A letter from former Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso sent to UC President Mark Yudof indicates there will be delays in the original timeline. The delay means that Justice Reynoso is now “targeting February 21, 2012 for the release of the report of the Task Force.”
Mr. Reynoso indicates the changes result “primarily from our negotiations with the Federated University Police Officer’s Association (FUPOA) for access to non subject officers.”
“The timing of the release of the Task Force report is dependent on the fact-finding report from Kroll,” the former Justice continued. “The Task Force feels it is imperative to have the most complete view possible of the events that took place last November. This includes interviews from subject and non subject officers as well as students and faculty.”
Cruz Reynoso’s letter indicates that, while Kroll has conducted a number of interviews with students and faculty, they have “not had access to subject and non subject officers.”
He further indicated, “Through several rounds of negotiation the General Counsel’s office has made an agreement with FUPOA for access to non subject officers. Interviews with non subject officers are taking place this week.”
In short, the police, after extensive negotiations, have allowed those officers who are not subjects of the investigation to interview with Kroll, but not those officers involved.
This calls into serious question the veracity of any investigation – if it does not include interviews with those officers actually involved in the pepper spraying of students.
One of our initial concerns about the investigation by William Bratton and Kroll was that they have full access to records and subpoena power.
UC Davis News Service Spokesperson Andy Fell, back in late November, assured the Vanguard that “both campus and UC will cooperate fully with them and make available to them any documents they need, subject only to legal restrictions such as those governing student records, personnel files etc.”
He continued, “As a private contractor, Kroll doesn’t actually have subpoena power. But they are going to get whatever they want. “
Cruz Reynoso concluded his letter indicating, “While the timeline for the release of the report has been delayed for a few weeks, I am very pleased that an agreement was reached for access to non subject officers as this is a critical component in understanding not only the frame of mind, but a complete understanding of the events that took place, including the view of police officers.”
As we noted at the time, the lack of access to personnel files is not a small factor, however, as the investigators may need to examine some of the police personnel files to understand their history.
The Vanguard remains concerned, despite claims that “they are going to get whatever they want,” that when push comes to shove a promise can be revoked, or information hidden under the guise of police personnel files or other confidential matters.
This concern is now playing out as the investigators are apparently finding it difficult to get the police to talk, and without such interviews the results of the investigation will be incomplete.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This is disappointing to learn. I had hoped Kroll would have access to the “subject” of the investigation.
[quote]In short, the police, after extensive negotiations, have allowed those officers who are not subjects of the investigation to interview with Kroll, but not those officers involved.[/quote]
The problem we have here is a natural tension between the right to access information versus the right of the individual to not have to incriminate himself/herself…
So much for “waiting to judge until the University directed investigation is allowed to run its course before judging the officers involved.”
May one presume that this negotiation process does not include the Police Chief as she is not represented by FUPOA? If so, is there any indication that her statement has been sought and obtained?
The police chief is not represented by the FUPOA. Whether she is being cooperative is another question.
I say terminate the employment of the officers and the Police Chief and let’s move on. No more paid “administrative leave.” Human Resources should step in and put an end to this.
Not allowing access hurts the officers involved more than the administration. This is speculation, but I don’t think officers are worried about incriminating themselves. I think the administration is worried more about what they would say.
[quote]In short, the police, after extensive negotiations, have allowed those officers who are not subjects of the investigation to interview with Kroll, but not those officers involved.[/quote]
This mistakenly identifies the police union with the police.
[quote]I say terminate the employment of the officers and the Police Chief and let’s move on. No more paid “administrative leave.” Human Resources should step in and put an end to this. [/quote]
The police union might object to this.
Those who reflexively criticized WIsconsin governor Walker for limiting public employee unions might want to reconcile this with their opinions of the public employee union representing UC Davis police.
“This mistakenly identifies the police union with the police.”
I fail to see a distinction between the police union and police officers who make up the union.
[quote]The problem we have here is a natural tension between the right to access information versus the right of the individual to not have to incriminate himself/herself…[/quote]
Pleading the 5th does not make anyone guilty of anything… basic law…
And what of the Yolo County District Attorney’s interviews with Officers who are subjects of the investigations? Nobody can say that the D.A. lacks subpoena power.
Roger: I suspect we will get a statement within the month from the DA’s office that they have closed the investigation and declined to file criminal charges. I’m not sure if they will interview the police directly, the police who are subjects do have 5th amendment rights.
I heard the other day from a reliable source within U.C. Davis that there will be no disciplinary action forthcoming from the administration because the U.C.Use of Force Regulations do not forbid the use of pepper spray against passive protestors.
So if what David is telling us about the D.A. not filing any criminal charges proves to be the outcome, and the University declines to discipline their employees, then I guess all that happens as a result of these heinous actions is a slap on the wrist from a toothless Task Force that lacks the subpoena power to even interview the alleged assailants. What a joke!