Update on Story Re: Decertification of BYU Police

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

an agency which may lack understanding regarding important privacy and other relevant concerns.

Any state or city police who have to deal with minors all the time better already have such understanding, imo.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

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

Yes, thank you.  My brain has been half turned off since cold weather hit this year.

[Kenngo1969]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, thank you.  My brain has been half turned off since cold weather hit this year.

To be fair to you, the U.S. Department of Justice has figured prominently in various stories of national significance lately, so, for that reason, too, the error certainly is understandable.

[2BizE]

I’m in favor of decertification of BYUPD. I think it comes down to trust.  The public cannot trust BYUPD to do the right thing.  
1) Maddie Barney reported being raped.  BYU searches outside agency databases to find the rape report and provide it to BYU honor code office.  Ms. Barney was terminated as a student at BYU for being raped.

2) BYUPD failed to perform a robust investigation with corrective action and review as required by all police departments.  This formal review wasn’t occurring at all.

3) During the Joseph Bishop case, BYUPD refused to provide requests for information as required by law. BYUPD claimed they didn’t have to because they were a private institution.  Either you are a police department that follows the law or you are not a police department.

4) BYUPD is in this position for not behaving like a police department should behave.

 

 

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Any state or city police who have to deal with minors all the time better already have such understanding, imo.

Well, that's why not a few departments have at least one officer (and large departments have entire sections of personnel) devoted to working with juveniles.  In the case of university police departments, I'm sure that proper training is a primary focus.

[katherine the great]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm sure that proper training is a primary focus.

Perhaps but it still depends on the seal. I had a very bad experience with the (so called) BYU police when one of my kids was at EFY down there. Absolute buffoons. So unprofessional and immature! (yes I’m still bitter...)

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Perhaps but it still depends on the seal. I had a very bad experience with the (so called) BYU police when one of my kids was at EFY down there. Absolute buffoons. So unprofessional and immature! (yes I’m still bitter...)

I'm sorry to hear that.

[katherine the great]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm sorry to hear that.

That’s life. 😊

[smac97]

16 hours ago, bsjkki said:

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.”

I wonder what the stats are for the UofU's police.

Quote

”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.

I think BYU-PD and the Honor Code Office really erred in what they did here, despite the (apparent) fact that what was done was not against the law.  Nevertheless, the matter has been investigated, BYU has taken remedial measures, Lt. Rhoades is no longer with BYU-PD, and the Attorney General is apparently satisfied.

I continue to have qualms about BYU-PD's very existence.  I am not altogether comfortable with a private educational institution, particularly one affiliated with a religious group, having a civil law enforcement capacity.  That said, I am also developing qualms about what DPS is apparently trying to do.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Any state or city police who have to deal with minors all the time better already have such understanding, imo.

 

13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Well, that's why not a few departments have at least one officer (and large departments have entire sections of personnel) devoted to working with juveniles.  In the case of university police departments, I'm sure that proper training is a primary focus.

 

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

Perhaps but it still depends on the seal. I had a very bad experience with the (so called) BYU police when one of my kids was at EFY down there. Absolute buffoons. So unprofessional and immature! (yes I’m still bitter...)

 

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

That’s life. 😊

As long as you all live to tell about it, that's the most important thing.

[katherine the great]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As long as you all live to tell about it, that's the most important thing.

Yep! 😂

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

... I continue to have qualms about BYU-PD's very existence.  I am not altogether comfortable with a private educational institution, particularly one affiliated with a religious group, having a civil law enforcement capacity.  That said, I am also developing qualms about what DPS is apparently trying to do.

Thanks,

-Smac

Decertifying an entire agency is almost without precedent.  (Police Officer Standards and Training did it to Colorado City Town Marshal's Office.  Other than that ...)  Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I have to wonder, "Why?  Why is BYUPD nearly alone among agencies in apparently deserving, according to Public Safety Commissioner Jess Anderson, such a serious sanction?" 

[smac97]

13 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I’m in favor of decertification of BYUPD.

Okay.

Quote

I think it comes down to trust.  

With respect, I disagree.  I think it comes down to the law.

Quote

The public cannot trust BYUPD to do the right thing.  

It can't?  Why not?

Quote

1) Maddie Barney reported being raped.  BYU searches outside agency databases to find the rape report and provide it to BYU honor code office.  Ms. Barney was terminated as a student at BYU for being raped.

Are you aware of the remedial measures BYU took regarding this issue?  If yes, why aren't you accounting for those measures?  And if no, then perhaps you should do a bit more research on this topic.

Quote

2) BYUPD failed to perform a robust investigation with corrective action and review as required by all police departments.  This formal review wasn’t occurring at all.

CFR, please.

Quote

3) During the Joseph Bishop case, BYUPD refused to provide requests for information as required by law.  BYUPD claimed they didn’t have to because they were a private institution.  Either you are a police department that follows the law or you are not a police department.

A few thoughts:

First, you may be correct, or you may not.  My understanding is that the law on this point is unclear, and that there is ongoing litigation on this that is pending before the Utah Supreme Court.

Second, the Utah State Senate produced a bill, SB197, that clarified that law enforcement agencies affiliated with "private institution{s} of higher learning" are subject to government records requests.  Governor Herbert signed this bill into law on March 25, 2019.  Further, BYU had this to say (in march 2019) :

Quote

BYU worked specifically with the Attorney General’s Office and Senator Curt Bramble to create SB 197. BYU fully supports SB 197 and looks forward to complying with GRAMA when that bill becomes effective on May 14, 2019.

Third, that the statute needed to be amended to clarify this point sort of militates in favor of the idea that the obligation of BYU-PD to comply with government records requests was either (until recently) non-existent or else unclear.  The legislature will rarely go through the hassle of amending a statute if the statute is already clear on its face.

Fourth, do the foregoing items alter your assessment of whether BYU-PD should be decertified?  If not, why not?

Quote

4) BYUPD is in this position for not behaving like a police department should behave.

But is BYU-PD really "in this position" now?  Are you accounting for the remedial measures taken?  The investigations performed?  The passage of SB197 into law?  The current policies and procedures of BYU-PD, and whether it is complying with them?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 4, 2020 by smac97

[Bob Crockett]

13 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I’m in favor of decertification of BYUPD. I think it comes down to trust.  The public cannot trust BYUPD to do the right thing.  
1) Maddie Barney reported being raped.  BYU searches outside agency databases to find the rape report and provide it to BYU honor code office.  Ms. Barney was terminated as a student at BYU for being raped.

2) BYUPD failed to perform a robust investigation with corrective action and review as required by all police departments.  This formal review wasn’t occurring at all.

3) During the Joseph Bishop case, BYUPD refused to provide requests for information as required by law. BYUPD claimed they didn’t have to because they were a private institution.  Either you are a police department that follows the law or you are not a police department.

4) BYUPD is in this position for not behaving like a police department should behave.

Stupid decisions by police departments are not justification for getting rid of them.

But a private university, as large as BYU's, owned by a controversial religious body, charged with providing public police protection to 28,000 people?   Something wrong with that.  Policing is a public institution.  

[Kenngo1969]

One of the most puzzling things about the whole episode is that BYU/BYUPD told DPS/Commissioner Anderson several times, in essence, "Within the constraints of what the judge has told us we cannot disclose, we want to cooperate with you as much as we can."  BYU/BYUPD never heard anything, more time went by and, still, it never heard anything, all the while trying to keep lines of communication with DPS open ... "Hey, if you need anything, let us know.  We want to cooperate as much as we can, and we're willing to dialogue" ... and Commissioner Anderson, seemingly out of the blue, says, "Meh.  We're way past dialogue now."  It makes me wonder, what was Commissioner Anderson trying to do?  Ignore any attempts at communicating by BYU and "Run out the clock," so to speak (my phrase), and say, in essence, "Bzzzzzt!  Time's up!  We're moving to decertify BYUPD!"?  If this is how DPS normally operates  (color me doubtful ), but if this is how DPS normally operates, then, OK.  If not, however, then it seems to me that BYU/PD have good Equal Protection and Due Process arguments.

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Stupid decisions by police departments are not justification for getting rid of them.

But a private university, as large as BYU's, owned by a controversial religious body, charged with providing public police protection to 28,000 people?   Something wrong with that.  Policing is a public institution.  

BYU Police Department and its officers are subject to state oversight by Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training, just the same as any Police Department in the state.  The "give-up-your-certification-or-face-losing-it" ultimatum that POST gave BYUPD Lt. Aaron Rhoades is proof of that.  And, now, with the passage of SB197, BYUPD will be subject to open records laws just the same as any other agency.  In what material way, then (other than the fact that its employees are not paid using taxpayer dollars, but I call that a win), does BYUPD differ from any other law enforcement agency in the State of Utah?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Stupid decisions by police departments are not justification for getting rid of them.

But a private university, as large as BYU's, owned by a controversial religious body, charged with providing public police protection to 28,000 people?   Something wrong with that.  Policing is a public institution.  

1. I share you concern about BYU being owned by a "religious body," but whence the "controversial?"  How is that relevant?

2. Do you likewise object to private institutions that are not religiously affiliated having certified police departments?  This article includes a list of 196 private colleges and universities that have police departments, apparently comprising 38% of all private schools in the U.S.  If "{p}olicing is a public institution," then wouldn't religious affiliation be ultimately irrelevant?  Wouldn't all 196 private schools need to shutter their police departments and rely on the "public" police (presumably the police for the jurisdiction in which the school is located)?

3. I was not, until just now, aware of this development from October 2020:

Quote

Brigham Young University announced Thursday that it has created a security department that will “function separately” from its police — forming a new division that the Provo school says will specifically be exempt from the state’s open records laws.

...

In an email, BYU spokesperson Carri Jenkins confirmed that the school does not intend for the security division to have to respond to public records requests under the Government Records Access and Management Act, or GRAMA, because it is “not policing."

She said, “They will operate independent of the BYU Police Department and, like any private security company, will not be subject to GRAMA."

Instead, security personnel will monitor buildings and “have responsibility for campus parking," she said. Their role, overall, is described as more about oversight of safety than law enforcement.

Unlike police officers, they will not have the authority to make arrests or conduct traffic stops. And they will not have access to police databases, which were at the heart of the transparency issue with records at BYUPD.

“They will not have law enforcement authority,” Jenkins said, though she noted that the 10 full-time staffers will be armed.

Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, who sponsored the bill that required police forces at the state’s private universities to comply with public records laws, said it comes down to that distinction of duties.

He believes it’s “perfectly proper" for BYU to have separate police and security divisions as long as they stick to the appropriate tasks, he said. And security officers, under that scenario, wouldn’t need to share records with the public, he said. Essentially, they’re not dealing with significant public safety issues, he said, but rather internal university affairs.

And, because BYU is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it doesn’t have to share that information, Bramble said. “Any private entity, whether it’s a university or a company, is free to have their own internal security department,” he said Thursday. “That doesn’t bother me at all.”

Asked whether he was concerned that campus police might transfer issues or cases over to security if the university didn’t want the topic to be public, Bramble said, “that would leave a trail.”

Mark Tolman, an attorney who represents The Salt Lake Tribune in a lawsuit that contends BYU police records were subject to GRAMA before May 2019, cautioned that if the security staff does any police work, then it should be subject to public requests for that information.

“This should not be an end run around GRAMA," he said.

Tolman added that he wants to give the university the benefit of the doubt and hopes that creating the security department is “a recognition from BYU that they have been blurring the lines previously."
...
Tolman added that if the security division is used to transfer information from police to the Honor Code Office, then “we’re back at square one.”
...
Jenkins said that wouldn’t happen. She said: “Honor Code issues are not the responsibility of the BYU Security Department.”
...
The department currently has 17 full-time and sworn officers, as well as 10 part-time officers. The security division would have 10 full-time employees and more than 300 student employees, according to the news release; the student staff, Jenkins said, will not carry firearms or Tasers.

The former chief of the police department, Chris Autry, has been tapped to oversee both police and security in a supervisory role. And a new police chief is expected to be named shortly to replace him. Both will then report to BYU’s administration vice president and CFO, Steve Hafen.

He said in a statement Thursday: “The new police and security structure will fully separate law enforcement functions from internal security functions to effectively protect our campus community and allow BYU Police to focus solely on law enforcement activities.”

4. On balance, I can't help but wonder if BYU-PD is necessary.  If it was disbanded, and if Provo PD took up where it left off, then . . . what?  Provo ends up having to hire more police.  I'd be okay with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 4, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In what material way, then (other than the fact that its employees are not paid using taxpayer dollars, but I call that a win), does BYUPD differ from any other law enforcement agency in the State of Utah?

It is a part of a religiously-affiliated educational institution.

I'm not sure that's sufficiently "material" at this stage (given the remedial measures, etc.) but I'm putting it out there.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

15 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Ms. Barney was terminated as a student at BYU for being raped.

Actually she wasn’t terminated, she was suspended (put on academic hold where she couldn’t attend and apparently couldn’t even withdraw from her classes) because she refused to talk to the Honor Code Office about it due to her being told not to by the investigators/prosecutors.  She then chose to transfer out of the school...with very good reason.  I don’t think suspension was the least bit appropriate either, especially as the prosecutor asked BYU to put their investigation in hold until after the trial was concluded, but I think saying she was terminated for being raped isn’t accurate. 
 

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57162229e4b0018f9cbb012a

https://universe.byu.edu/2016/04/14/byus-sexual-misconduct-policies-scrutinized-online-petition-gaining-steam/

Edited December 4, 2020 by Calm

[rpn]

I've been a law enforcement officer and I have a seriously hard time believing this is about ONE guy who screwed up.   It had to have been known and sanctioned or at least ignored, in order for him to have been able to keep doing it so long.   BYU should be decertified for a time at least.   Any other department would have been in an instant.

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

... 4. On balance, I can't help but wonder if BYU-PD is necessary.  If it was disbanded, and if Provo PD took up where it left off, then . . . what?  Provo ends up having to hire more police.  I'd be okay with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

One thing to consider: Provo Police Department is funded, I would think, largely through property taxes.  While I would assume that students pay property taxes indirectly by having them folded into their rent, are property taxes paid by student renters adequate to offset the increased costs to Provo P.D. to police the campus?  Maybe, maybe not, right?  And as a church-sponsored institution, are there certain areas of BYU that don't pay property taxes?  If so, are the costs that would inhere to Provo PD for policing BYU completely offset by taxes?  Probably, but this isn't a concern one can simply dismiss out of hand without paying it due consideration, is it? 

A similar debate has occurred at a state-sponsored school, the University of Utah, following what happened to Lauren McCluskey and the aftermath, in which at least one (now-former) University of Utah Police officer was accused of inappropriate behavior in handling evidence that was turned over to him in the McCluskey case.  There, the hue-and-cry was similar: "Get rid of UUPD entirely!  All of its officers suck anyway!  Why do we need them!  Just let SLCPD patrol the campus!  Problem solved!"  (Although it's possible that some people clamoring to get rid of UUPD also have lost no love for SLCPD: Recall, for instance, what happened in the blood-draw brouhaha to University of Utah Nurse Alex Wubbels, who refused to allow an SLCPD officer to draw blood from a comatose patient who was on the ward of which Nurse Wubbels was in charge. For many folks, the problem isn't with the differentiator that comes before the word police, whether it's Salt Lake City Police, or University of Utah Police, or Brigham Young University Police.  It's with the word police, period.)

In sum, yes, probably, enough revenue comes into city coffers (at least under normal circumstances: with COVID-19 in the picture, who knows?) to enable cities to absorb the demands of policing additional territory that formerly was the responsibility of another (now-disbanded?) agency.  But it's not as though that question is so ridiculous on its face that it deserves no consideration.

[Kenngo1969]

14 minutes ago, rpn said:

I've been a law enforcement officer and I have a seriously hard time believing this is about ONE guy who screwed up.   It had to have been known and sanctioned or at least ignored, in order for him to have been able to keep doing it so long.   BYU should be decertified for a time at least.   Any other department would have been in an instant.

Hmm.  Perhaps you're more familiar with decertifications than I am, but I'm only aware of one other case in which Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training decertified an entire agency.  Are there others of which I am not aware?

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

I've been a law enforcement officer and I have a seriously hard time believing this is about ONE guy who screwed up. 

I don't believe it either. The officer was a scapegoat. What happened to the Honor Code rep who requested the information? How many times was this done? I think it was standard operating procedure for a long time...look at all those police record searches. I can't prove it because BYU has all the records and is not going to 'confess.' They have changed the system and law and I think they are much more professional now but I am disappointed with their response. Before the judge sealed the records, BYU was not sharing this information.

Edited December 5, 2020 by bsjkki

[rpn]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Are there others of which I am not aware?

There may only have been this one in Utah but the issue is about a national data base, and all of the sworn agencies in the US commit to not doing such things.   I'm saying that if any other agency anywhere had done it (and you're right that it doesn't happen often because there are ways to monitor personnel in how and what they are accessing, and a duty for management to keep tabs and had have oversight and officers who look up the girl they want to date or other info irrelevant would get caught and suspended and fired if it re-occurred).    And if that is what BYU police had done, they wouldn't be in this mess.   Instead they not just allowed it but it seems like their internal expectation was that catching people violating the honor code or holding students accountable for the honor code was seen as something the police was involved in and should be.   At the least they failed to do their due diligence in keeping the systems safe and respecting the privacy of the reporting system over a very long period of time and thus grossly negligence meaning they need to be cut off from access to the system for at least a while. 

 

[Kenngo1969]

34 minutes ago, rpn said:

There may only have been this one in Utah but the issue is about a national data base, and all of the sworn agencies in the US commit to not doing such things.

What national database are you talking about?  NCIC?  NLETS?  I doubt NCIC would contain much, if any, information on BYU students ... unless they had committed serious crimes.

34 minutes ago, rpn said:

   I'm saying that if any other agency anywhere had done it (and you're right that it doesn't happen often because there are ways to monitor personnel in how and what they are accessing, and a duty for management to keep tabs and had have oversight and officers who look up the girl they want to date or other info irrelevant would get caught and suspended and fired if it re-occurred).    And if that is what BYU police had done, they wouldn't be in this mess.   Instead they not just allowed it but it seems like their internal expectation was that catching people violating the honor code or holding students accountable for the honor code was seen as something the police was involved in and should be.   At the least they failed to do their due diligence in keeping the systems safe and respecting the privacy of the reporting system over a very long period of time and thus grossly negligence meaning they need to be cut off from access to the system for at least a while. 

 

Perhaps, but, originally, you insisted that BYUPD should be decertified.  Certification, on the one hand, and access to UCJIS, on the other hand, are separate issues.  So far, all I have seen are vague accusations that all BYUPD officers accessed UCJIS regularly for non-law-enforcement purposes, even though Lt. Rhoades was the only one sanctioned for it.  If that is so, however, I wonder why any attorney representing former Lt. Rhoades didn't protest the disparate treatment of his client for doing something that every other BYUPD officer allegedly did long and loudly.

Edited December 5, 2020 by Kenngo1969