Remember the Pepper Spraying of Peaceful Students at California-Davis in November 2011? — The Investigative Task Force’s Report Has Been Released and it Lambasts University Authorities

© 2012 Peter Free

 

12 April 2012

 

 

Citation — to California-Davis investigative report

 

Cruz Reynoso, Peter Blando, Tatiana Bush, Penny Herbert, William McKenna, Eric Rauchway, Patrick Blacklock, Alan Brownstein, Dan Dooley, Katheryn Kolesar, Carolyn Penny, Rebecca Sterling, and Judy Sakaki, UC Davis November 18, 2011 “Pepper Spray Incident” Task Force Report: The Reynoso Task Force Report (March 2012) (released 11 April 2012)

 

 

When the local district attorney refuses to prosecute the people “you” arrested, that should be a clue that you stepped over the line

 

As a former police watch commander, I thought the Cal-Davis pepper spraying on 18 November 2011 stepped well over the constitutionally acceptable line.  Afterward, I was concerned that the cretins who initiated this bit of Big Daddy over-the-top-ness would get away it.

 

Fortunately, the comparatively liberal University of California system forced the truth out.  A task force headed by former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, assisted by the private investigative agency, Kroll, released its findings yesterday.

 

It remains to be seen whether anything negative will happen to the comparatively powerful people who made the mess.  The task force was not authorized to recommend disciplinary action.  (What a surprise.)

 

 

Report’s conclusions

 

The Reynoso Task Force Report definitively critiques Cal-Davis authorities — from the Chancellor Linda Katehi, down through the egregiously incompetent campus police department, including its apparently asinine chief, Annette M. Spicuzza.

 

The report begins by saying:

 

Our overriding conclusion can be stated briefly and explicitly. The pepper spraying incident that took place on November 18, 2011 should and could have been prevented.

 

The report’s Table of Contents essentially summarize the findings that support this conclusion:

 

There was a failure to investigate whether or not “non-affiliates” in the UC Davis Occupy encampment were present.

 

The Administration decided to deploy police to remove the tents on Nov. 18 before considering other reasonable alternatives.

 

The scope of the police operation to remove the tents was ineffectively communicated, not clearly understood by key decision-makers, and, accordingly, could not be adequately evaluated as to its costs and consequences.

 

There were no clear lines delineating the responsibility for decision-making between civilian administrators and police.

 

There was confusion as to the legal basis for the police operation.

 

The leadership team’s informal, consensus-based decision-making process was ineffective for supporting a major extraordinary event.

 

The UCDPD failed to plan for the intended action according to standard operating procedures.

 

Notwithstanding the deficiencies in the operations plan, the incident was not managed according to the plan.

 

The decision to use pepper spray was not supported by objective evidence and was not authorized by policy.

 

The pepper spray used, the MK-9, First Aerosol Projector, was not an authorized weapon for use by the UCDPD.

 

There was a breakdown of leadership in the UCDPD.

 

The Chancellor bears primary responsibility for the decision to deploy the police at 3 p.m. rather than during the night or early morning, which is a tactical decision properly reserved for police authorities.

 

The Chancellor bears primary responsibility for the failure to communicate her position that the police operation should avoid physical force.

 

Many members of the leadership team, including the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor Meyer, and Vice Chancellor Wood, share responsibility for the decision to remove the tents on Friday and, as a result, the subsequent police action against protesters.

 

Chief Spicuzza bears individual responsibility for failing to challenge the leadership team’s decision on the time of the police operation and for not clarifying the role the police were expected to play during the operation.  She is also responsible for numerous deviations from best police practices both before and during the operation as detailed in the Kroll report.

 

Offier P_____ bears individual responsibility for abdicating his duties as incident commander.

 

Lt. Pike bears primary responsibility for the objectively unreasonable decision to use pepper spray on the students sitting in a line and for the manner in which the pepper spray was used.

 

© 2012 Cruz Reynoso, Peter Blando, Tatiana Bush, Penny Herbert, William McKenna, Eric Rauchway, Patrick Blacklock, Alan Brownstein, Dan Dooley, Katheryn Kolesar, Carolyn Penny, Rebecca Sterling, and Judy Sakaki, UC Davis November 18, 2011 “Pepper Spray Incident” Task Force Report: The Reynoso Task Force Report (March 2012) (released 11 April 2012) (at page 6)

 

 

Scathingly bad multi-organizational failure

 

The Reynoso Report is a damning indictment of system-wide disorganization and the abdication of responsible leadership at California-Davis.

 

Because of my law enforcement past, I was particularly offended at the University Police’s jaw-dropping incompetence.

 

Incidents like the Occupy Movement, and related attempts to occupy buildings and spaces in violation of law and regulation, are commonplace on university campuses.  Several nationally recognized university departments (including my former one) have evolved policies and procedures to deal successfully with them.

 

That the Cal-Davis department (and, indeed, Chancellor Katehi) had not bothered to learn from colleague police agencies is mind-blowing.

 

 

The moral? — There are many highly paid jack-behinds in high places

 

To Cal-Davis’ credit, it had the courage to criticize itself.

 

However, I am fairly certain that Davis’ on-campus law school — indicatively named “King Hall” after Martin Luther King Jr. — and its pipeline to former Justice Reynoso, had a good deal to do with that.

 

In the absence of a bona fide, assertively “liberal” legal connection, I am not persuaded that our society cares enough to clean up its anti-constitutional, abuse-of-power messes.

 

It is slightly ironic that the liberal Davis campus would commit one of the country’s more blatant displays of misused police power and then turn around to point a persuasively justified finger at itself.