Update on Story Re: Decertification of BYU Police

[smac97]

Wow.  This seems like a risible article title (from KSL, no less): Did BYU police engage in 'deception' or are Utah's efforts to decertify 'politically motivated'?

Quote

Attorneys fighting to prevent the state from decertifying the BYU Police Department say the state "has no lawful basis" to do so.

But the Utah Department of Public Safety contends that Brigham Young University police "repeatedly refused to be accountable to anyone or anything except BYU and engaged in a pattern of deception when confronted with its failures."

The latest statements in the ongoing debate over decertification were made in court filings submitted last week.

I sure would like to better understand what is going on here.  I have some philosophical concerns about BYU having a police force, since it is a private institution affiliated with the Church, and also because the issues that gave rise to the decertification effort involved BYU police personnel (one guy) providing law enforcement data to the Honor Code Office.  Per this article, Lt. Aaron Rhoades "accessed approximately 16,000 records during a two-year period on a police database reserved only for police investigations, according to attorneys for the state. The database contains protected personal information of citizens. In 21 of those incidents, Rhoades took information gathered from that database and shared it with BYU's Honor Code Office or Title IX office — including 12 cases that weren't even investigated by BYU police. Most of the personal information illegally shared by Rhoades was of women who were victims of sexual assault."

It is quite disturbing that A) Lt. Rhoades did this at all, B) that he did so many times over, C) that he took this information to BYU's Honor Code Office or Title IX office, D) that the Honor Code and Title IX offices apparently went along with this, and E) most of the personal information shared "was of women who were victims of sexual assault."  This is very troubling (though apparently not against the law), particularly given that it seems that BYU was credibly accused of disciplining students who reported sex crimes if they were violating the Honor Code at the time of the assault (as evidenced by the 2016 reforms at BYU).

I don't fault BYU for having an Honor Code.  I don't fault BYU for enforcing it.  My concern is the means and methods.  BYU, a private educational institution affiliated with the Church, used private information about its students obtained from a governmental source to enforce religious tenets, and did so against "victims of sexual assault." 

This article quotes the Utah Attorney General's Office as saying: "We are satisfied that the structure that allowed this to happen has been remedied."  This seems like a significant point.  If the AG is satisfied, why is the effort to decertify contiuing?

Back to the original article:

Quote

In February 2019, the Utah Department of Public Safety administration announced a decision to decertify the campus police department for failing to comply with an investigative subpoena issued by Peace Officer Standards and Training, which sought information on any internal investigation conducted into former BYU Police Lt. Aaron Rhoades.

The decertification was to take effect Sept. 1, 2019, but BYU has been allowed to continue operating its police department as it appeals that decision.

On Oct. 27, attorneys for both sides made their cases before administrative law Judge Richard Catten. BYU asked for summary judgment, hoping Catten would rule in its favor and dismiss the state's effort to decertify.

But when Catten issued his preliminary ruling, he noted that he would likely side with the state.

"Based on the pleadings, exhibits, statutes, rules and the arguments of the parties, it has been preliminarily determined that the undisputed facts set forth in BYUPD's motion for summary judgment may not support judgment as a matter of law in BYUPD's favor," Catten wrote in his decision issued Nov. 4.

The judge gave each side until Nov. 25 to respond to his preliminary ruling.

BYU responded with a blistering 47-page objection to both the ruling and the state's efforts to uphold its decision to decertify the police department.

Wow.  I would think BYU would be pretty milquetoast in its briefing style.  Maybe "blistering" is an overstatement.

Quote

In court documents, attorneys for BYU argue that Catten's ruling ignores the facts of the case, "proposes clearly erroneous findings, including false allegations against BYU police and its officers," and "improperly advocates" for the Department of Public Safety.

"DPS cannot decertify an entire police force simply because its attorneys raise a lawful objection, seek to comply with a government-requested secrecy order, or refuse to waive the attorney-client privilege. To hold otherwise would disregard the law on the procedural propriety of those objections, would violate due process and suggests DPS believes its authority is supreme and incontestable," attorneys for BYU argued.

Their objection goes on to question why the state wants the BYU Police Department decertified, saying the effort is politically motivated.

"Moreover, legitimate questions must be asked about what is driving the effort by DPS to impose the most draconian and unprecedented sanction of decertification based on such thin and unreasonable grounds in denial of basic due process rights. If this case goes to trial, BYU will establish that the effort to decertify BYU police is and always has been pretextual and politically motivated, as reflected in DPS' effort to ignore the undisputed facts and to make up laws that don't exist," according to court documents.

Wow!  "Blistering" seems pretty apt.  BYU is publicly accusing a state entity - the Utah Department of Public Safety - of some pretty serious misconduct (using "pretextual and politically motivated" efforts to decertify BYUPD).  Them's fighting words.  

Quote

BYU contends that a lone officer — Rhoades — who retired and no longer holds a peace officer certification, was responsible for improperly accessing and sharing information from a police database. And that the department did properly investigate that officer as well as comply with subpoenas from the state.
...
The state, meanwhile, believes Catten should issue a summary judgment in favor of the Department of Public Safety.

"A contrary result would render the applicable statutes and rules meaningless and would permit the law enforcement agency of a private college or university to be accountable only to its own university, rather than the commissioner of DPS," the state wrote in its response.

In their response, attorneys for the public safety department argue that BYU should have just admitted that no internal investigation was conducted into Rhoades.

"BYUPD's blanket failure to turn over any documents at all, or any information, including the officer's telephone number and last known address, during the pendency of the POST investigation, is tangible evidence of BYUPD's refusal to comply with the POST's authority and therefore the authority of the commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety.

"The undisputed facts lead to the conclusion that BYUPD attempted to avoid transparency, accountability and candor: three qualities any law enforcement agency with the power and authority to arrest citizens throughout the state of Utah must possess in order to maintain public trust," according to the state. "If the commissioner did not take action to decertify BYUPD in the face of these facts, it would suggest that BYUPD is free to operate, unlike other law enforcement agencies throughout the state, with impunity and under a shroud of secrecy without fear of repercussions."

Huh.  When I first read this article, I admit I felt some frustration at BYU.  But the more I looked into it, the more I read, the more circumspect I became.  I need to read more to better understand the complexities.  The broader narrative was genuinely disturbing and upsetting, but if the misconduct has been remedied to the satisfaction of the Utah Attorney General's Office, whence the continued push to decertify BYUPD?

There seems to be a significant factual and/or legal dispute about whether BYU complied with the law.  It sounds like the decertification effort centers not so much on the conduct of Lt. Rhoades, but more on the subsequent behavior of BYUPD.  Specifically, whether BYUPD cooperated with the DPS (Utah Department of Public Safety) POST investigation.  In this statement it seems that BYU is claiming that it was "legally restricted" from providing some of the documents requested by the DPS during its investigation:

Quote

What happened when a University Police officer was investigated for alleged improper sharing of information with the Honor Code Office and other campus units?

In May 2016, at BYU’s request, the Utah Department of Public Safety (DPS), through the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), conducted an investigation into allegations that Lt. Aaron Rhoades shared nonpublic information with BYU’s Honor Code Office and other campus units. BYU is legally restricted from providing some records and information related to the SBI investigation because of Secrecy Orders entered at the request of the State of Utah, which remain in place. Two years later, after a thorough investigation by SBI, the Utah Attorney General’s office declined to prosecute Lt. Rhoades. Ultimately, in agreement with the Attorney General’s office, BYU disciplined Lt. Rhoades for sharing nonpublic information, which, although not a crime, violated university policy. During an investigation of the same conduct by the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) division of DPS, Lt. Rhoades retired from BYU and voluntarily relinquished his POST certification.

So BYU requested the external investigation.  That's good.

BYU is saying here that it was "legally restricted from providing some records and information related to the SBI investigation because of Secrecy Orders entered at the request of the State of Utah, which remain in place."  Is that correct?  How has DPS responded to this?  If BYU really is "legally restricted" from giving records/information to the DPS, why would the DPS then seek to punish BYU for filing to provide those records/information?

See also here (same link):

Quote

What led to DPS seeking to decertify University Police?

In January 2019, Utah Commissioner of Public Safety Jess Anderson presented a demand letter to University Police Chief Chris Autry that University Police permit DPS access to all records and personnel and to allow DPS to conduct another investigation of University Police. In response, Chief Autry committed to provide access to all University Police records and personnel deemed necessary by DPS personnel to conduct an investigation. Rather than accept BYU’s cooperation, on February 20, 2019, Commissioner Anderson issued a notice of intent to decertify University Police claiming that (1) former Chief Stott failed to conduct an investigation into the misconduct of Lt. Rhoades and (2) BYU failed to respond to a POST subpoena. Both alleged grounds for decertification are incorrect.

Is it true that sharing information with the Honor Code Office is NOT one of the grounds for decertification?

Yes. Sharing information with the Honor Code Office by Lt. Rhoades is NOT one of the grounds for decertification. After a two-year investigation, the Attorney General’s office decided not to prosecute Lt. Rhoades. He subsequently retired from BYU and relinquished his POST certification. That issue has been resolved. It is not even mentioned in the decertification letter.

The grounds for decertification are based on two allegations. The first is that former Chief Stott did not investigate the alleged criminal misconduct, even though:

• He requested that DPS investigate those issues.
• After his request, DPS conducted two separate investigations.
• He was prohibited from conducting his own investigation by a state-requested secrecy order.
• Upon court authorization BYU conducted an internal investigation.

The second allegation is that BYU failed to respond to a subpoena, even though:

• BYU has properly responded to all subpoenas.
• BYU has produced thousands of pages of documents.
• BYU has offered testimony from numerous witnesses.

Wow.  As the saying goes: "The plot thickens!"

A more detailed statement from BYU, dated March 22, 2019, is available here.

A good solid legal dispute.  On balance, I think BYU will (ultimately) prevail.  Lt. Rhoades really screwed up (as, I think, did others at BYU).  But again, if the issue has been remedied, I have some concerns now about the effort to decertify (notwithstanding my philosophical concerns about BYUPD in the first instance).

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

@smac97,

I assume BYU could appeal an adverse final decision by the Administrative Law Judge, correct?  Where would an appeal go, to the Fourth District Court?  Or would BYU have to file a separate action to get the matter reviewed?

Thanks in advance,

-Ken

Edited December 3, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

In this statement it seems that BYU is claiming that it was "legally restricted" from providing some of the documents requested by the DPS during its investigation...

University Police permit DPS access to all records and personnel and to allow DPS to conduct another investigation of University Police.

Is this something that would occur with a public police department?  If not and it is an issue at times for the Justice dept trying to do its job, seems to me any private police force should not be certified to act like a public one (iirc, that is what the decertification is).

But that appears to be a different argument than the one being made against BYU.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

In this statement it seems that BYU is claiming that it was "legally restricted" from providing some of the documents requested by the DPS during its investigation...

University Police permit DPS access to all records and personnel and to allow DPS to conduct another investigation of University Police.

Is this something that would occur with a public police department?  

I have no experience in this field, but my guess would be yes.  Investigation of misconduct by law enforcement is generally taken pretty seriously, and it usually involves an outside investigative agency (in this case, the State Bureau of Investigation) so as to avoid conflicts of interest.  

I think this is the key bit: "In May 2016, at BYU’s request, the Utah Department of Public Safety (DPS), through the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), conducted an investigation into allegations that Lt. Aaron Rhoades shared nonpublic information with BYU’s Honor Code Office and other campus units. BYU is legally restricted from providing some records and information related to the SBI investigation because of Secrecy Orders entered at the request of the State of Utah, which remain in place."

A few more details here:

Quote

Since authorities began investigating BYU police in 2016, the state Department of Public Safety and the Utah attorney general’s office have remained tight-lipped, and have blocked The Salt Lake Tribune’s records requests seeking that information.

Officials publicly acknowledged for the first time this week their reason why: A Utah judge issued a secrecy order in the investigation nearly three years ago at the request of prosecutors — an order that remains in place to this day.

What judge is keeping the investigation behind closed doors?

That, too, is a secret.

“This cannot stand,” said Tribune Editor Jennifer Napier-Pearce. “This investigation was conducted by the state of Utah and should be available to the public.”

She said the newspaper is exploring its options, including possible legal action, to get access to records it has been fighting for since 2016.

“While we’re happy to finally know why they haven’t turned over their findings to us,” she said, “we’re very concerned to learn that a secrecy order is in place.”

The Tribune on Wednesday received a response to a records request in which the attorney general’s office explained why it can’t release information on the completed investigation.

“Beginning in July 2016, secrecy orders have been entered at the request of the state of Utah,” the denial reads. “These secrecy orders entered at the request of the state of Utah remain in place.”

The Tribune asked BYU for comment and a spokeswoman said all they could do is repeat the same sentence stated above. 
...
State prosecutors could not speak about the court action, citing the secrecy order. But Criminal Deputy Craig Barlow, with the attorney general’s office, explained the process generally, saying a prosecutor’s request for secrecy is not all that unusual. He estimated that investigators make dozens of these secrecy requests every year — usually to not alert a potential suspect to the police’s efforts.

Secrecy orders are also often used in financial crimes, Barlow explained, where investigators may want a bank to hand over records without telling a suspect. They are also frequently used in investigating drug-trafficking operations.

There are no expiration dates on these orders.

This means some investigations could remain under seal indefinitely, though Barlow said investigations are most often made public if prosecutors decide to file charges.

The law "is almost silent about what happens when you get to the end,” Barlow said. “There really is no guidance about how to go about an exit strategy.”

Greg Ferbrache — a former prosecutor with the attorney general’s office who is now in private practice — said the secrecy orders are not intended to keep the public from knowing about what happened. He said it is most often used to protect the constitutional rights of those who are accused.

“Its purpose is not to keep an investigation under secrecy forever,” he said.

But in the investigation into BYU police, it’s not clear why the records would remain under seal.

Huh.  I learn something new every day.

I'm really confused about why the ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) and the DPS are apparently seeking to decertify BYUPD because . . . it complied with secrecy orders issued by a judge.  

Imagine if one government entity (the judge that entered the secrecy orders) told you to do X, and another government entity (DPS and the ALJ) told you to do not-X.  That seems to be what happened here.  

I understand Jennifer Napier-Pearce's concern, but if BYU failed to produce documents in order to comply with a court order, I don't see how BYU is at fault.  And I don't see that as a viable basis for decertifying BYUPD, either.

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

If not and it is an issue at times for the Justice dept trying to do its job, seems to me any private police force should not be certified to act like a public one (iirc, that is what the decertification is).

The Justice Department is not involved.

BYU is not the only private university to have POST-certified law enforcement.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have some philosophical concerns about BYU having a police force, since it is a private institution affiliated with the Church,

Why do any universities have police forces?

[Kenngo1969]

You know, the fact that many people at the center of the controversy are (or were) minors and/or are students very well could have a direct bearing on what BYUPD can turn over in response to a records request and what it cannot.  I could see that being a potential issue both with respect to what the Department of Public Safety might be asking for and what the Salt Lake Tribune might be asking for.

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Why do any universities have police forces?

Cynics might say that one reason is so that universities can air any dirty laundry they might have in house rather than elsewhere, but, as I hint at above, there are special considerations with respect to the handling of student information that might make it advisable for universities to be able to handle certain matters independently rather than depending on an agency which may lack understanding regarding important privacy and other relevant concerns.

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Imagine if one government entity (the judge that entered the secrecy orders) told you to do X, and another government entity (DPS and the ALJ) told you to do not-X.  That seems to be what happened here.  

We've had that happen at work where a federal inspector says something has to be done one way or we'll be cited and a state inspector says not to follow the federal instructions or we'd be cited...and around and around.

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Cynics might say that one reason is so that universities can air any dirty laundry they might have in house rather than elsewhere, but, as I hint at above, there are special considerations with respect to the handling of student information that might make it advisable for universities to be able to handle certain matters independently rather than depending on an agency which may lack understanding regarding important privacy and other relevant concerns.

Perhaps, but it seems like a crime is a crime regardless of whether it's committed on university grounds or down the street. 

[Kenngo1969]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps, but it seems like a crime is a crime regardless of whether it's committed on university grounds or down the street. 

That's true, but, again, if a crime is committed by (or is committed against) a student, a whole separate universe of privacy laws and regulations come into play.  BYU hardly is alone in having its own police force. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

... The Justice Department is not involved. ...

 

I think Calm's referring to the Department of Public Safety.

[ksfisher]

42 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

if a crime is committed by (or is committed against) a student, a whole separate universe of privacy laws and regulations come into play.

Why?  Do they enjoy more protections that I do because they're attending a university?  What's the difference between someone breaking into a car in a university parking lot versus across the street at McDonald's?

(not arguing one way or the other, but I really don't understand what the difference is)

[katherine the great]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Why?  Do they enjoy more protections that I do because they're attending a university? 

Kind of. Universities are subject to different privacy laws than other institutions. For instance I’m not allowed to speak to my students’ parents about their grades or almost anything else. Which kind of makes this BYU thing all the more egregious with their own police force and their own internal offices communicating with each other about the victims’ personal lives.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Kind of. Universities are subject to different privacy laws than other institutions. For instance I’m not allowed to speak to my students’ parents about their grades or almost anything else. Which kind of makes this BYU thing all the more egregious with their own police force and their own internal offices communicating with each other about the victims’ personal lives.

In understand that.  They're grown ups and their grades are their own business.  But how does a student breaking into someones car on university grounds differ from me breaking into a car at a McDonald's across the street from the university? 

[katherine the great]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

In understand that.  They're grown ups and their grades are their own business.  But how does a student breaking into someones car on university grounds differ from me breaking into a car at a McDonald's across the street from the university? 

It shouldn’t. Unless the on campus police officer is trolling data from neighboring pds and sharing personal info about the student owner of the car. (eg: The student was parked there so that he could attend a kegger...)

[strappinglad]

I would be curious to know:

1. Is BYU campus private property?  If so then BYUPD is like a private security firm that handles matters ,say at a large bank or apartment building. 

2. If a student at BYU is living at a private residence off campus, which PD has jurisdiction in a case there? 

[katherine the great]

16 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

 

I would be curious to know:

1. Is BYU campus private property?  If so then BYUPD is like a private security firm that handles matters ,say at a large bank or apartment building. 

 

Seems logical but that’s not the case. 

 

17 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

2. If a student at BYU is living at a private residence off campus, which PD has jurisdiction in a case there? 

Local police department. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Why?  Do they enjoy more protections that I do because they're attending a university?  What's the difference between someone breaking into a car in a university parking lot versus across the street at McDonald's?

(not arguing one way or the other, but I really don't understand what the difference is)

Remember, as you read this, that I am one of the more "law-and-order" types you will ever run across in cyberspace.  I share your expectation that students be law abiding whether on or off campus.  Having said that, whether you or I agree with this notion or not, the idea is to extend student learning opportunities while they are still on campus, but outside the classroom.  Punishing students who commit delinquent acts (or crimes, if the students are adults) unduly would not accomplish that goal.  Also, don't forget that a fairly large number ... a minority, perhaps, but still a fairly large number ... of students are juveniles, and many delinquent acts by juveniles are treated differently than the same acts (crimes) would be if they were committed by adults, and this is true whether the juvenile is on or off campus.   While I agree with you that, often, it's a fine line, If first offenses or relatively minor offenses are punished too harshly, then such punishment reduces (rather than enhancing) incentives for the student/juvenile to conform his conduct to the expectations of the university and of society, respectively. 

Having said that, I do think that, also, whether an incident should be dealt with differently if it occurs on campus as opposed to happening off campus depends on the nature of the offense.  I think that the odds are much greater (or at least they should be) that a 17-year-old male student who rapes someone in a woman's dorm should probably be dealt with in much the same way that a 25-year-old who commits the same crime off of campus would be.  Agree or disagree, I hope that makes sense!

P.S.: I probably shouldn't do this, but I'll use myself as an example.  In 2003, I was charged with Class B Misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct (Creating an Offensive Condition) after a disagreement with officials at the University of Utah's Center for Disability Services.  I had long been an adult, so, yes, I should have known better, so in that sense, my example's not a good one.

However, having said that, Bar Associations and probably other entities have gotten so much mileage out of that long-ago Class B Misdemeanor that part of me wonders (though I hasten to add that I would never do this) if I simply should have "gotten my money's worth," so to speak, if entities were going to say, in essence, "Crime is crime!  We don't care if it's a Class B Misdemeanor or a First Degree Aggravated Felony, and we don't care how long ago it was committed, we don't think you should ever stop paying for it!"  Billy Faulkner was right: The past isn't dead; the past isn't even past.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[bsjkki]

IMO BYU used their police force to search student records on the police data base. They argued they were not subject to open records laws. I do not believe that only one officer was the only officer to give records to the honor code office but BYU isn’t sharing. 

IMO, they should be decertified and the Provo police should handle crimes at BYU and BYU can have their own glorified security staff. 
 

I will look but I remember reading how many more times BYU police searched the state data base vs other police departments. 
 

The honor code office was out of control and sought out information on students and BYU PD complied. (Rhoades case...it’s documented the honor code office requested information.)

[Kenngo1969]

36 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I would be curious to know:

1. Is BYU campus private property?  If so then BYUPD is like a private security firm that handles matters ,say at a large bank or apartment building. 

2. If a student at BYU is living at a private residence off campus, which PD has jurisdiction in a case there? 

As to your number one, not necessarily.  As of now, at least, BYU Police officers have full police powers: They can arrest people where a private security guard cannot, and they may use force, up to and including deadly force, if it is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or to someone else.  As police officers, they also have qualified immunity that protects them from being sued as private citizens for exercising police powers in good faith. And as police officers certified (again, as of now) by the State of Utah, they may exercise their police powers lawfully anywhere in the State of Utah.  While they cannot necessarily force the local jail to accept someone if they make an arrest, they can arrest someone they see committing a crime anywhere in the state of Utah.

[bsjkki]

BYU wants to keep their records private therefor they should not be a considered a state police force. 
https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/10/01/byu-creates-new-security/

“She said the move to create the new division was discussed with the Department of Public Safety years ago. And, she believes, it “alleviates concerns DPS has expressed that BYU should not use government law enforcement authority to perform internal security functions.”

Public safety officials first announced in February 2019 they would seek to decertify BYU police over a failure to investigate misconduct involving an officer passing sensitive information to the school’s Honor Code Office. But after BYU appealed, the effort essentially stalled. Nearly two years later, an appeal hearing is expected sometime this fall.

Meanwhile, the scope of BYUPD’s improper access of police databases has still never been fully disclosed.”

[Kenngo1969]

I should throw out a story my dad likes to tell.  Honestly, I don't remember if this guy had attended BYU, or if he had been an officer on BYUPD, or both, but once upon a time, my dad's agency hired him.  He worked part of a shift, and he was amazed at the things he saw.  He said, "People don't act like this!"  My dad said, "I hate to tell you this, but yes, they do." And he said, "No, they don't."  And my dad said, "Yes, they do."  And he quit in the middle of the shift, and that may have been the last anyone in law enforcement saw or heard of him.

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

...Meanwhile, the scope of BYUPD’s improper access of police databases has still never been fully disclosed.”

Which, as has already been discussed, is due to a judge's order.  Danged if they do, danged if they don't?

[bsjkki]

More background. 
 

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5146920&itype=CMSID

“The private university's police force does access other cases more often than the police force at nearby Utah Valley University, according to data from the sheriff's office.

During a 12-month period starting in May 2015, BYU police officers accessed 7,433 records — compared to UVU police, who accessed 4,163 records, the data show. Each school has an enrollment of about 33,000 students.”

”BYU Honor Code case • According to documents obtained by The Tribune, and verified by Provo police, BYU police have accessed another agency's police reports at the behest of the Honor Code in at least one case. In November 2015, an Honor Code investigator with the school contacted a BYU police lieutenant and asked him to seek information on a rape case reported by student Madi Barney.”

IMO...the honor code office used the BYUPD to access the states database to research students for Honor Code violations. 
 

They are no longer doing this BUT they are still using gramma arguments to hide the information. 
 

Not really very ‘honorable’ IMO.

 

 

[bsjkki]

More info from the archive. 
 

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/03/08/courts-secrecy-order/

The secrecy order was ‘convenient’ and there where implications that BYU requested the investigation in order to tie up the records so they were protected from public release. 
 

Kind of like some other investigations I’m aware of.