Monthly Archives: June 2014

Our response to the arrest of ASU professor Ersula Ore + “Use of Force” review panel?

ASU profesor Ore arrest

We have received a LOT of emails asking about our opinion about the arrest of ASU professor Ersula Ore. We wanted to comment about this situation and also tie it into other issues we’ve previously mentioned on The Integrity Report (to bring the discussion full-circle).

First, we would like to preface this post with the qualifier that none of the writers of the blog were there for the arrest of Ms. Ersula Ore. We have not spoken to the arresting officer nor any other officers involved in this situation; our conclusions come solely from second-hand and media accounts of the situation.

Our blog, The Integrity Report, was created after problems involving accountability and integrity with ASUPD employees began to overshadow the goal of having a safe and secure learning environment. Our mission is to hold officers accountable for their actions which tarnish the oath all of us swore to uphold; we have absolutely NO interest or stake in defending the officer involved in the arrest of Ms. Ore.

That being said, we are pretty perplexed by the statement made by Arizona Critical Ethnic Studies where they state Ms. Ore was racially profiled by ASUPD Officer Ferrin. There was nothing in any part of the initial contact or arrest that was remotely racially based! ACES made the assumption that Ms. Ore was contacted while walking in the City of Tempe only because she was black; what they failed to mention is that Ms. Ore was walking down the middle of the street in a major intersection and the officer contacted her because nearly hit her while responding to a call.

Walking down the middle of the street is behavior that can be indicative of someone in mental distress, under the influence of alcohol/drugs, or possibly suicidal. As first responders, sometimes we don’t have the ability to stop and explain the entire situation with someone if the circumstances are too exigent. This is just common sense! Would you want an officer responding to a burglary call at your house to stop and give you the play by play while the bad guy runs out your back door?

Officer Ferrin reportedly had no intention of citing Ms. Ore for walking in the street (which is against the law!). Ms. Ore repeatedly refused to show her ID multiple times when asked by the responding officer (which she is required to provide under the law). When Officer Ferrin attempted to take Ms. Ore into custody, she began to resist arrest and also attempted to trip the officer by wrapping her leg around him. Once Ms. Ore was taken into custody, the dash cam video clearly shows her kicking Officer Ferrin in the leg.

ACES stated that Ms. Ore’s lower body was exposed during the altercation, but they fail to mention if it occurred while Ms. Ore attempted to trip the officer (something that occurred–her dress flew up–as a result of an action she did–tripping the officer). The fact that Ms. Ore’s lower body was exposed was unfortunate, but certainly not intentional, especially given the fact there were multiple witnesses filming the situation.

If Officer Ferrin was at fault, ASU would throw him under the bus in a heartbeat to preserve their image. Additionally, the officer would be facing administrative punishment or criminal charges, neither of which is occurring at the moment. Is the dash cam video footage shocking? Absolutely. But the untrained observer must realize there is no pretty way to use force on a subject. Unlike the scenarios TV shows and movies portray, there is no “easy” way to take someone into custody that is actively and physically resisting arrest. In this scenario, the force used to affect the arrest certainly appears reasonable given the circumstances of the arrest.

Does ASUPD need a “Use of Force” review panel?

The above scenario involving Officer Ferrin raises the larger issue of reviewing officers’ use of force; are the members of the department that are actually investigating these incidents even qualified to do so? In this circumstance, due to the very sensitive subject matter, ASUPD requested that DPS review Officer Ferrin’s use of force, even after the department found that his use of force was reasonable. DPS undoubtedly has people that are certified defensive tactics instructors that possess the training and experience to review the case with a certain degree of expertise that ASUPD cannot do (We are extremely confident that DPS will also find Officer Ferrin’s use of force was justified, by the way). ASUPD’s Commanders (who would be tasked with an investigation such as this) have NO advanced DT training or certification that would make them qualified to investigate a use of force scenario, period.

How would ASUPD respond to a use of force scenario that was much more muddled than this one (no video or audio)? Or perhaps a scenario in which the responding officer used force, was tried in the court of public opinion, and the university wanted to fire him/her to save face? Better yet, what about an officer who used excessive force and was never reprimanded or investigated? ASUPD’s ability to initiate and investigate use of force scenarios is arbitrary, at best (just like all ASUPD initiated IAs).

The deciding factor in an officer’s fate shouldn’t be left to a supervisor who has little training on the topic of use of force, and who may not be able to review the case without bias due to a preexisting relationship with the officer or external influences. ASUPD should consider establishing a “Use of Force” review panel comprised of DT instructors, some administrators, and possibly a civilian, none of which would have any ties to ASUPD. A review panel is in place at almost every other major law enforcement agency in the valley already! This would serve to vindicate officer’s whose use of force was justified (Officer Ferrin), and punish those who have used excessive force (Corporal Khalid).


Edited to add some links to media coverage of this incident:

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

How many people are reading The Integrity Report?


While we are busy writing and researching behind the scenes, we’d like to answer one of the MOST frequently asked questions on the blog: how many people are reading The Integrity Report everyday?

A lot.

The site averages about 150 hits per day! 70 of these hits are “unique vistors” or distinct individuals visiting the page during a given period (regardless of how many times these individuals visit a page).

The bounce count for the page (ie, people who visit the page and immediately close the window or go to another page) is pretty low–around 20%. This means the majority of people who head over to The Integrity Report‘s site are staying and reading the posts. The average time a person spends reading posts on the blog is fairly high also, around 6 minutes.

Which pages are the most popular? Our home page is the most popular (with an average of 80 visits a day), followed by our post about ASU General Council botching a FOIA request (average of 60 visits a day), and then our post about Kevin Salcido sending unprofessional emails to ASUPD employees (average of 35 visits a day). The most popular keyword search is “ASU Police Chief Pickens resigns”; on our internal search tool its “firearms”.

How high The Integrity Report is listed on major search engines (such as google) is also a major indicator of site traffic. Sites that have lots of user traffic and are linked by other sites are ranked higher in search results than sites that have little to no traffic. Using the google search engine and searching for “ASUPD”, we are SECOND only to the official ASU website. The pictures from our post about unprofessional behavior amongst firearms staff is number ONE in google image search.

For a blog that was labeled as the work of “a few disgruntled employees”, this is very significant. Employees (both inside and outside the PD), Command Staff, students, and staff are reading The Integrity Report. People outside of Arizona State University are reading the information we post, the comments that others post, and are beginning to ask questions about the situation at ASUPD.

This is one baby step forward toward our goal of shining the light of integrity into ASUPD and holding those that dishonor their oath accountable.

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

ASU’s General Council botches FOIA request, releases social security numbers of several officers!

Earlier this year, we submitted a MASSIVE FOIA request to the Office of General Council for the FY13 budget documents, as well as departmental requisitions for training and equipment. We are acutely familiar with the way the State of Arizona’s FOIA laws work; under Arizona’s Public Records exemption, information which would be considered an invasion of personal privacy and would outweigh the public’s right to know and can be redacted. This can include addresses, phone numbers, date of birth, and social security numbers.

Therefore, after we received and preliminarily reviewed our FOIA request, we were acting upon the good faith that ASU’s General Council did their jobs and redacted the personal information contained in the files we requested (we looked at all 300+ pages of the file to the best of our ability). However, this morning we received several emails from concerned readers of The Integrity Report who let us know that several of the requisitions submitted for training between 2012-2013 contained FULL social security numbers that were NOT redacted! We have subsequently removed the entire FY 13 budget until we can redact the personal information of officers/police employees.

Coming from a university that claimed showing a picture of an officer’s vehicle was a security threat…releasing the social security numbers of police employees on public documents is a MUCH larger security threat!! With a SSN number, an officer’s identity, credit, and bank account could be completely compromised! This situation also begs the question: what other personal information has ASU released to the public via a FOIA request? The possibilities are endless.

We will be contacting all the officers personally whose information was released by ASU via a public records request, so they are aware of the situation.

Clearly, the safety and security of ASUPD’s employees isn’t too concerning to university administration. It’s not enough to allow staffing to reach alarming levels which can compromise the lives of sworn and civilian employees alike; ASU must ALSO compromise their employees financial livelihoods as well!

We’re expecting some sort of “damage control” email on behalf of ASU’s General Council shortly.



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

ASU’s HR boss continues to send unprofessional emails to PD employees!

Kevin Salcido ASU head of human resources

After the overwhelming amount of negative attention due to Kevin Salcido’s email to all PD employees on 06/05/14, we assumed that someone in the university administration would start to “screen” his emails. thus preventing further public embarrassment of ASU.

We were very wrong.

In response to “a concerned employee”‘s email, Salcido’s retort was less than professional, at best.Salcido reply to Cornfield

Salcido’s unprofessional (and inflammatory) response is quite evident here; however, this is not the only piece of documentation we used to formulate our opinion of Kevin Salcido’s demeanor. We also received documentation that a secondary “concerned employee” replied to Salcido’s email, and also received an extremely unprofessional response.

This very articulate email was submitted by a police employee to Salcido via email, and was subsequently forwarded to The Integrity Report.

Officer responding to ASU Head Kevin Salcido's absurd blanket email.

This email (very diplomatically) speaks about the “dismissive attitude” ASU has in regards to ASUPD’s staffing and morale problems. The employee states that the loss of ASUPD officers is felt during “serious situations”, “in the expertise they offer to facilitate proper action”, and also as “a brother or sister in arms, willing to put their lives on the line”.

Instead of using the email as opportunity to address some of these concerns, Salcido responds with the following:

ASU Head Kevin Salcido Response to officer responding to his absurd blanket email.

First and foremost, Salcido makes NO attempt to address the obvious concerns for officer safety mentioned in the second “concerned employee” email (saying that the loss of employees is felt during “serious situations” seems like a pretty clear indication that low staffing is impacting officer safety). If Salcido’s primary concern is officer safety (as he has asserted before), why does he repeatedly FAIL to address the staffing and morale issues which compromise officer safety?

Simple; it is much easier for Salcido blame another entity (in this specific case, The Integrity Report) instead of taking responsibility for the mess in HIS area of concern, ie, staffing and HR-related issues. Salcido has claimed that The Integrity Report has compromised officer safety several times. In the first instance, Salcido incorrectly cited ARS and claimed we violated the law by posting a picture of Sgt. Pam Osborne failing to follow orders of a Commander by parking illegally. DPS refused to investigate the alleged “criminal violations” and determined that ASUPD should handle the policy violation by itself.

Now, Salcido states The Integrity Report is compromising safety of university employees by inciting “malice toward [your] fellow officers and the administration of the university”, and fostering “a hatred for authority”. He also likens the discussion on the blog as being analogous to the two right-wing extremists who shot and killed two police officers in Las Vegas. Not only are these statements exceptionally incorrect, they are outrightly unprofessional and offensive.

As police officers, we have nothing but respect for law, authority, and integrity; if we did not believe in respecting any of these concepts, our willingness to sacrifice our lives would be for naught. Therefore, when we perceive that the foundation of our core beliefs for which we are willing to lay down are lives for is compromised, we have an obligation, a duty to address the issue. When numerous employees have attempted to address these issues through formal channels with NO result, the only way ASUPD employees to can address these issues is through informal channels, such as The Integrity Report. To say that we are deliberately “inciting malice” against our fellow officers and employees, or we are fostering a hatred for authority is a disgusting mischaracterization of a problem, quite frankly, ASU perpetuated.

Furthermore, comparing the blog to two individuals who killed police officers and left a Nazi swastika on one of the victim’s body is extremely disturbing. We have never suggested, mentioned, or condoned the use violence in ANY form against ANY other employee, period. Feel free, Mr. Salcido, to point out a circumstance where we have done so.

In response to the assertion there were comments on the blog suggesting Salcido be put down like a rabid dog: the original comment made by a VISITOR of the site, not the administrators, stated that Salcido “should be removed from office like a rabid dog on a playground”. Those are two completely different statements which mean two totally different things. Again, the comment was not made by the site administrators, like Salcido is alluding.

These emails illustrate a fleeting glimpse into the mind of the man who is running the HR department for THE largest public university in the United States. When the people tasked with hiring, retaining, and dealing with employees act as unprofessional and depraved as Mr. Salcido does in his emails to ASU Police employees, it is not surprising to see how ASUPD has survived so long in its present state.

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

ASU Police Budget 2013

We created a new “page” on the main site titled ASU Police Budget 2013.

It contains ASUPD’s FY 2013 budget; all department requisitions for training and equiptment; credit card statements for state-issued credit cards; travel reimbursment receipts; and petty cash receipts.

It will take a little time to upload and sort the documentation in its entirety, so please be patient.

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

The beginning of the end for Chief Pickens and ASUPD Command Staff

Is this the beginning of the end for ASUPD Command Staff? McD’s is still hiring.


Earlier today, ASUPD Chief Pickens sent out a bizarre email to the entire PD:

From: John Pickens (Chief of Police)
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:54 AM
Subject: New Opportunity

I wanted to make you aware of this before it is announced sometime this afternoon.

Arizona State University Chief of Police John Pickens is pursuing a new opportunity after 14 years of service. Chief Pickens initially was hired as the Director/Chief of Police for the Department of Public Safety, Tempe Campus, after serving as Director of Public Safety at Northern Illinois University.

“I have given much thought to what I would like to accomplish during the next phase of my life,” Pickens said. “After 14 years of service, it is time to pass the baton to someone else. It has been an honor to serve as the Chief of Police at ASU.”

Pickens will continue to serve as ASU Police Chief while a national search is completed and until his successor is on board, noted Morgan R. Olsen, ASU’s Executive Vice President, Treasurer and CFO. He then will assume his new duties as Executive Director, University Security Initiatives. Pickens’ duties in this new role will include overseeing expansion of the university’s video security system and other emerging public safety technologies, assisting the Office of Emergency Preparedness in ensuring that ASU is positioned for effective emergency response and recovery, and leading security planning for the Sun Devil Stadium project.

John L. Pickens
Chief of Police
Arizona State University
Police Department

This email was clearly crafted by someone in ASU’s PR department, as the email is much more articulate than Pickens’ normal emails. Also, the entire email is written in third person! Either Pickens is a member of British royalty, or someone wrote the email on his behalf (we are speculating it is the latter).

Later on, the university made an “official” announcement via a digital press release. The press released detailed all of of Pickens’ vast “accomplishments” in his 14 year tenure which are pathetic and exaggerated, at best:

• All marked police vehicles have been equipped with in-car video recording systems and enhanced communications. Upgrading the vehicles to a standard nearly every other major police department across the country merits kudos for Pickens? The CIVILIANS who work on maintaining and upgrading the vehicles are the ones deserving of credit, NOT Pickens.

Expansion of the community-based policing program by establishing internal and external partnerships and a team-building philosophy to promote higher levels of service to the university community. ASUPD’s Command Staff has VERY strained relationships with the surrounding police agencies, namely Tempe PD. TPD is forced to deal with problems that ASUPD won’t because of poor staffing. Internally, ASUPD has very few positive partnerships with members of the student population; after all, why would students be willing to trust the PD when the Command Staff has turned a blind eye to properly investigating and reporting sexual assaults?

Establishment of the Chief’s Advisory Board to enhance communication and problem solving within the department. This is a complete lie! The Chief’s Advisory Board was resurrected in September 2013 after being defunct for approximately five years. The board came back into existence coincidentally around the time departmental discord (in the form of and The Integrity Report) began going public. After we posted some Advisory Board meeting minutes, the Chief forbid anyone from having any hard copy notes or meeting minutes. None of the board’s suggestions were adopted, and the board met a total of three times before going defunct, again.

Reorganization of the university’s police functions to consolidate the West, Polytechnic and Tempe campus police departments under his leadership, in accordance with the “One University in Many Places” philosophy. This amounted to changing the names of the West and Poly campus departments, and assigning a Commander to each respective campus. However, this is pointless because the Commanders at the satellite campuses are rarely there, and are usually at Tempe campus in meetings.

• The 2006 implementation of law enforcement and security services at the newly-formed ASU Downtown Phoenix campus, using a new model designed specifically to meet the unique nature of that campus. The “new model” of the campus is to assign only civilian employees to patrol it, and leave the majority of actual police work to Phoenix PD.

• Expansion of the police aide ranks, which often are used as a recruitment pool for ASU Police officers. (ASU Police officers who then leave abruptly as soon as they are able.)

• Aggressive pursuit of grants that allowed upgrading the 9-1-1 system to include police vehicle laptops and implementation of the Live-Scan fingerprint system. Other people wrote these grants, so the Chief should not take credit for it.

• Development of a new, state-of-the-art police facility on the Tempe campus, including a sophisticated Emergency Operations Center. ASUPD had an extra room in its brand new facility, so they spent a lot of money on equipment to convert it into an EOC. It has never been used.

Four successful reaccreditations through the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, including the department’s 2008 reaccreditation as a “Flagship Agency.” Pickens had Blythe do all the work of fixing ASUPD enough for it to be accredited by CALEA; Pickens doesn’t deserve any credit. Furthermore, we would be surprised if ASUPD gets accredited by CALEA this year, given the current situation in the department.

Reduction of the department’s carbon footprint by adding hybrid vehicles, Segways and three-wheeled motorcycles for patrolling ASU campuses. Pickens spent money to purchase hybrid vehicles that are terrible, Segways that mostly Police Aides use, and a few three wheeled motorcycles. Since when is spending money an accomplishment?

Legislative testimony successfully supporting the university’s ban of firearms on its campuses. Pickens’ testimony wasn’t the final nail in the coffin that upheld the university’s ban on firearms on campus, so this statement seems misleading.

Also according to the press release, Pickens will assume his new duties as “executive director of University Security Initiatives” once his replacement is settled into the PD. This new “position” Pickens is transitioning to did not exist prior to today. There was no job posting for the role of “executive director of University Security Initiatives”, nor were there any other candidates. Pickens has been very verbal about his unwillingness to leave the PD, telling multiple employees that he would “die in his chair or be dragged out”. Seeing as how he is very much alive, our deductive reasoning skills tell us that Pickens was ousted out of his position as Police Chief and, in exchange, given a cushy six-figure position that was made up specifically for him.

However, the question of “why now?” still has yet to be discovered. Perhaps ASU wants a Chief that will stop publicly embarrassing them, or wants to geniuenly solve the current staffing and moral crisis at ASUPD. Whatever the reason, removing Chief Pickens is a baby step in the right direction, and a sign that the house of cards may start falling soon.

Stand by.

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

A concerned employee responds to Salcido’s email + a possible DPS investigation?

Recently, the head of ASU’s HR (Kevin Salcido) sent a very strongly worded email to all ASUPD employees in an attempt to dissuade people from posting on The Integrity Report. We assembled a carefully crafted letter where we discussed the legal issues Salcido brought up in his email, as well our take on the entire ASUPD/HR situation. However, our response was later eclipsed by another ASU employee who voiced HIS concerns in a formal email, addressed to PD-ALL with a CC to CFO Morgan Olsen and President Michael Crow.



Sir, thank you for having the courage to send the most epic email chain in the history of ASUPD; you are deserving of a “Lifetime Achievement” Sun Award, at a minimum! We wouldn’t be surprised if the Chief is scrambling behind the scenes, contacting legal council to see how the sender of the email could be reprimanded. This email perfectly addressed how ASU HR had reason to know about the issues occurring at ASUPD, but failed to take any corrective action at all.

Speaking of nonfeasance, we have heard whispers ASUPD Command Staff has requested a possible investigation of The Integrity Report by DPS. Allegedly, citing violations of a few broad ARS statutes, DPS has been tasked to investigate the blog’s release of a picture of Sgt. Pam Osborne and her personally owned vehicle.  After months of emails, meetings, and phone calls to Command Staff/ASU HR about problems in the department, none of the issues (which have been discussed at length on The Integrity Report) apparently meet the threshold for an HR INVESTIGATION. However, after Salcido inappropriately applies ARS , somehow the threshold for a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION is met? This is nothing more than a formalized witch hunt to attempt to stop people from posting on the blog, after an attempt to discover the blog creators via ASU’s IT department were unsuccessful.

Mr. Salcido, Chief Pickens, and ASUPD Command Staff: You are dangerously close to stifling the 1st Amendment rights of your employees.

  • In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), 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 (ie, they are not speaking from their position as an officer or a teacher).
  • In October 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.

Additionally, you assume the creators of the blog are ASUPD employees, which is why you are citing ARS statutes aimed at persons who are “employed by a state or local governmental entity”. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we are students, or members of the press, or people unaffiliated with the university in any capacity. Would you still be so eager to instigate a criminal complaint, and in the process, violating the 1st Amendment rights of the general public? Didn’t think so.


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

Kevin Salcido addresses The Integrity Report once again

Earlier today, the head of ASU’s Human Resources department (Mr. Kevin Salcido) sent this email to all of ASUPD’s employees in regard to a recent photograph posted on The Integrity Report:

To: All Members of the ASU Police Department

Recently , a law enforcement photograph of an ASU police officer, her name, her rank and a picture of her automobile (including her license plate number) was posted to the “Integrity Blog”. This action violates the expectation that was communicated on February 19, 2014 (see below).

A.R.S. §§ 39-123, 39-124, and 39-128 prohibit the release of peace officer photos in all but a limited number of circumstances. The law was passed by the Legislature to help protect and safeguard our peace officers and their families. The recent unauthorized posting of our ASU PD officer’s law enforcement photo on the blog is contrary to law and will not go unaddressed. Again, as noted below, anyone we identify who publicly shares or takes and posts sensitive operational information, obtained through any means , which could potentially compromise the security and safety of the ASU community can and will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

The large majority of Police Department professionals are devoted to the safety and security of the ASU community and their work is appreciated on a daily basis. There are multiple avenues available for raising concerns including the PD chain of command, the Office of Human Resources and the Office of Equity and Inclusion. This is a university after all and we should be able to have an open exchange of ideas. As the Chief Human Resources Officer, I am disappointed that a very small minority of employees continue to avoid these channels and have become disruptive to our mission of serving and protecting students. Those who are so unhappy here are invited to take their careers elsewhere. They will most assuredly be happier and we will not feel their loss.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation. As always, you can reach me at 5-6608 with questions or comments.

Kevin Salcido
Associate Vice President/Chief Human Resource Officer
Arizona State University

We would like to take a moment to address some of these “expectations” we failed to adhere to, as well as some points brought up in the body of this email.
The “expectations” Salcido mentions refers to an email he sent to all PD employees on February, 2014. In his email, Salcido stated that posting an old schedule to illustrate how low officer staffing levels were “exceeds the bounds of free expression and protected activity because it has safety and security implications for the ASU community”. The “safety and security implications” are only the ones the university itself created by failing to properly staff and manage a police department, period. Beyond that, old schedules are NOT listed as an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), so any member of the public could request the same information we posted.
The assertion that we broke the law by posting a professionally taken photograph of an officer is ludicrous, and the sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes you cite we violated do not appear to be applicable to this situation.

ARS 39-123:

A. Nothing in this chapter requires disclosure from a personnel file by a law enforcement agency or employing state or local governmental entity of the home address or home telephone number of eligible persons.
B. The agency or governmental entity may release the information in subsection A of this section only if either:
1. The person consents in writing to the release.
2. The custodian of records of the agency or governmental entity determines that release of the information does not create a reasonable risk of physical injury to the person or the person’s immediate family or damage to the property of the person or the person’s immediate family.
C. A law enforcement agency may release a photograph of a peace officer if either:
1. The peace officer has been arrested or has been formally charged by complaint, information or indictment for a misdemeanor or a felony offense.
2. The photograph is requested by a representative of a newspaper for a specific newsworthy event unless:
(a) The peace officer is serving in an undercover capacity or is scheduled to be serving in an undercover capacity within sixty days.
(b) The release of the photograph is not in the best interest of this state after taking into consideration the privacy, confidentiality and safety of the peace officer.
(c) An order pursuant to section 28-454 is in effect.
D. This section does not prohibit the use of a peace officer’s photograph that is either:

1. Used by a law enforcement agency to assist a person who has a complaint against an officer to identify the officer.
2. Obtained from a source other than the law enforcement agency.
E. This section does not apply to a certified peace officer or code enforcement officer who is no longer employed as a peace officer or code enforcement officer by a state or local government entity.

This entire statute refers to the actions of an AGENCY, or LOCAL/STATE municipality, NOT the actions of an individual. Furthermore, the picture we published WAS NOT and WILL NOT be serving in the capacity of an undercover officer, nor was her privacy, confidentiality, or safety compromised. Sgt. Pam Osborne has several social media sites accessible to the public in which contain pictures of herself and her family (the pictures were already removed from one site after we published the initial picture), and her picture is available using the “Google” search engine, so her privacy, confidentiality, and safety were apparently not compromised by those arguably more personal pictures. The picture we released was a department sanctioned photograph which was available on the W drive to all PD employees.

Photographs of this nature are regularly used on the ASU website, which is accessible by the public.

The burden of proof is on the State to prove the release of the photograph is a privacy, confidentiality, or safety concern.

The picture of the motor vehicle we also released was taken on a public street in a public place, so we are also legally allowed to publish it. Out of professional courtesy, we did redact the license plate number.

It is ironic how Salcido addresses the issue with this photograph immediately, yet other photographs we have released which show members of the department, dressed in uniform and acting inappropriately goes on unmentioned.

ARS 39-124:

Releasing information identifying an eligible person; violations; classification; definitions
A. Any person who is employed by a state or local government entity and who, in violation of section 39-123, knowingly releases the home address or home telephone number of an eligible person with the intent to hinder an investigation, cause physical injury to an eligible person or the eligible person’s immediate family or cause damage to the property of an eligible person or the eligible person’s immediate family is guilty of a class 6 felony.
B. Any person who is employed by a state or local government entity and who, in violation of section 39-123, knowingly releases a photograph of a peace officer with the intent to hinder an investigation, cause physical injury to a peace officer or the peace officer’s immediate family or cause damage to the property of a peace officer or the peace officer’s immediate family is guilty of a class 6 felony.

This is pretty simple: we did not release the photograph to hinder an investigation, cause physical injury to the officer/her family, or cause damage to the property of the officer/her family. First, there is no investigation to hinder in regard to Sgt. Osborne. Second, we would never want another officer—regardless of how deplorable of a person they are—to be injured or their property damaged. There is no text accompanying the photograph that would incite a reasonable person to commit physical injury or property damage to the officer or her family. Finally, there is no personal identifying information (address, phone number) in the photograph that would compromise the officer’s safety, period.

ARS 39-128:

Disciplinary records of public officers and employees; disclosure; exceptions
A. A public body shall maintain all records that are reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of disciplinary actions, including the employee responses to all disciplinary actions, involving public officers or employees of the public body. The records shall be open to inspection and copying pursuant to this article, unless inspection or disclosure of the records or information in the records is contrary to law.
B. This section does not:
1. Require disclosure of the home address, home telephone number or photograph of any person who is protected pursuant to sections 39-123 and 39-124.
2. Limit the duty of a public body or officer to make public records open to inspection and copying pursuant to this article.

What is the point of including this statute? This just says the state isn’t require to disclose a photograph if requested through a public records request.

Salcido is correct in stating that “the large majority of Police Department professionals are devoted to the safety and security of the ASU community”, however the qualifying statement of “…and their work is appreciated on a daily basis” is untrue. Who appreciates employees below the Sergeant level? Certainly not the university, who has elected to give all its officers less than a 10 cent pay raise and no cost of living increase (and also giving no pay increase to any civilian employee).

Line-level employees are also not appreciated by the members of their Command staff, who refer to them as “bees”, unleash frivolous IAs if they try to leave ASU, or are told they should work at McDonalds if they don’t like the hostile work environment.

Mr. Salcido himself has shown that he does not appreciate the work of employees at ASUPD nor care about their well-being because he has routinely failed to act upon the concerns of the 10-12+ employees who have brought serious issues to him. Salcido has flatly refused to investigate any of the alleged misconduct reported to him, instead delegating it to the very department that mishandled the issues in the first place.

It is insulting that Salcido suggest we use the PD or HR Chain of Command to address any concerns or problems, because several of us have tried to resolve issues this way with no success. There are several paper trails and digital voice recordings to back up these assertions. There is absolutely no ability to deal with these issues within any Chain of Command at ASU, because the university’s prurient interest in controlling negative press about itself ultimately prevails.

If there is such a small minority of employees causing issues, and—according to you, Mr. Salcido, these issues have no merit—then why has ASU repeatedly addressed The Integrity Report in meetings and memos? If what is being said here is limited to only a handful of employees, why acknowledge the blog and give it life?
The truth is that ASU’s dirty laundry is being aired for the world to see, and for the first time ever, ASU cannot control the negative publicity. We know ASU was accused of stifling the 1st Amendment Rights of a student who spoke against the rising cost of tuition, and we also know that ASU contacted and had the site administrators stop people from posting negative comments about ASUPD. It is not a far stretch to assume that ASU would also want to stifle what is being said about its police department online.
However, the primary difference in the case of The Integrity Report (and what makes it such a sensitive issue among Command staff) is that it has the potential to cause many people to lose their jobs, from officers all the way up to President Michael Crow. Everyone who knew some of the issues detailed on this site yet refused to intervene is at risk of being implicated. All these issues coupled with the fact that the public and media are starting to circle like buzzards on a rotting carcass, and you have a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting to stifle The Integrity Report.

When that day comes where people are finally removed from their positions, in Salcido’s own words, “we will not feel their loss”.


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

Another reminder of ASUPD’s refusal to properly and fairly discipline employees

Just another reminder of ASUPD's refusal to properly and fairly discipline employees.

Another shining example of the “Orr’s Boys” clique that has done so much to undermine the mission of the Arizona State University Police Dept. so it could operate like a street gang with fellow employees.


While the Arizona State University Police Department continues to lose both new officers just off their year probation, as well as old salty veterans to other departments, ASUPD has dusted off an age-old retention strategy:

The internally generated retention internal affairs (IA) investigations.

This post goes out to all of our brothers who escaped with their careers intact, and also to those who have been aggressively targeted by ASUPD command for “retention IAs”. The department leadership is desperate to retain officers at all costs and has no intention of fixing the moral issues plaguing the department. We addressed this issue in a prior post regarding the arbitrary nature of punishment at ASUPD.  It is the first of many posts aimed at addressing the double standards within ASUPD, and how they are directly affecting the department’s ability to retain employees.

We are tired of the double standards and the unwillingness to change. Petty punitive actions against some employees (while favored ones commit policy and criminal violations regularly) only make us fight harder and dig in further. We are not going away. We will keep pressing forward with The Integrity Report until the issues discussed here are resolved, or the people that have created them are removed.

To those that have stood by and have refused to act, either out of malice or cowardice: we ask that you take the time to read your oath again; read it and honestly ask yourself if you have honored it.

To see the other ASU Police Firearms Photos and story see the link below.


Are you surprised by the corrupt good old boy way this department is run? We're not.

Are you surprised by the corrupt good old boy way this department is run? The vast majority of it’s employees are not.



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