BYU Police decertified

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, strappinglad said:

In the old days there was a " Police Blotter " which could be accessed by anyone to see who was drunk and disorderly, or caught stealing or fined for whatever. I assume this no longer exists , otherwise the Honor Code people could see every arrest and police action that was public record.

Au contraire, mon frere.  The old "police blotter" is still in effect.  By law, the police must make available basic arrest, bail, and incarceration information, although they may redact confidential data (birthdate, address, DL #, etc), and minors must not be exposed by name, etc.  The Honor Code people could legally access the basic data, but could not determine guilt until the completion of a trial.  The problem at BYU was that the PD was playing footsie with the Honor Code people, which is illegal.  I am very surprised that BYU Pres. Kevin Worthen (an Area Seventy) has not cleaned house and gotten BYU PD POST certified.  He is, after all, a lawyer and was even Dean of the Law School.  Surely he understands the law and wishes to abide by it.  Through his inaction, BYU has now become an embarrassment.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Tacenda]

Will this affect the McKenna Denson's case at all, are they still trying to get the recording from BYU police of them interview Joseph Bishop? I wonder if Radio Free Mormon made a dent in this whole thing happening?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Will this affect the McKenna Denson's case at all, are they still trying to get the recording from BYU police of them interview Joseph Bishop? I wonder if Radio Free Mormon made a dent in this whole thing happening?

Not sure but it would be nice to get the entirety of that case file out into the light of day. 

[bsjkki]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Will this affect the McKenna Denson's case at all, are they still trying to get the recording from BYU police of them interview Joseph Bishop? I wonder if Radio Free Mormon made a dent in this whole thing happening?

This is due to an investigation that began in 2016. I’m not as informed on the Denson angle but if the records are sought under the open records laws, they should be effected.

Sometimes, I wish I could consult the churches PR department. Just putting this here because it made NPR. The story itself is weak and not very factual or enlightening.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/26/698342856/utah-threatening-to-strip-brigham-young-university-police-force-of-its-authority

Edited February 27, 2019 by bsjkki

[provoman]

21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Will this affect the McKenna Denson's case at all, are they still trying to get the recording from BYU police of them interview Joseph Bishop? I wonder if Radio Free Mormon made a dent in this whole thing happening?

Sometime back, maybe early January 2019 Mckeena posted on hear facebook that she knew what was on the tape. She did not elaborate on how or what she knew.

 

As for not being a police department, I think that would make it even more difficult to claim BYU "decertified" PD should be subject to open records laws.

[rockpond]

Now BYU is appealing and has until Sept 1 before the decertification goes into effect. 

Can anyone give some possible rationale why BYU that now has an active court case against it, pending legislation, and this decertification wouldn’t just move towards compliance?  Why wouldn’t the Lord’s university work towards obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law of the land rather than fighting against all these efforts to get them to do what every other police department already does?

 

[bsjkki]

Follow up article from the Salt Lake Tribune with common questions about the desertification story. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/02/28/common-questions-their/

Edited February 28, 2019 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

Now BYU is appealing and has until Sept 1 before the decertification goes into effect. 

Can anyone give some possible rationale why BYU that now has an active court case against it, pending legislation, and this decertification wouldn’t just move towards compliance?  Why wouldn’t the Lord’s university work towards obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law of the land rather than fighting against all these efforts to get them to do what every other police department already does?

 

I find it interesting the BYU Police chief testified in favor of a bill that requires BYU to adhere to GRAMA. The bill is not retroactive. I can only think BYU is willing and in favor of adhering to GRAMA moving forward but doesn't want anyone to see their records from the past. There is still a Utah Supreme Court case that will need to be settled about the open records ruling that has already been lost by BYU but has been appealed.

Edited February 28, 2019 by bsjkki

[Thinking]

Back in the 80's when I was a BYU student, the BYU Police were often unofficially referred to as "rent-a-cops." Most students didn't respect them, perhaps because of the many negative stories about them. My favorite was reported in the Daily Universe. I will paraphrase since I couldn't find the article.

A graduate student was assigned to teach some undergraduate courses and was given a faculty parking pass. One day when he exited his car, a BYU police officer told him that students weren't allowed to park in the faculty lot. The student explained the situation, but the officer was not satisfied. The officer looked up the student's schedules (teaching and student), then waited in the lot for the next time he saw the car. When the student returned to his car at the end of the day, there was a parking ticket. Confused, he protested the ticket, and was told that he was issued the ticket during an hour when he was in class as a student. He was only allowed to park in the faculty lot during the time when he was actually teaching. He would then be expected to move the car to a student lot while he was in class as a student. The publicity from the Daily Universe article forced the BYU police to back off the student and he was not bothered anymore.

[Calm]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

Now BYU is appealing and has until Sept 1 before the decertification goes into effect. 

Can anyone give some possible rationale why BYU that now has an active court case against it, pending legislation, and this decertification wouldn’t just move towards compliance?  Why wouldn’t the Lord’s university work towards obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law of the land rather than fighting against all these efforts to get them to do what every other police department already does?

 

All I can think of is worry about potential lawsuits if they have to open any file...(edit:  see I misunderstood the previous post, the current bill does open up past records, so yeah, lawsuits or at the very least time wasted handing out files while a few look for lawsuits).but if it is not retroactive, not seeing the issue save they don't want to change, but since they already have in other ways, not a lot of sense.

And if they didn't care about honoring the law, they could continue to do whatever they want and just not leave a paper trail.  You can't assume they don't want to obey the law, they may interpret the law differently and believe being forced to turn over records is against the law.  They probably don't see themselves like every other police department...and I assume they are not the only police department that has fought GRAMA before.

From the linked article...they are not arguing the law doesn't apply, but that they have obeyed it:

Quote

It plans to appeal. It contends that it met the criteria for an internal investigation and for a response to a subpoena, and that the decertification — as the state’s action is called — is on technical grounds. It says the university police department meets all the criteria for existing under Utah law and administrative rules

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Back in the 80's when I was a BYU student, the BYU Police were often unofficially referred to as "rent-a-cops." Most students didn't respect them, perhaps because of the many negative stories about them. My favorite was reported in the Daily Universe. I will paraphrase since I couldn't find the article.

A graduate student was assigned to teach some undergraduate courses and was given a faculty parking pass. One day when he exited his car, a BYU police officer told him that students weren't allowed to park in the faculty lot. The student explained the situation, but the officer was not satisfied. The officer looked up the student's schedules (teaching and student), then waited in the lot for the next time he saw the car. When the student returned to his car at the end of the day, there was a parking ticket. Confused, he protested the ticket, and was told that he was issued the ticket during an hour when he was in class as a student. He was only allowed to park in the faculty lot during the time when he was actually teaching. He would then be expected to move the car to a student lot while he was in class as a student. The publicity from the Daily Universe article forced the BYU police to back off the student and he was not bothered anymore.

I don't know any college kids who have great feelings towards the college police force.  I think it's a mix of usually only have to deal with them when they are in trouble and then dealing with the ones like the cop in your story who are on some power kick and just being jerky.  

I'm glad the cop in the story was forced to back off.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

Now BYU is appealing and has until Sept 1 before the decertification goes into effect. 

Can anyone give some possible rationale why BYU that now has an active court case against it, pending legislation, and this decertification wouldn’t just move towards compliance?  Why wouldn’t the Lord’s university work towards obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law of the land rather than fighting against all these efforts to get them to do what every other police department already does?

 

The only thing I've seen in print is that BYU considers their police force to be a private police force and that's why they don't need to open their records.  Personally, I don't understand how a private police force can have the power to arrest people or hold them against their will.  That seems like it would be kidnapping.  Private police forces should not have the same powers and abilities as the police.  

[Calm]

Quote

Rhoades relinquished his peace officer certification in October 2018 rather than be investigated for a possible violation of those database rules.

From what I read elsewhere in another case, this seems to be consistent with how POST operates in terms of other job violations, investigations are dropped if officers resign ( I assume as long as the alleged violation under investigation is not criminal).

And there is precedent for both, from bsjkki's link

Quote

In other states, the status of private university police records vary based on how legislators crafted laws. In 2015, for example, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled records from private universities’ police departments must be open to the public. The next year, the Indiana Supreme Court decided the police department at the University of Notre Dame was not a public agency and didn’t have to comply with a records request from ESPN.

And it was originally not the state according to the link, but a newspaper that claimed BYU should be treated the same and now a judge has agreed.  If it had been the state pushing it from the beginning, I would view the appeal differently, but if it started as one private organization trying to use the court to dictate to another how they should behave, I see it as reasonable for an appeal to be made.

I still think if it has the same powers, it should be treated the same.  

Edited February 28, 2019 by Calm

[bsjkki]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

From what I read elsewhere in another case, this seems to be consistent with how POST operates in terms of other job violations, investigations are dropped if officers resign ( I assume as long as the alleged violation under investigation is not criminal).

The POST investigation stops but I think the issue is the officer committed a misdemeanor. I don’t think the officer gets a pass for law violations. 

[Calm]

Quote

Meanwhile, a bill that passed a Utah House of Representatives committee on Feb. 26 would clarify that BYU police must follow GRAMA. BYU police Chief Chris Autry testified in favor of the legislation.

But the bill, if it becomes law, would not be retroactive, its sponsor says. So for The Tribune to seek the requested communications — and to resolve whether the department must comply with GRAMA requests for records created before the bill potentially becomes law — the Supreme Court appeal remains necessary.

So it appears BYU is okay with the bill, but not the lawsuit demanding past records also be opened...which makes sense to me as even if nothing wrong was done---and that is unlikely given the pattern of searches---it could open the agency up to spending time and money to find and then defend against claims.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The POST investigation stops but I think the issue is the officer committed a misdemeanor. I don’t think the officer gets a pass for law violations. 

It would be interesting to find comparable cases.  It says some other cases were suspended, not fired or jailed.  Could have had to pay fines.  If the only penalty applied was suspension though, it makes sense that resigning would be seen as enough of a penalty since that is worse in terms of damages (loss of pay), it seems to me.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Calm

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The only thing I've seen in print is that BYU considers their police force to be a private police force and that's why they don't need to open their records.  Personally, I don't understand how a private police force can have the power to arrest people or hold them against their will.  That seems like it would be kidnapping.  Private police forces should not have the same powers and abilities as the police.  

I agree, but the SLTrib Q&A article that @bsjkki linked earlier today (and that @Calm quoted) shows us that there is precedence for BYU PD to act in the way it has.  I was curious about that so I'm grateful for the added insight.

On principle, however, it seems to me that the BYU PD ought to try to act in a manner consistent with the University's honor code.  And, from where I sit, they aren't.

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

It would be interesting to find comparable cases.  

More information on this officer. The DA declined to prosecute. The officer is the one who broke the law and it seems there is evidence he accessed records for two years. He gave records to the Deans office, honor code office and the title 9 office. 

Technically, the officer is the one who broke the law but he did it at the bequest of BYU. In the Madi Barney case it was the Honor Code office who requested her record search. In my opinion, it is logical to assume he searched student records when asked by BYU officials. 

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/02/28/lieutenant-with-byu/

[Calm]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

Now BYU is appealing and has until Sept 1 before the decertification goes into effect. 

Can anyone give some possible rationale why BYU that now has an active court case against it, pending legislation, and this decertification wouldn’t just move towards compliance?  Why wouldn’t the Lord’s university work towards obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law of the land rather than fighting against all these efforts to get them to do what every other police department already does?

 

They apparently have agreed to the bill.  What they are protesting is having it applied retroactively when the bill does not require it, it seems to me.

[sjdawg]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I find it interesting the BYU Police chief testified in favor of a bill that requires BYU to adhere to GRAMA. The bill is not retroactive. I can only think BYU is willing and in favor of adhering to GRAMA moving forward but doesn't want anyone to see their records from the past. There is still a Utah Supreme Court case that will need to be settled about the open records ruling that has already been lost by BYU but has been appealed.

If they have nothing to hide then why are they afraid to open their records to the investigators?  Rhetorical question I guess.

[bsjkki]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

They apparently have agreed to the bill.  What they are protesting is having it applied retroactively when the bill does not require it, it seems to me.

Two separate items. The bill does  not require retroactive compliance on GRAMA. But, BYU lost a court case that requires them to comply with GRAMA and open their records. This is being appealed to the Utah Supreme Court and is in process. 

Now there is a third issue as they appeal the decertification. 

This is a thorough article on the use/misuse  by BYU of the Spillman database. https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/education/college/byu/byu-police-accessed-thousands-of-external-agencies-police-records-actions/article_e5a13981-d710-5a76-9059-cb153121a983.html

And in this editorial, the Salt Trib explains they have never gotten a report from the Attorney General about the results of the investigation into BYU’s use of the database. https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/editorial/2018/07/14/tribune-editorial-byu/

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Two separate items. 

I think there has been confusion thinking they required the same behaviour from BYU (including by myself for a bit) or were dealing with the same thing...decertification a direct result of the bill or bill direct result of the lawsuit, etc. though I may be projecting on this thread what I have seen as well as did myself.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

According to Tracy, Spillman was purchased as a unit countywide about 10 years ago. The BYU Police Department had Spillman before Utah County’s other agencies, but once the other agencies purchased the technology, the BYU Police Department joined as a sharer and distributor of records. The department subsequently entered into an agreement into what it could and could not do with that technology

If BYU violated the agreement, even if only a few of their representatives were involved, I think they should be held liable for that.  At best, it could be looked at as poor training and oversight with what appears to be extremely high misuse (it would probably be good to find comparable numbers...how often would Provo Police access, for example, and then adjust for population size and maybe age; I assume college kids have lower rates of criminal or misdemeanor behaviour  in general, so if anything the rate of request should be lower I am guessing).  Otoh, if it was ignored or encouraged....I think anyone knowingly involved in that way should lose their jobs if in a position of authority or choice as in they weren't ordered to do it, but chose it on their own knowing it was in violation of the general agreement of usage (though I am open to changing my mind due to there being limited info on how it worked).  Someone who thought it was okay because of poor training, I don't think I would hold them responsible.

Big question, does Spillman have an instruction on proper usage when accessing it, so everyone would know if they used it?  (Like signing up for the board and confirming one accepts the terms of service or whatever they are called)

Edited February 28, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

And in this editorial,

I find the use of "secret police" in the editorial hyperbole given that BYU Police have in the past releases some information, have (had?) a police blotter announcing investigations/actions, etc.  "Secret Police" has a connotation inappropriate here, imo.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Calm

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I find the use of "secret police" in the editorial hyperbole given that BYU Police have in the past releases some information, have (had?) a police blotter announcing investigations/actions, etc.  "Secret Police" has a connotation inappropriate here, imo.

I agree that term is over the top.