Apparently the Attorney General did not want the political hot potato of the pepper spray investigation, either. In a press release from the office of District Attorney Jeff Reisig, he announced that on December 9, 2011, the California Attorney General’s Office declined a request to investigate the events surrounding police officers’ use of pepper spray against protesters on the campus of the University of California at Davis last month.
Based on the Attorney General’s decision, the district attorney and the sheriff will continue their collaborative review of the incident, Mr. Reisig’s office announced on Wednesday.
In a letter from the Attorney General’s office, they state, “As you have mentioned, none of the traditional criteria warranting this Office’s assumption of the primary law-enforcement role in this matter – including a conflict of interest or inadequate resources – are present.”
They add, “This Office justifiably maintains great confidence in the commitment of your office, and that of local law enforcement generally, to discharge its duties, and we therefore decline your request.”
“We appreciate the attorney general’s vote of confidence in our ability to competently handle this job, but the fact remains that this issue has far-reaching ramifications and that there are limited resources in Yolo County,” Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven said in a statement on Wednesday.
He added, “Despite this, the sheriff and district attorney will do our very best to conduct the investigation.”
The letter from the Attorney General’s office also noted that “the Governor has directed the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to review its guidelines for law enforcement on the proper use of non-lethal force, particularly pepper spray, in the context of civil disobedience and other forms of public protest.”
They write, “This Office is closely monitoring the efforts of the Commission to fulfill the Governor’s directive, as its work is important to the development and adherence to appropriate policies by law enforcement, both on and off university Campuses.”
However, the close ties of the law enforcement community, public trust and personnel suggest that the Attorney General’s office should have been the one to investigate this matter rather than the district attorney’s office and sheriff.
In a letter dated November 29, District Attorney Jeff Reisig and Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto asked Attorney General Kamala Harris to take over the investigation.
The Vanguard from the start believed the Attorney General was better equipped to handle this investigation, and believes the DA and sheriff have acted appropriately in this matter.
In a joint letter they wrote at the end of November, “After conducting a brief review of the issues surrounding the November 18, 2011, events on the campus of the University of California at Davis it is our conclusion that this is an incident that mandates the involvement of the Office of the Attorney General at the earliest of stages.”
The sheriff and district attorney added, “While the traditional indicia requiring the Attorney General’s involvement, conflict or lack of resources, may not be present in this matter these events are not traditional in nature and call for an examination of events that have statewide ramifications.”
They rightly acknowledge that there needs to be an appearance of independent investigation and propriety, and that without such an action, there is the possibility of the public’s confidence being undermined.
“In the absence of such action it is our belief that the public’s confidence in the conclusions reached may be significantly undermined,” they write.
They also raise an important point that really what is at issue is the actions and policies of the UC Police, the UC Regents and the system-wide response to student protests.
They write, “While the issues involved occurred in Yolo County, they were also on a University of California campus, and the results of an examination into these events will impact all ten (10) University of California campuses.”
Resources were also a concern as they noted, “It has also become apparent that neither the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department, nor the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office possess the resources necessary to conduct the ‘quick’ review that both you and the public are expecting.”
One of our chief qualms was the ties between people like Lt. John Pike and investigators for the Yolo County District Attorney’s office.
The letter acknowledges this concern as well, writing, “Furthermore, because the Yolo County legal and law enforcement communities are relatively small, there are multiple perceived and/or possible legal conflicts that are likely to arise and undermine the effectiveness of any findings.”
It becomes quite clear that this is an investigation that no one in particular wants. We are less than convinced that William Bratton and Kroll can perform an adequate and impartial investigation – and without that, the task force led by Cruz Reynoso will have difficulty making a proper determination of what happened.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I think it is shameful that our Attorney General is taking a “hands off” approach because of the possible “political” ramifications.
The DA and Sheriff’s office acted appropriately in asking the Attorney General’s office for help with this investigation.
It is very sad that so many of our politicians seem to want to look the other way instead of really trying to handle the tough problems.
Yolo County Sheriff and District Attorney write,
“[i]Furthermore, because the Yolo County legal and law enforcement communities are relatively small, there are multiple perceived and/or possible legal conflicts that are likely to arise and undermine the effectiveness of any findings.”[/i]
Which I read to mean,
Everybody knows there is huge criminal culpability, either by the pepper spraying cops or the people who ordered their actions. The already lousy credibility of the Yolo County good-ol-boys law enforcement community is really going straight down the toilet when we let our guys off the hook, Scott-free.
[quote]They write, “While the issues involved occurred in Yolo County, they were also on a University of California campus, and the results of an examination into these events will impact all ten (10) University of California campuses.”[/quote]
This is key, and I really do not understand the reluctance of the AG’s Office to weigh in on this important issue…
Elaine: No law enforcement agency wants to investigate the actions of another law enforcement officer. I at least appreciate our local officials being honest and doing the right thing in this regard. The AG is the one that should be investigating this.
[quote]Everybody knows there is huge criminal culpability, either by the pepper spraying cops or the people who ordered their actions.[/quote]
Wow. I’m glad we are waiting for the results of the investigation…
It has not been directly mentioned that each month the heads of each law
enforcement agency in Yolo County meet together with the D.A., and the Sheriff. These are standing meetings and minutes of the meetings are
available. After years of meeting together over refreshments and discussing and solving mutual problems and concerns, of course the D.A. and the Sheriff have a conflict in probing their fellow law enforcement
leader, UCD’s police chief.
[quote]Elaine: No law enforcement agency wants to investigate the actions of another law enforcement officer. I at least appreciate our local officials being honest and doing the right thing in this regard. The AG is the one that should be investigating this.[/quote]
Yes, but since the AG won’t, what a mess it leaves for local agencies and even the university system, who could have used some guidance here. It’s a shame…
I don’t disagree Elaine.
dgrundler said,
“Wow. I’m glad we are waiting for the results of the investigation…”
My point is that the many videos of the pepper spray incident all show the law being violated by police. That’s a given. The only thing left for any investigations to determine is who to hold responsible. The cops say they were just following orders. Katehi says she ordered the cops to leave if they were outnumbered or encountered difficulty removing the tents. Katehi> Meyer < Cops. Guess who gets thrown under the bus.
The Sheriff is unwilling to investigate this. If he does, we know the results already – that the officers acted the best that they could under the circumstances and followed existing policy, so should be exonerated of any and all wrong doing. What else can we expect after the “investigations” of the death of a mentally ill man by asphyxiation after being dog-piled by officers from the City of Woodland, and the shooting a man on a busy freeway overpass by officers. In each of these incidents, someone who wasn’t doing anything illegal at the time of police contact died at the hands of officers. The difference here is that no one died, there were many witnesses and video recordings, and the victims were not mentally ill (scary) or Hispanic men (gang members/on meth). They were university students and faculty exercising their rights as American citizens. A little harder to sweep under the rug. Prieto (and Reisig) has to risk upsetting his officers, and police officers in general, unless he has their back and exonerates them. Prieto even had excuses for the officer who locked the courthouse doors, preventing media and family members from attending a preliminary hearing. Don’t expect any revelatory investigation report from these two. It just won’t happen.
[quote]My point is that the many videos of the pepper spray incident all show the law being violated by police. That’s a given. The only thing left for any investigations to determine is who to hold responsible. The cops say they were just following orders. Katehi says she ordered the cops to leave if they were outnumbered or encountered difficulty removing the tents. Katehi> Meyer < Cops. Guess who gets thrown under the bus.[/quote] Two points here: 1) What we see in the video does not clearly show the law as being violated. Likely violation, yes. If you care to cite the statute, we can analyze and discuss. 2) I guess since we have reduced it to watching a video and bringing criminal charges, then we can say – going back to your original statement – everybody knows there is huge criminal culpability by the protesters…
“If you care to cite the statute, we can analyze and discuss.”
I covered this previously, but as far as I can tell looking at the caselaw, this violates people’s constitutional rights but it’s not clear that it violates a criminal statute. Although I know some who believe it to be an assault by the police officer, but I am not going there.
DG wrote: [quote]as far as I can tell looking at the caselaw, this violates people’s constitutional rights [/quote]
“caselaw?”
“This?”
All you have to do is prove up!
The weak “assault” assertion is meritless.
Ryan Kelly in your quip re: Navarro/Gutierrez you conveniently fail to add that the illicit dope-in-system criminal was armed with a knife and attempted to use it on an officer.
The overpass was not “busy” either. Oh wait, maybe that’s how the female (unrelated) Navarro didn’t see some of the other purported witnesses?
Who knows, possibly the boot case memory expert can weigh in on the statements presented by the ‘witnesses’ in the Navarro/Gutierrez matter?
When the self-appointed civil rights commission reconvenes let us watch & see if they actually call upon said expert?