Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Grillo UC Davis Tentative Ruling

Grillo UC Davis Tentative Ruling

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,548 |Likes:
Published by KQED News
March 15, 2012, tentative ruling from Alameda Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo indicating he will allow release of University of California report on the November 2011 pepper spray incident.
March 15, 2012, tentative ruling from Alameda Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo indicating he will allow release of University of California report on the November 2011 pepper spray incident.

More info:

Published by: KQED News on Mar 16, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/16/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Tentative Ruling in Pike v. University of California Board of Regents, issued March15, 2012.Note: This is a copy of the ruling retrieved from the Alameda County SuperiorCourt website that the court posted in its entirety in a menu of case documents. It'snot an official copy of the order (for instance, is not formatted as a legal document,does not carry full information on the case title, and does not include the signatureof the judge issuing the order, Evilio Grillo. As noted in the ruling's final paragraph,this order is stayed until April 2, 2012, to allow the plaintiffs in the case (lawyers forUC Davis Police Sgt. John Pike and others) to appeal the order.This Tentative Ruling is issued by Judge Evelio Grillo.
The motion of Plaintiffs John Pike and The Federated University Police Officer'sAssociation (collectively "Petitioners") for a preliminary injunction came on regularly for hearing on March 16, 2012, in Department 31 of this Court, Judge Evelio Grillo presiding.Petitioners, appeared by counsel John Bakhit, of Lackie, Dammeier & McGill. Defendantthe Regents of the University of California (the "Regents") and Opposing Party appeared by counsel Nancy Sheehan of Porter/Scott. Intervener the American Civil Liberties Unionof Northern California (the "ACLU") appeared by counsel Michael Risher.
The Court having considered the pleadings and arguments submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion, and good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDEREDthat: (1) the motion of the Petitioners for a preliminary injunction is DENIED, and(2) the motions of the Petitioners and the Regents to seal portions of the record areDENIED.
 
BACKGROUND FACTS.
Starting in mid-November 2011, there were protests at UC Davis regarding tuition andother issues, and on November 17, 2011, students put up an Occupy encampment at theUC Davis Quad. By the next day, the UC Davis administration had decided to remove the
 
encampment and to that end the administration directed the UC Davis Police Department("UCDPD") to take action. In the course of interacting with the demonstrators at theQuad, an officer or officers used pepper spray on several of the demonstrators. Theadministration's decision and efforts to remove the encampment, including specificallythe UCDPD's use of pepper spray (collectively the "Incident"), was both widely reportedand widely criticized.Following the Incident, UC Davis placed three police officers on administrative leave andcommenced an Internal Affairs investigation. UC Davis also organized a task force (the"Task Force") headed by Cruz Reynoso to review the Incident and to makerecommendations regarding police procedures, command protocols, campus policies, andoversight structures. UC Davis also retained Kroll Associates, Inc. as an independentcontractor to collect information and to prepare a report regarding the Incident and tomake policy level recommendations. The resulting combined Reynoso/Kroll Report(collectively the "Report") is the subject of this motion.Kroll's investigation was separate from any Internal Affairs ("IA") investigation by theUCDPD. The Kroll report states, "[T]he Kroll Team has had virtually no contact with theInternal Affairs (IA) investigative team. The IA investigative team has not provided or shared any information with the Kroll team, including a witness list." (Kroll report page 6fn 1.) The Kroll investigation obtained documents from UC Davis, but the Kroll reportstates that there were "records withheld [by UC Davis and/or UCDPD] on the basis of  peace officer personnel record provisions." (Kroll report page 7.) UC Davis has notshared any documents generated in the IA process with Kroll or with the Task Force.(Meyer Dec., para 6.)The Kroll investigation interviewed police officers who were witnesses to the Incidentunder an agreement with counsel for those officers that the officers would be givenadministrative immunity and that they could not be subject to discipline for anything theyrevealed during those interviews. (Bakhit Dec., paras 8-9; Woodall Dec., para 2.) Kroll
 
did not interview police officers who were the subject of IA investigations. (WoodallDec., para 2.)The Kroll report states, "As personnel investigations are deemed confidential, under California law, this report does not include information obtained from any interview of any officer whose use of force is being reviewed or who has been deemed a potentialsubject of discipline; only witness officers have been interviewed." (Kroll report page 6fn 1.)The Kroll report is extensive and detailed. The report collects and contains factsregarding all aspects of the Incident, from the how the administration's decision-making process worked, to how the administration communicated instructions to the UCDPD, tothe content of those instructions, to how the UCDPD planned for clearing the Quad, tohow the UCDPD supervised officers at the Quad, to the actions of individual officers atthe Quad. The Kroll report does not recommend any discipline for any police officer. TheKroll report states, "Kroll's report does not address the issue of discipline to be imposed,if any, on individual officers for any use of force that occurred on November 18." (Krollreport page 6 fn 1.) The Kroll report makes recommendations regarding decision-making by the UC Davis administration, the organization of the systemwide UC police force, and proposed training for UC police officers. Kroll makes no recommendations regarding anyindividual person or police officer.The Reynoso report, which attaches the Kroll report, reviews the factual summary in theKroll report, makes conclusions regarding responsibility for the Incident, and makes policy recommendations. (Reynoso report page 5.) The Reynoso report's factualsummary is entirely derivative of the Kroll report. (Reynoso report page 6.) Regardingassigning responsibility for the Incident, the Reynoso report assigns responsibility to theUC Davis administration and to members of the UCDPD. The report considers variousdecision points in the Incident and describes how and why those decisions were made byspecific individuals. (Reynoso report pages 10-16 (deficiencies at the administrativelevel) and pages 17-20 (deficiencies in the police operation).) The report then assigns

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->