Tag Archives: Tempe AZ

Aug 19 2014
32 Comments
Staffing issues

ASUPD tags along while Tempe PD does ACTUAL WORK during “Safe and Sober”

???????????????

From abc15:

TEMPE, AZ – Tempe and ASU police went door-to-door Monday, trying to prevent problems before school starts, by talking with residents in neighborhoods surrounding campus.

On Monday, officers from both departments, ASU students and city officials teamed up to talk with residents in the neighborhoods surrounding Daily Park off Apache Boulevard about any problems they have or had with ASU students.

Tempe police Lt. Mike Pooley said the purpose is to foresee what could be a potential problem and stop it before students start school.

In 2014, ASU moved 24 of its fraternities back onto college-campus housing at the Villas at Vista del Sol apartments.

In 2012, ASU closed Alpha Drive, where fraternities and sororities had houses.

The majority of fraternities moved into neighborhoods off of: Broadway Road to University Drive and McClintock to Mill Avenue.

Tempe police called the area the “Loud Party Corridor” in a 21-page document, outlining the problems in the neighborhood.

The main message Monday – no matter which agency a person contacts about a problem, everyone will work together to solve it.

ASU officials say they want to make sure the first few weeks of school are as safe as possible as many students transition into their new lives as Sun Devils.

Yet again, ASUPD’s Command Staff has shown the world they are merely along for the ride while Tempe PD does the actual work during the start of the “Safe and Sober” campaign. ASUPD Chief Thompson went “door to door” with TPD to express his concern about the increase in loud parties caused by ASU students living in Tempe. He was so concerned, in fact, that he proactively stood by while Tempe’s Command Staff contacted local residents (watch the video here). Thompson’s body language tells Tempe’s residents all they need to know about ASUPD’s stance on crime: we will stand by, look concerned, and then let Tempe PD fix the problem.

Perhaps, Chief Thompson, you should have informed Tempe’s residents that your department is grossly understaffed, and is already running its officers call-to-call…and the school year hasn’t even started! Surely they will be completely understanding about the lack of police presence if they become victims of crimes, right?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jun 30 2014
31 Comments
General

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jun 05 2014
20 Comments
General

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 indeed.com 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 03 2014
12 Comments
General

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar 25 2014
18 Comments
General

ASUPD’s recruiting brochure: trying to “fix” the department by throwing more staffing at the problem

As part of ASUPD’s desperate effort to “fix” the department, ASUPD has focused the majority of its time and energy on bolstering staffing; this has included hiring a recruiter, establishing an employee referral program, and also producing a recruitment video. Additionally, ASUPD also quietly produced and distributed a formal recruitment brochure filled with the same half-truths contained within the training video.

While this is certainly not groundbreaking information, it perfectly illustrates the attitude the university/Command staff has about the current problems in the PD: instead of reprimanding or removing problem employees that hurt morale and cause people to leave, we will throw more staffing at the problem and hope that it goes away.

Clearly the department has put forth more effort producing recruitment materials than it ever has actually managing people and improving the department from within.

Check out the brochure here.

Comment below with your thoughts!

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar 01 2014
26 Comments
General

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 23 2014
16 Comments
General

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 08 2014
11 Comments
General

Big things are on the horizon!

We’re working on a few massive projects at the moment, so pardon the slow down in posts. We’re working on a piece about the Clery Act (and how ASUPD fails to meet the minimum standards prescribed under aforementioned act) in tandem with a student organization.

We’re also in the process of inundating the PD with several requests for information.

In other words, hang on to your seats, ladies and gentlemen… it should be an interesting ride!

real

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 04 2014
9 Comments
General

Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, ASU!

When major events involving ASU affiliated students/faculty/staff happen off-campus (especially in the City of Tempe), the media frequently inquires about the university affiliation of individuals involved. When affiliation information of a victim or suspect is known, Tempe PD will release it to the media. This is a relatively common practice which is merely intended to share information, not purposefully cast ASU in a poor light.

Since this past fall, ASU has seen an increase in negative publicity tied to the off-campus actions of its students (with one media outlet dubbing ASU “a hangover school”). In an effort to curtail negative publicity, sources from Tempe PD tell us that ASU has been requesting TPD not release the university affiliation of suspects/victims. TPD already patrols ASU’s campus due to staffing shortages, wrangles its drunk students, and works its special events, but it is not enough! TPD must also bend to the whims of ASU in an attempt to boost the university’s image.

TPD continued to release the affiliation information of its suspects/victims, and showed it has enough common sense to realize the university affiliation of an individual is easy to find out via asu.edu. This obviously made ASU very upset, as they were furiously attempting to salvage their reputation and credibility as an academic institution; every negative mention of ASU in the media translated into a tangible amount of revenue loss to the university.

How did ASU react? According to sources from TPD, ASU is so upset that TPD continues to release information to the media that makes the university look bad, that it is considering legal action against the City of Tempe. We are not too sure what legal leg ASU has to stand on, but this is a horrible move; without TPD’s assistance, ASU and ASUPD will look like the understaffed, mismanaged, and poorly run place we all see on a daily basis.

A word of advice to Michael Crow and company: don’t bite the hand that feeds you!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 18 2014
20 Comments
General

New officer resigns after being sworn in at ASUPD

On January 16, 2014, Chief John Pickens was due to swear in the three new officers who had successfully passed their AZPOST test. These new officers were very desperately needed in the department to alleviate ongoing staffing concerns. After the swearing in ceremony, one of the three officers presented chief with something he should be well acquainted with–a letter of resignation. The chief was enraged. Shortly afterwards the issued equipment–the new clunky and garish badge, uniform with new patches–were all being turned back into the property room to await their new owner (who probably wouldn’t be hanging around long either).  

As esteemed members of the ASU Police Department, we would like to extend a special thanks to this officer for embodying the department’s toxic state into one singular action. It serves to illustrate the disturbing reality we live with daily which is putting more bodies into a lousy workplace won’t fix any of the problems at the department, it will only perpetuate them.

This latest lateral officer isn’t the first officer to do this by any stretch; there have been plenty who have quit in short order once they were exposed to our workplace. Chief Pickens is too proud to acknowledge the problems, too inept to understand and fix them. How many more employees must we tear through before Pickens realizes poor morale is the cause of the staffing problem??

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →