Tag Archives: City of Tempe

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:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/justice/arizona-jaywalking-arrest/index.html

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/tempe/video-officer-throws-arizona-state-university-professor-to-the-ground

http://www.azfamily.com/news/ASU-professor-talks-about-arrest-on-CNN-265267761.html

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/7336906-Video-of-police-arresting-ASU-professor-goes-viral/

 http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2014/06/ersula_ore_arrest_to_be_reviewed_by_asu_and_independent_agency_after_video_goes_viral.php

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Updated: ASUPD’s staffing…by the numbers!

We wanted to provide an update to several posts where we discussed ASUPD’s alarming staffing numbers (check out a few here and here). The current staffing numbers were provided courtesy of ASUPD’s roster following shift bid. It’s important to note that these numbers are only for sworn employees and do NOT include investigations nor Sergeant rank and above.

To patrol ALL of ASU’s four campuses (Tempe, Downtown, West, and Polytechnic), for a total of over 76,000 students, ASUPD has a grand total of 45 bodies assigned to patrol. Of those 45, 12 are Sergeants (supervisors who may not be patrolling the campus), and 5 Corporals. When those “supervisory” positions are factored out of the equation, that leaves 28 officers to patrol 76,000 students. The current staffing setup relies on the fact that none of these people assigned to patrol will get sick, injured, take FMLA leave, take military leave, and be forced to go on leave for purposes of IA.

28 officers is INSANE! According to the DoJ, ASU should have 2.1 sworn officers for every 1,000 students. ASUPD isn’t even REMOTELY close to that officer/student ratio.

For any students, parents, or members of the media reading…you should be extremely disturbed by these numbers. These numbers, unfortunately, keep getting lower due to recruits “failing” out of FTO, or laterals quitting as soon as they step in the door.

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

Head of ASU’s HR, Kevin Salcido, failed to properly handle a complaint regarding inappropriate behavior by a faculty member…sound familiar?

This is a long article but definitely worth the read. It illustrates how the head of ASU’s HR, Kevin Salcido, has repeatedly been informed of issues among his faculty members (whether they are professors accused of sexual harassment, or a Police Chief accused of incompetence), and has repeatedly failed to take appropriate and timely action against university employees.

From abc15.com

The federal government confirmed Thursday that Arizona State University is under investigation for the possible mishandling of a report of sexual assault or harassment.

An ASU alum wants to trigger a second inquiry.

Jasmine Lester said she plans to file a Title IX complaint against the school sometime in the next few weeks.

“Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all education
programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance,” according to a U.S. Department of Education news release.

ASU is one of dozens of schools nationwide with an active Title IX investigation involving sexual assault or harassment, the Thursday release said.

Lester said she will file her complaint because, among other reasons, a university administrator discouraged her from filing a sexual harassment complaint within the university system.

Lester said a professor flirted with her for more than a year, took her out for drinks, and created “sexual tension.”

“‘We’re talking about sexual harassment as more of a shove you up against the wall kind of thing,'” the school’s Title IX coordinator said, according to Lester.

After Lester persisted and filed a report, the school found no evidence of sexual harassment, Lester said.

She said parties with a stake in the investigation went on a smear campaign against her, another reason for the federal filing.

Multiple calls to ASU for comment were not returned. As such, details of Lester’s complaint with the school could not be confirmed.

 

What is interesting about this article is Jasmine Lester previously met with the head of ASU’s Human Resources department, Kevin Salcido (you can view the transcript of the discussion here). In this discussion, Jasmine and another individual mention to Salcido how some of Jasmine’s concerns regarding inappropriate behavior by a faculty member were brought to the attention of ASU officials, who waited three years to initiate any sort of response (Salcido responded,  “it’s unfortunate that it took a while for that to make it our way”).

Salcido also avoids answering direct questions about why the faculty member was allowed continue to lead  study abroad trips (where Jasmine’s incident occurred), or why it took so long to fire professors engaged in sexual relationships with students.  Salcido states that if he isn’t informed about such incidents, he can’t do anything about them (despite the fact Jasmine reported her incident to both faculty members and ASU administrators).

Salcido goes on to lecture Jasmine about how the rules of evidence [in a university investigation] aren’t the same as in a criminal court, but how she needs witnesses, emails, text messages, etc. Salcido also has the nerve to state that he is speaking both as an HR person and “also as someone who was, in a prior life, a police officer”.

The lack of an appropriate and timely response Jasmine experienced with Salcido is nearly identical to the response Salcido has given to the 10+ ASUPD employees who have spoken with him. Many current and former employees have come forward to speak with Salcido directly in regards to the on-going problems occurring at ASUPD (staffing, the FTO program, supervisors engaging in illegal and unethical behavior). He has stated on several occasions that he “can’t just fire half the police department”, despite being told (again, by multiple employees) many members of the Command and training staff were/are engaged in illegal/unethical behavior. Several employees who spoke to Salcido about this topic also witnessed the negative behavior first hand, or provided Salcido with the names, dates, and documents that would prove the merits of the accusations.

In regard to the slew of former employees ASUPD has left in its wake, Salcido has more or less stated the opinions and experiences of the people who have left the university aren’t relevant to what is currently transpiring within ASU, and speaking to them would be essentially pointless.

Much like his interactions with Jasmine Lester, Salcido’s pledge to “look into” ASUPD’s problems were completely useless. When the head of the Human Resources department at the largest university in the United States is incapable of removing problem employees from the university DESPITE witnesses and evidence…it makes one wonder how many other issues Salcido has failed to act appropriately on.

P.S. Mr. Salcido, you could never be a police officer, even in a prior life. Your deliberate indifference in the face of adversity illustrates your complete lack both compassion for others and a moral compass.

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

ASU faces a Federal investigation over complaints of mishandling sexual abuse cases

We initially wrote about how easy it was for ASUPD to skew its crime statistics in October 2013, just after ASUPD released its 2012 crime statistics (here and here).

In February 2014, we did a lengthy article explaining what the Clery Act is, the reporting requirements under the law, and how it is applicable to ASUPD. In March 2014, we followed up this article with a second part which analyzed ASUPD’s crime data and illustrated exactly how ASUPD misrepresented its crime statistics and violated the Clery Act. Shortly thereafter, we wrote an article explaining what Title IX is, and how ASU is also violating provisions of it.

After months of reporting about ASU has failed to meet the requirements of the Clery Act, as well as Title IX, a formal complaint has finally been filed against ASU. This complaint has now launched ASU into the national media spotlight (as well as ASUPD, for their role in under reporting/reclassifying of statistics).

Hopefully, the pressure of a looming Federal investigation is what will help ASUPD clean house, and get on track to establishing itself as a legitimate police department.

Stand by.

Here are a few articles on the situation at ASU:

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/tempe/asu-among-schools-in-us-federal-sex-assault-investigation

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/us/colleges-sex-complaint-investigations/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2014/05/01/arizona-state-universities-sex-assault-inquiry/8565811/

 

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

Editorial: “Start by Believing” ASUPD is part of the problem!

ASUPD has been in the media spotlight a great deal recently, and this time, it’s for a good reason; ASUPD, in partnership with university officials, have kicked off a campaign called “Start by Believing” to show support for victims of sexual violence. According to the campaign website, the theory behind the slogan is:

…to bring attention to victims of sexual assault, and not revictimize them through disbelief when they report the crime. Disbelief may come from friends, family, nurses, law enforcement or others whom the victim normally would expect to support them….There are many instances that aren’t reported because of fear of being told that someone brought it on themselves. This type of thinking needs to change. We need to start by believing victims of sexual assault when they come forward. It’s traumatic enough.

The article also mentions the “proclamation” signed by Chief Pickens and Michael Crow (which all department employees received a copy of) that shows how committed ASUPD is to serving victims of sexual violence.

While we think the attention given to the issue of sexual violence on campus is much deserved, we can’t help but be struck by the irony of the situation. The sudden emphasis on sexual violence victims comes on the heels of an article we posted on the safety of students on campus under Title IX, as well as an article about how ASUPD omitted or incorrectly reported the number of sex offenses reported under the Clery Act. Let’s also not forget the rash of sex offenses that occurred during ASU’s “Safe and Sober Campaign”, or the increase in ASU’s sex offense numbers that were actually reported to Clery.

If ASUPD is serious about supporting victims of sexual violence, they could start by appropriately reporting sex offenses in the Clery Report, as they are required to do, by law. Omitting or reclassifying sex crimes into lesser offenses (such as assault) not only revictimizes the victim, it is another way of telling the victim “we don’t really believe you”.

Next, to counter the recent increase in sex offenses, Chief Pickens could actually staff and maintain a fully-functioning police department that has the ability to proactively deter crime, instead of punting ASU’s problems to the City of Tempe. Actively participating in the campaigns you sponsor/are involved in such as “Safe and Sober”, DUI Task Force, or the Student Safety Taskforce would work to both deter crime and show the campus community how committed you are to making ASU a safer place.

Finally, if ASUPD is serious about supporting victims of sexual violence, they can give their officers the appropriate training they need to effectively do their jobs. The academy spends very little time on training officers on how to deal with sexual assault reports, and the little bit of training that is retained fades exponentially with time. Allocating resources to the people who will actually be HANDLING sexual violence cases ensure cases are appropriately handled, and is more cost-effective than dealing with civil lawsuits or wasting tax payer dollars by writing a fancy “proclamation”.

No amount of squishy emails or “proclamations” sent to ASU’s students/faculty/staff can make up for the fact that behind the glossy exterior of ASUPD’s new building, new uniforms, new badges is a top-heavy Command staff completely devoid of compassion and integrity. No amount of campaigns that ASUPD “participates” in can cover up the glaring irony that exists within its “proclamation”.

Chief Pickens, you need to “Start by Believing” ASUPD is part of the problem before you can commit to supporting victims of sexual violence.

 

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

Why ASUPD is incapable of handing an active shooter scenario

We have made several posts on The Integrity Report about why Arizona State University’s campuses are unsafe, and the issue of handling an active shooter on campus has been a reoccurring topic (click here to view our previous posts about active shooters).

To adequately prepare for a possible active shooter scenario, ASUPD’s approach must be three-pronged: ASUPD needs more officers to be able to respond/manage major situations, ASUPD needs to have a clear/common sense policy, and ASUPD needs to give its officers appropriate training.

Whether or not ASUPD will actually recruit and retain additional officers remains to be seen, but Command staff has known for years that its ability to deal with an active shooter is nonexistent. Several years ago, former Arizona Republic intern Matt Haldane interviewed then-Commander Jim Hardina about active shooters and guns on campus (view the video here). Hardina was unable to articulate what ASUPD’s policy in regards to dealing with an active shooter was!

Here are some excerpts from the interview:

(at :27)

In regards to ASUPD’s policy about active shooters:

Matt Haldane: And does ASU have a specific way of doing that? [referring to handling an active shooter]

Jim Hardina: Well, uh, the police department has a policy and the policy is…you…find the shooter…and…stop them from shooting. And you can’t really say you should do A, B, C, and D, because each situation’s dynamic, so, you know, each, uh…you’ll never have the same situation twice. So basically, the police’s role is to the stop the shooter from shooting, and the public’s role is to put themself (sic) in a position where they’re both safe. And again, you can’t have a specific policy because each situation is uh, different.

In regards to the active shooter training ASUPD’s officers receive:

(at 1:45)

MH: And…we spoke with a former Marine who was suggesting that ASU Police go through the same type of training that um, soliders do, in a combat situation where they’re able to quickly distinguish between a shooter and a bystander. What type of training do police officers receive?

JH: Um, I was in the Marine Corps also, and its a little bit different, what you don’t want is you don’t want police officers training with military tactics because you think soldiers…their job is to attack people and kill people…and that’s what they do. We don’t train police officers with that same kinda mindset clearing buildings, you know, looking to kill people. Um, what we train officers to do is exactly that, identify who’s a threat and who is not a threat, and um, act on the side of not shooting, as opposed to shooting. Police officer’s role is to take the least restrictive amounts to controlling somebody, which, the last resort would be actually killing them.

(So according to Hardina, in an active shooter situation, you shouldn’t be trying to kill the person (threat) who is actively maiming or killing innocent civilians. Interesting.)

Also, according to Hardina, 97% of all campus shootings involve a domestic violence dynamic (3:15); yet according to an FBI report addressing targeted violence at institutions of higher education, only 33.9% of incidents involving a weapon were domestic violence related (and firearms comprised only 54% of weapons used in targeted violence on campus).

So…what is ASUPD’s policy in regards to dealing with an active shooter?

First of all, the policy is titled “Rapid Response and Deployment” PSM 461-03, and it is not specifically limited to an active shooter; it also incorporates active terrorism. The initial officer on scene is responsible for notifying SWAT or hostage negotiators (neither of which ASU has). After a determination is made that tactical intervention is necessary, “available officers shall form a contact team and deployed as trained”. NONE of ASUPD’s officers receive training in forming tactical teams in a rapid response scenario.

Also, “the contact team should wear soft body armor and ballistic helmets and deploy service weapons, patrol rifles, and shotguns
with slug ammunition, if possible. The team should deploy according to departmental training“.

ASUPD’s officers are lucky if their body armor is replaced before it falls apart or expires; the “patrol riles” purchased by the department are currently in the custody of Chief Pickens and the rest of Command staff (who wouldn’t respond to a situation like this). Once again, no member of the department receives ANY departmental training that would adequately prepare them for this scenario.

This policy is not applicable to any member of the department, as NOONE has the proper training that falls in line with this policy (nor does ASUPD have the resources–SWAT, hostage negotiator, rifles–it cites its officers should use). The unofficial policy of dealing with a scenario like this? Call Tempe PD.

What type of training do ASUPD’s officer’s receive to deal with active shooters?

In addition to not receiving tactical ANY training to deal with an active shooter, the only post-academy training ASU’s officers receive is limited to free training ASU provides to all its students, faculty, and staff (check it out here). This video is geared toward  students/employees faced with an active shooter, and does NOT provide any sort of tactical training to a person working in a law enforcement capacity.

As we’ve previously mentioned, it is only a matter of time until ASUPD is forced to deal with an active shooter. The indifference/incompetence allowed to fester on the top level of the department will ultimately come at the expensive of an innocent civilian or a fellow officer.

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

ASU misrepresents its crime statistics, violates Clery Act (Part Two)

In our last Clery post, entitled “ASUPD misrepresents its crime statistics, violates Clery Act (Part One)” , we looked at what the Clery Act is, what reporting is required  of universities who are obligated to adhere to Clery, and why the Clery Act is so important. In this second installment, we are going to discuss how exactly ASUPD is misrepresenting its crime statistics (and how that violates the requirements of the Clery Act).

1. ASUPD omits crime stats from specific reporting areas required under the Clery Act

In our previous post about the Clery act, we discussed different areas other than campus ASU is required to provide crime statistics for, namely:

Public Property

  • Public property (All public property, including thoroughfares, streets, sidewalks, and parking facilities, that is within the campus, or immediately adjacent to and accessible from the campus, as well as any public transit stops adjacent to campus).

However, according to page 33 of ASU’s 2013 Annual Security and Crime Safety report, we found this small disclaimer:

Clery public prob

Similarly, on page 34 of the Crime Safety report, we found this disclaimer for West, Poly, Downtown and Lake Havasu campus’ public property reporting:

West poly public

Down Lake Havasu

So essentially, what ASUPD is telling the public via the Crime safety report is that the crime stats on the report do NOT include areas adjacent to ANY campus, nor do they include the crime stats for the EIGHTEEN areas considered “non campus properties”.

ASUPD’s excuse for not including public property crimes is that ASU “is unable to provide a statistical breakdown appropriate for Clery Act reporting” is a weak excuse. The “Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting” requires a university  to show a “good faith” effort to collect crime data from another non-university police agency.

This “disclaimer” about not having statistical data appropriate for Clery reporting is to be utilized when other agencies refuse to release their crime statistics, or  the information provided to the university is unable to be attributed to ANY of the university’s Clery geography (page 103).  ASU IS provided crime stats/information (by Tempe PD) that are able to be broken down to the “public property” level simply by looking at the physical location of the offense; this is the type of work that crime analysts routinely engage in.

ASU is also able to request the crime stats for their non-campus properities by merely providing the address of the property to the appropriate jurisdiction. We reached out to Scottsdale PD, home of Skysong (one of the non-campus property locations) and we were told that ASU contacted them approximately one time to request crime information.

We accessed the database referenced in page 33 of the Crime Safety report to see what crimes ASU may have missed because of its exclusion of public property statistics, and this is what we found for ASU’s Tempe Campus:

Tempe 1

Tempe 2

ASU excluded a significant amount of crimes occurring adjacent to campus (and several that occurred ON campus but were handled by other police agencies) from its Crime Safety Report (go to raidsonline.com and use the date range of August 2012-August 2013 to view the above posted data in a clickable format)

 Non-campus property

These are the non-campus statistics from ASU’s Skysong Campus which are not included on the Tempe non-campus property in the Crime Safety report (cited from raidsonline.com, using the date range of August 2012-August 2013): Note that the campus boundary is marked with a solid blue line, and each of the crimes are circled in red.

Skysong crimes

Note there are five motor vehicle thefts, one sexual assault, and one commercial burglary NOT included in ASU’s Crime Safety Report.

 

2. ASUPD improperly classifies crimes so they don’t meet the criteria for Clery reporting

Sex offenses

Perhaps the most misclassified/reclassified type of crime are those linked to sex offenses. Clery Act has a much more broad definition of what a sex offense is compared to definition used by the UCR (which excludes forcible fondling). Under the Clery Act, there are two types of sex offenses: forcible and non-forcible.

  • Forcible sex offense: Forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, forcible fondling.
  • Non-forcible sex offense: Incest, statutory rape.

“Schools can wrongly categorize reports of acquaintance rape or fondling as “non-forcible” sexual offenses — a definition that should only apply to incest and statutory rape”, according to an article by publicintegrity.org.

In August 2007, an ASU student reported being sexually assaulted at the Sigma Chi fraternity house. Subsequent follow-up emails to then Assistant Chief Jay Spradling went unanswered, and the sexual assault was later reclassified. The student alleged that her sexual assault was not investigated by Officer Janda (who documented the assault on a field investigation card) because she was intoxicated. Clery specifically states that a sex offense is presumed to be forcible if the person is incapable of giving consent “due to his or temporary/permanent physical or mental incapacity”.

The woman, who later sued the Arizona Board of Regents for violating Title IX, stated ASU has in recent years systematically and severely underreported sexual assault reports. Her complaint states that in 2008, ASU reported and posted only four forcible sexual assault reports in its 2009 Annual Security Reports, despite, on information and belief, having received at least several dozen reports.

A 2010 State Press article interviewed a counselor who works with sexual assault victims and is closely affiliated with the university and stated, “ASU does not take sexual assault reports seriously enough, creating a climate that keeps victims quiet and crime stats low”.

In 2011, ASUPD arrested a man accused of fondling at least 14 victims on ASU’s campus the previous year. Under the Clery reporting guidelines, forcible fondling is required to be reported as a forcible sex offense. For the year the incidents occurred (2010), ASU reported a mere 6 forcible sex offenses that occurred on campus (see Campus_Security_Policy )

Prevalence of under reporting sexual assaults

USC, UC Berkley, and Occidental College are all major universities currently facing the possibility of sanctions from the Department of Education for failing to properly report the number of sexual assaults on campus.

Robbery

ASU has also reclassified several robberies into felony thefts, which would prevent their inclusion into ASU’s Crime Safety Report. Under the Clery Act, robbery is defined as:

    • Robbery: is the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person
      or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.

ASU has had several strong arm robbery series which occurred on ASU’s campus where the victim was robbed of an IPhone and then dragged by a vehicle; under the Clery Act, these crimes should have been listed as a “robbery”, but they were later reclassified to a “felony theft” or merely “theft”.

3. ASU doesn’t utilize its resources properly

While formal training in the field of statistics and crime analysis is not required for persons preparing the Crime Safety Report under the guidelines specified by the Clery Act, that type of knowledge is useful when tasked with processing a large amount of data in a relatively short period of time. ASUPD has been fortunate to have a crime analyst on board for the past few years, but unfortunately, the analysts’ job has been reduced to producing crime maps for bike thefts on campus.

ASU’s former analyst (who has subsequently left the department for greener pastures) was much more qualified to process and analyze crime data compared to the Commander in charge of Clery reporting (Michele Rourke), who merely possesses a bachelor’s degree in English and has no formal training in statistics

Additionally, with such a large criminal justice undergraduate/graduate program, ASUPD could utilize several unpaid student volunteers or interns to process and catalog crime reports; this is a relatively common practice in larger departments such as Tempe PD.

4. ASU needs stronger partnerships with other agencies

After looking at the various locations where ASU has property/research labs, it is obvious that the university’s footprint is pretty significant. ASU has demonstrated that it does not have the resources, training, or personnel to effectively fulfill its obligations under the Clery Act; ASU needs to form stronger partnerships and more effective ways to communicate with other police departments. Building a rapport with another agency would assist ASU in obtaining the proper crime information necessary for a thorough Crime Safety report, and perhaps allowing ASU to assist that agency in some other area in the future.

 All of this information, especially when coupled with the storm of negative media coverage over ASU’s crime situation, are evidence that ASU’s students/faculty/staff are NOT as safe as the university would lead them to believe. ASUPD knows the magnitude of the crime problems on and around all campuses, but refuses to do anything about it. 

There is no more hiding behind Tempe PD or any other police agencies; the other agencies did not create the staffing shortages, the lack of training, or incentives to stay in the department—you did, Command staff!  ASUPD is unable to fulfill its basic obligation to serve and protect its community. It is now a matter of time before ASU starts losing students (and $$) because of these shocking safety issues.

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

Tempe Chief Ryff is the face of ASU’s “Taskforce for Student Safety”.

Recently, a “taskforce” aimed to increase safety for students on ASU’s Tempe Campus met for the first time.

The group was originally formed in the fall of 2013, in response to an increase in the number of violent/alcohol related crimes in and around ASU’s main campus. It is comprised of the presidents of all three state universities (ASU, NAU, U of A), representatives from nearby apartment complexes, as well as Tempe Police Chief Ryff, and ASU Police Chief Pickens.

CBS 5 did a short story about the “taskforce”‘s initial meeting, complete with video footage/interviews shot on campus. Who was selected to represent ASU’s “taskforce for student safety” on ASU’s own turf? Ideally, it would have been someone from ASUPD, since their student populous is the primary focus of the meeting; however, it was Tempe PD’s Chief that spoke to the media about the dire crime situation the student population is facing (notice in one part of the video clip, Chief Ryff is holding a binder emblazoned with ASU’s logo).

According to Ryff, things like changing demographics of the student body and huge growth at ASU are factors that need to be looked at. “We have some serious issues with some catastrophic outcomes and our goal is to try to prevent that from happening again,” Ryff said.

Once again, ASUPD relies on Tempe PD to solve its crime problem, mainly because ASUPD is unable to do so as a result of inadequate staffing and training. It is embarrassing to watch this clip and see how Chief Ryff cares more about ASU’s crime problems than ASU’s own Chief does.  Chief Ryff is also intelligent enough to realize the student population of ASU is growing so fast that even if ASUPD was fully-staffed, the department would still struggle to remain on top of the situation.

This is yet another reminder of the shortcomings on behalf of Chief Pickens and his command staff. They are unable to provide any viable discussion or suggestion on the topic of student safety; they are unable to recruit and retain a viable amount of officers (thus, not solving the staffing issue); they are unable to increase the morale of the current employees; they are unable to adequately supervise/train/discipline subordinates that routinely engage in inappropriate behavior; they are unable to effectively run a police department in any capacity.

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