woman-on-woman bullying in the workplace?

Came across this article from about woman-on-woman bullying in the workplace; we feel it is extremely relevant to our sisters in blue (past and present) who have suffered because of bullying from a female supervisor. It’s a long but good read.

Six explanations from us for why women bully other women at work.

Solidarity of the sisterhood is a myth and stereotype. It doesn’t mean it does not exist, it’s just that not all women are nurturant and supportive to one another. Neither is every man macho and hyper-aggressive. Stereotypes are generalizations about sex-role-typed behavior, common acts associated with only one gender and not the other. Many behaviors are gender-typed.

Workplace Bullying is not gender-typed. Workplace environment factors are better predictors than gender. For example, a culture that carries no accountability or negative consequences, regardless of how harmful the behavior exhibited paves the way for bullies. A place where kissing-up (ingratiation) is the norm is fertile territory, where bullying and favoritism (and its converse, ostracism) thrive.

When we discuss the WBI Healthy Workplace Bill, we speak of “status-blind” harassment. Bullying crosses the boundaries drawn by gender, race, ethnicity, age, and disability. Thus bullying is truly “gender-free.”

What attracts the media to woman-on-woman (WOW) bullying is the fact that women are targeted at a higher rate by female bullies (71%) than by male bullies (46%). Yes, women are crueler to women than they are to men, and that must be explained. But don’t forget that 60% of all bullies are men. 31% of all bullying is men-on-men, 29% is WOW. Why is there so little interest in the more frequent variety of same-gender bullying? Because it’s discounted as routine, expected, predictable. WOW sounds mysterious, counterintuitive, and, I think, somewhat prurient.

So here are some explanations for WOW bullying that rarely make it into TV segments on bullying, print stories and the gabfest which is the blogosphere. We offer this because some readers might get the impression that we are misogynists. We are not! 57% of all bullied targets are women, and the majority of callers seeking help from us are women. We are women’s advocates in the fight against workplace bullying.

The WBI  starter list of explanations

A. It’s the workplace, not the people in it. Employers create work environments where aggression is rewarded. women see this (as well if not better than men) and learn to abuse others to get ahead. It’s the way things are done around here.

In male-dominated organizations, where men hold all the executive positions, women tend to adopt male-sex-typed behavior to survive and succeed. Only in female-run organizations (or those run by males who adopt a female-sex-typed style that values quality of interpersonal relationships as much as power and status differences) can there be hope for a less aggressive, more dignified and respectful way to operate. See the Women and Bullying articles in our Research section for relevant studies about this particular angle.

B. A double standard about women is alive and well and practiced by both men and women. If women are “nice” they are too soft. If they are tough, they are “bitchy.” There are two social psychological explanations for this.

First, it is gender bias in the causal attribution process. Causal attribution is simply showing a preference for explaining things that happen. Old research found that if a person is described succeeding at a task, the explanation depends on whether the person described is male or female. Success for men is typically explained by a trait, inherent skill, intelligence, ability. With exactly the same information, when it’s a woman, success is the result of the task being so easy anyone could have done it or luck. And both men and women elect those different explanations.

Second, the first person to break any barrier and be the lone representative of a group (and therefore, be in the statistical minority) is called a “token.” Tokens are subjected to disproportionate pressure. Errors, however tiny, are magnified. Successes can also be blown out of proportion. In practice, token individuals often break from the pressure. Look at what Jackie Robinson had to endure when he broke the race barrier in the white baseball league. Same for the first woman CEO or the first woman to attain a high rank in any organization. Women are natural tokens in male-dominated domains, like business. Men are rarely the only male in any role, but when they are, they, too are tokens and heavily scrutinized.

C. Women targets are less likely to confront in response to being bullied. But targets, of both genders, rarely react with aggression. That’s what makes them targets. Bullies sense who will be an easier mark. Targets are sorted into those who take no action because of a higher moral calling. It could be their religion that tells them to turn the other cheek or to never lower oneself to the level of a tyrant. Other targets walk away in fear, stunned at the surprise attack. Getting away is the only reaction they have. Once away, they hope time will heal the wound or prevent it from happening again. Regardless of motive, targets do not defend themselves because either they are unable (it’s not their worldview and never acquired the skill of self-defense because it’s a fair world, no one will hurt you) or unwilling to do so. Targets are all “easy marks.” It’s not just women.

D. Most bullies are bosses (in the US, 72% of bullies are bosses). All bullies prefer to bully subordinates. It’s a permitted prerogative that makes being a boss attractive to many people. So, bullying flows downhill.

Women are bosses, too. But they are lower-ranking than men bosses (only 15% of executives are women, only 3% of CEOs). So they are more likely managing other women and not other men executives. They bully whoever they can. So, WOW may be nothing more than proximity at work. You bully those within reach.

E. Though I’m not a woman, I’ve had a great deal to do with them during my lifetime (and Ruth educates me constantly). (She says that) women are socialized to judge other girls while growing up. They pay attention to how others look and dress all the time. Self-identity can be almost entirely dependent on how others appear and how they are judged by others. Without comparisons to others, some would not know how to make decisions.

Two factors emerge. First, modeling one’s personal behavior on the actions of others gives a great deal of power to the other person. Clearly in WOW relationships where apparent friendship preceded bullying, the bully may have been respected by the future target. When she is betrayed, the target ruminates (for way too long) about the inexplicable turnaround, searching for a rational explanation. It doesn’t matter, it just happened because the bully wanted it to. Wanting to be like someone else gives away too much personal control over one’s own life and choices made.

Second, the skill of paying attention since childhood determines the adult woman’s perceptual field. Other women are salient in the social world. More information is gleaned from cultivating relationships with women. Abusive, exploitative relationships with one person dominating the other is simply a twisted, sick reliance upon getting information from another woman (to then be used against her). Targets fall into the trap easily.

F. Feminist writers claim that women grow up accustomed to having their personal boundaries invaded and thus learn to treat other women that same way. A girl’s opinions are treated as irrelevant by the father compared to her brother’s. A girl’s ambitions are tamped down, expectations made more “realistic,” dreams treated as impossible. This is denial of her very psychological integrity, a discounting of her humanity. If this is how she is raised, she grows accustomed to being treated rudely or denigrated as not deserving equal status with others. So, when bullied at work, the immediate reaction is rarely outrage and righteous indignation that a fool would dare lie so readily or be so unapologetically cruel. It is more likely a timid turing away, starting immediately to blame herself, buying into the lies (as if some “kernel of truth” is buried in all the manure), and spiraling into a psychologically compromised state.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How ASUPD is attempting to violate your 1st, 4th Amendment rights.

ASUPD has been in a tizzy regarding the posts on The Integrity Report, to the extent the department has been actively trying to find the persons responsible for creating this site. Obtaining our IP address would require a search warrant to do so, and no judge in their right mind would sign one, simply because ASUPD “doesn’t like what is being said about the department”. Remember, although we are law enforcement officers, we still have protections under the 1st Amendment which include your freedom of speech. In this post, we’ll assess how ASUPD’s policies and practices are infringing on YOUR 1st Amendment rights as a US Citizen. It’s important to note that the department CAN control what you say while you are working in the capacity of a police officer, because the speech you are making is viewed as connected to your employment.

ASUPD has created some broad, catch all policies to curtail negative things being said about them, including:

Employees of the Department shall not criticize or ridicule the Department, its policies, or other officers or employees by speech, writing, or other expression, when such speech, writing, or other expression:

1. is defamatory, obscene, or unlawful;

2. tends to interfere with or to undermine the effectiveness of the Department to

provide public services;

3. tends to interfere with the maintenance of proper discipline;

4. tends to adversely affect the confidence of the public in the integrity of the

Department and/or its officers and employees;

5. Improperly damages or impairs the reputation and efficiency of the

Department; or

6. is made with reckless disregard for truth.

Let’s evaluate this policy, shall we? Nothing that has been said here on The Integrity Report is obscene, untrue, would interfere with ASU’s ability to provide public services, interfere with discipline, or recklessly disregards the truth. All of those parts of the policy are fall in line with parts of the 1st Amendment that are NOT considered to be “protected speech”.

However, the parts of the policy which seek to limit speech based on the negative impact it would have on the public’s confidence and integrity of the department, as well as the potential damage the speech would have on the department are OVERLY BROAD.

Citing Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), The US Supreme Court held that an employee’s interest as a citizen in making public comment needs to be balanced against the employer’s competing interest “in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” This “balancing test” will weigh in favor of the employee when the speech is made as a citizen on a matter of public concern. In 2006 the Federal Circuit court ruled in Garcetti that an employee is protected only if the speech is unconnected to employment (in addition to the balancing test established in Pickering). (Please see this article at PoliceOne for an expanded view of the aforementioned court cases).

Additionally, on Oct. 1, 2012, U.S. District Judge William W. Caldwell ruled in Beyer v. Duncannon Borough that a former police officer’s anonymous online speech was a form of protected citizen speech because he was speaking matters of formal concern.

This blogs exists as an informal mouthpiece for ASUPD’s employees to highlight areas we feel are of GREAT public concern; additionally, the anonymity of this blog separates it from any formal connection to ASUPD.

The ASUPD policy that seeks to infringe upon the 1st, and 4th Amendment rights of its employees is annotated under “Public Relations, General”. The policy states:

·         When reasonable suspicion exists that the police department is being discredited by an employee through electronic media, the employee may be required to allow access to personal accounts or hardware/equipment for inspection.

The “reasonable suspicion” standard was established in O’Connor v. Ortega, which held that governmental employees are afforded 4th Amendment protections during investigations by supervisors for administrative investigations. However, this case dealt with a person’s office being searched, NOT a more intrusive search of a person’s social media accounts.

If we as police officers seize a person’s password-protected computer as evidence and the suspect refuses to consent to a search, we must obtain a search warrant to view the contents of the computer. How is requiring its officers to turn over their PASSWORD PROTECTED personal accounts any different? Especially since everything written here has been written and accessed OFF-DUTY.

As police officers, we are bound by the constraints of the Constitution in order to effectively impart justice. Our position does impose limitations on what we can/cannot say while discharging our duties as a law enforcement officer. However, we are also all private citizens who ALSO have Constitutional rights and protections, with free speech being one of those. The policies made by ASUPD that attempt to thwart free speech can NOT usurp our protections under the Constitution.

Chief, you need to have a long talk with ASU’s Legal Counsel to assess the legality of some of your policies.  

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How secure are ASUPD’s stations?

Excuse the colorful wording used in the title, but this is a major issue that hasn’t yet been broached on The Integrity Report. It’s one we’ve all had to deal with to some extent, and that is how secure our respective PD compounds are.

ASU’s Tempe campus has one of the most poorly-secured PD compounds around. First and foremost, there is absolutely NO secured parking for PD employees. How many of us have had our cars damaged, or had confrontations with people we had just arrested hours earlier? Almost all the major valley PD’s have some sort of secured parking for its employees (and we’re not even going to mention the COST to park in a place where your car gets messed with regularly!)

How secure is the INSIDE of a building when people who have NO business being there are allowed to roam freely? Prime example, former Assistant Chief Alan Clark. We understand he is still employee at the university in a different capacity, but why is he allowed unrestricted access to the PD? We’re sure not even Michael Crow himself could just waltz into the PD freely, so why is Clark allowed to? Additionally, Clark’s access to virtually every part of the PD poses a significant risk to the integrity of sensitive information. It is unheard of to let a former employee with a significant history of complaints against him potentially having access to IAs/complaints where he is listed as the perpetrator. The potential exists for him finish cleaning up some messes he may have left behind. (We are not suggesting this has happened, merely pointing out a hypothetical scenario).

What about the satellite campuses? They are in an even more critical situation than Tempe.

At Downtown Campus, It is not unusual to find transients sleeping/defecating around ASUPD’s “office” in the Post Office after hours, or even mentally ill transients trying to use the women’s restroom in the (old) basement of the post office. There’s no secured parking even for the PD vehicles, so they are easily susceptible to tampering by bad guys.

West Campus has a “temporary detention facility” that is completely unsafe. None of the cameras in the facility which monitor the area work, which means a prisoner must be physically observed by a secondary officer while the primary officer is completing paperwork. This opens up pandora’s box of safety/liability issues. Again, no secured parking for employees.

Polytechnic Campus has a building that is being eaten by termites, so needless to say, it would just take a strong kick and a bad guy could probably force his way into the building. No secured parking for employees here either.

Where is all the money the PD/university has budgeted to deal with physical infrastructure issues? The areas the students live in are nicer and more secure than what the university provides for its police department! Furthermore, the access the PD gives to non-employees needs to be address immediately to avoid a conflict of interest…or worse.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Campus Police: The Feds are watching

…according to an article courtesy of one of our readers, thanks! This article presents several interesting points which ASUPD should take note of.

Questions emerge from DOJ’s investigation into University of Montana police

The blistering findings, though not always supported with documentation, serve as a warning shot for all campus police: the feds are watching.


In May, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), through the Special Litigation Section, released a public letter of findings in their investigation into the Office of Public Safety response to sexual assaults at the University of Montana. The DOJ looked at a three-year timeframe in which the campus police department allegedly inappropriately handled / investigated 30+ sexual crimes.

This appears to be the first time that the DOJ has conducted an investigation into a campus law enforcement agency. I also believe this is the first time that an agency of fewer than 20 officers has been thusly investigated.

With regard to the investigation, based on my review of the report and additional documentation, it is hard to determine the veracity of all the claims by the DOJ relating to sexually based crimes. But that’s not the only question mark.

Does the DOJ Have the Standing to Investigate?
The DOJ specifically conducted an investigation because the agency determined there was a pattern or practice of violating citizens’ Constitutional rights — that women were unfairly treated and discriminated against because of the failed investigations, practices, policies and procedures of the Department of Public Safety.

A question comes to mind. Is the federal government attempting to control and interfere with the rights of police officers to act in a professional manner, or are they attempting to increase police professionalism within higher education?

There is some discussion on that question now taking place among higher education law enforcement professionals.

While it should be the goal of every police department to run its operations based on the Constitution, it is apparent that not every agency is following those standards to the DOJ’s satisfaction — otherwise, we wouldn’t have DOJ investigations into local police agencies.

The fact is, DOJ has the power to civilly investigate organizations that have demonstrated a pattern and practice that violates the Constitution of the United States.

Furthermore, the May 9 letter to the university from Gary Jackson (DOE) and Anurima Bhargava (DOJ) specifically states that “[t]he (MOU) Agreement will serve as a blueprint for colleges, and universities throughout the country to protect students from sexual harassment and assault.”

To the lay person, this should serve notice that the federal government is coming after higher education law enforcement to ensure that they are conducting Constitutional policing, and not using any discriminatory practices. The DOE and DOJ are requiring remediation in regard to this civil investigation against the University of Montana, as well as the City of Missoula Police Department and the county.

Where did the University of Montana DPS Fall Short?
The Department of Public Safety (law enforcement) appeared in the report as completely incompetent when conducting investigations of sex-based crime — specifically when women are victims. But facts are sometimes not cited to back up the assertions.

Page 12 of the findings letter said, “We found that OPS response to reports of sexual assault is often marked by confusion, repetition, and poor investigative practices.” The DOJ does not provide examples to support their statement.

The DOJ also stated on page 11, “[w]omen who are intoxicated are at increased risk of sexual assault, and more than half of all non-stranger sexual assault involves alcohol use by the victim, assailant, or both.” This statement creates problems because it doesn’t present a way for the police department to address the alcohol factor.

The police department needs to patrol the campus community 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Additionally, the department needs to conduct regular police business, calls for service, crime prevention, and order maintenance activities. Addressing alcohol consumption, especially if done by legal adults behind closed doors, might be beyond the call.

How Can Campus Cops Prepare?
Change is knocking at the door of higher education. To address the base issue of sexual assaults, one solution is to form collaborative partnerships with community services organizations who serve victims on the campus and in the community.

To stay out of the government crosshairs it is important to keep a proactive, professional, and well-trained police agency. Keep a watch on the DOJ website and review laws, policies, and procedures that protect both the citizens and employees of the schools. Keep accurate records.

Review the Police Executive Research Forum policy meeting on consent decrees. If your organization falls subject to a DOJ investigation, contact a litigation group that specializes in dealing with consent decrees and federal monitoring to help prepare for the inevitable.

What Does it All Mean?
The lessons for campus law enforcement are not easily parsed from this report. But one is that campus law enforcement officers need to keep up on training so that they can avoid claims of failure to train, much like federal lawsuits that can be filled as set forth by the precedents of Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978) and Canton v. Ohio (1989). If campus police officers are unaware of these two federal cases, it is clearly in incumbent on organizational leadership to make their officers aware of the principles and holdings of these cases.

The second implication may be more important. The federal government is watching, and will be more than likely conducting investigations into campus law enforcement. So these agencies need to keep up with best practices and data relating to crime that occurs on the campus.

To summarize: a university PD should properly train its officers to absolve the department from legal liability; failure to do so is the result of poor leadership. Also, the federal government is watching and will be investigating more campus PDs. Interesting…sounds like the DoJ would have a field day at ASUPD.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ASU students swarm ticket office, assault an officer, and nearly riot!

Following ASU’s football victory over the U of A Wildcats last Saturday night, ASU decided to allow students to purchase tickets for the PAC-12 Championship. Obviously, emotions are pretty high amongst the student populous, and everyone converged upon Wells Fargo Arena in a rush to purchase tickets. After several hundred  students (well over a thousand, easily) swarmed WFA, ASU decided to shut down ticket sales, which ignited the crowd. The students at WFA began throwing barriers, fighting, and one of our own was assaulted.

As if the horrible planning on behalf of the university wasn’t enough of an insult, the appalling staffing levels ASUPD displayed at this event should do the trick. Low staffing in ANY situation is bad, but having a couple of officers to manage several hundred angry students IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. The sad thing is several additional officers were pulled from on-duty patrol, which means if something massive were to break out elsewhere, ASUPD would be unable to respond.

If something more serious had happened, has ASUPD even given its officers adequate enough training to be able to respond to the situation? Several other major universities–Ohio State University, Michigan State University, University of Georgia–all have Special Response Teams (SRT) specially trained in riot/crowd control, among other things. Why? Because they’ve had riots or other major incidents on campus they’ve had to respond to. We’re not suggesting ASUPD should form an SRT team soon (there is no staffing!!), but it should be included in future plans of the department as the university grows.

Bottom line: ASUPD should NOT place its officers KNOWINGLY into a situation where the officer must rely on a “nothing will happen!” mentality. This is NOT a realistic, safe, or stable strategy. You are running a bare-bones operation at THE COST OF YOUR EMPLOYEES’ SAFETY! It does not take any formal training in law enforcement for a REASONABLE person to observe that the aforementioned scenario is bad!!

We are glad the officer involved is OK, and relieved the situation was not worse, but we are concerned about how quickly ASUPD’s predicament is turning ugly. We should NOT have to wait and find out how much more violence will transpire before ASUPD removes Chief Pickens.


Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Internal Affairs Spotlight: A Look at the Numbers

Tonight’s post comes courtesy of a guest writer, A.I. Thanks for the insight!!

Internal Affairs Spotlight:  Policing Ourselves in a Police State – A Look at the Numbers

ASU Police Department boasts regularly that they are proud of the fact that the majority of internal affairs (IAs) are generated internally and do not come from outside sources.  This is typical, backwards, ASU PD logic.  How is having more internal complaints better than having more external complaints?

If you look at the 3rd training bulletin on Blackboard for 2013 , there is a significant difference in the number of sustained complaints in the external complaints (hardly any) versus the number of sustained complaints in the internal complaints category (significantly higher).

This internal complaint system is perpetrated by a very select number of employees, referred to across the department as “the click”.  How are 4 employees responsible for more than 25% of internal complaints out of more than 130 employees?  The main five members of “the click” represent roughly 5% of the department staffing yet are responsible for the 25% of our internal IAs.  That is a huge red flag regarding these employees’ characters.  The Chief has acknowledged that there is a click and yet has done nothing to deal with it.  This unchecked power base stemming from line level supervisors to Commander shows how corrupt police management can lead to internal issues.

Here are some of the highlights of “The Click” and ACTUAL internal affairs investigations!!

Commander William Orr

  • ACTUAL IA: Illegally seized an employee’s personally owned firearm.  Tsk. Billy.  Didn’t your mother teach you that you can’t take things that aren’t yours?
  • ACTUAL IA: Busy chasing employees out of the department with bogus firearms issues. Well, I guess if Pam, Aston, and Louis couldn’t get you I will!!

Commander Louis Scichilone 

  • ACTUAL IA: Busy wasting time targeting an employee and trying to catch them sleeping on duty, numerous times. Great job Lou!!  The knees on your paints are looking warn from kneeling down to kiss so much of the Chief’s ass!
  • ACTUAL IA: Investigated an employee for driving 5 miles off of campus. Yes, 5 whole miles! Running code at 60 mph it would take exactly 1 minute to get to an emergency call.
  • Ran to Command Staff when an employee who was in the police association left a copy of an email talking about a staffing survey was found by Lou.  Again, get a life.  Oh wait, you make life size Star Wars characters. Enough said!
  • ACTUAL IA: Writing up employees who were late to work. Great use of the IA system Lou! It is clearly proves that you have nothing better to do then to mess with employees.

Sergeant Pam Osborne

  • Ran the FTO unit into the ground.  Proud of her FTO “failure rate”.  Too incompetent to understand that isn’t something to be proud of.
  • ACTUAL IA: Investigated employees for not using in-car video (which don’t work half of the time) on a traffic stop.  Really?  Maybe Pam should have spent time investigating why our equipment regularly doesn’t work instead!!
  • Talks down to employees she doesn’t like.  Pretends to know more about police work but is a coward and afraid to leave the station.  Want an IA ASUPD?  Go investigate how many times Pam actually leaves the station.
  • Ran a female police officer out of the department because she didn’t like her.  Refused to let the employee see her training records or DORS.  It’s because she had to go back and change things in order to get rid of this employee. Corrupt!

Sergeant Mark Aston

  • ACTUAL IA: Busy writing up Police Aides for not wearing a bicycle helmet. Great supervision there Sarge!
  • ACTUAL IA: Investigated a Police Aide for damaging a wall at a cop shop with a Segway.  Words escape me on this one!
  • ACTUAL IA: Was accused of racial bias from a citizen. Although, he was cleared this time look at the majority of people he has targeted with IAs or bullshit write ups:  Ray Kizee, Damion White, Matt Parker, Tony Momon, Luke Khalid, Rudy Freese (anyone noticing a “racial” pattern here). 

Also, notable is that every IA the Chief himself has initiated has been sustained findings.  If he is the accuser and the finder of facts doesn’t that amount to an obvious conflict of interest?  If the Chief initiates an IA shouldn’t an outside agency investigate the findings if it involves an employee’s termination?  Like a former female officer who was railroaded out of the department? One would think but not with “Slim” Pickens at the wheel.

Even better is the continuous violating of officers rights under Arizona law.  The department engages in a process called an “administrative review” instead of conducting an IA.  They do this so the rights for police officers under Arizona law do not apply.  Again, here is another example of police mismanagement and abusing employees.

Here is my message to the Chief: Take a hard look at the state of the department.  People are leaving in droves because they refuse to put up with the bullshit.  You have done this to the department and the morale because these people go unchecked.  You have created a “police state” inside of a “police department” instead of honorable and trustworthy employees.  Stop the nepotism, favoritism, and politicalism and get rid of the poisonous leeches that are ruining the department. 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,