Threat of Police Restraining Order Delays Release of Pepper Spray Report

Reynoso-pepperspray

The university was all set for the Tuesday release of the report from Kroll and the Task Force, however late yesterday UC Davis and the University of California Office of the President announced that the union representing UC campus police and a police officer at the center of the pepper-spraying incident at UC Davis will request a court order to halt public disclosure of a report by a task force headed by former California Supreme Court Associate Justice Cruz Reynoso.

The request for the temporary restraining order will be presented today in Department 31 of the Alameda County Superior Court.  As a result, Cruz Reynoso, acting on advice from counsel, made the decision to postpone the public release of the report.

“I think it’s a great disservice not only to the people but to the police themselves because they will appear as a group that doesn’t want the public to know what happened,” Justice Reynoso said on Monday evening.

Both he and UC President Mark G. Yudof expressed a commitment to making the full report accessible to the public.

“Due to the uncertainty created by this legal development, General Counsel has advised that any information relating to the Task Force Report or Kroll should not be released publicly by the University or individual members of the Task Force,” Justice Reynoso wrote to task force members.

He added: “I was very frustrated to receive this news today. However, let me assure you that I am undeterred in my commitment to release the complete and unredacted work of the Task Force, a view shared by President Yudof.”

The attorney for the Federated University Police Officers Association informed the UC Office of the General Counsel that it will request a temporary restraining order in Alameda County Superior Court on Tuesday, March 6. The request will be submitted by an attorney representing one or more of the officers placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of investigations into pepper-spraying of students at UC Davis on Nov. 18, 2011.

Cruz Reynoso and 12 other task force members had been scheduled to outline their findings and recommendations to the UC Davis community on Tuesday, March 6, from 3 to 4:30 p.m. in the UC Davis Conference Center ballroom.

“I am disappointed,” President Yudof said, “and I have asked the UC General Counsel’s office to do everything in its power in court to turn back this attempt to stifle these reports.”

“The work of the Reynoso Task Force, supported by outside investigators from the Kroll group, is a fundamental stepping stone needed to carry the UC Davis campus past the events of Friday, Nov. 18,” he added.  “The entire UC Davis community deserves a fully transparent and unexpurgated accounting of the incidents in question. Though I have not seen the reports, I am told the task force and its supporting investigators have provided just such an accounting.”

Chancellor Linda Katehi, herself embattled, expressed similar regret that the report was delayed.

“I am tremendously disappointed by this delay and know that many of you will be as well. We requested this inquiry to learn precisely what happened last November 18, utilize that knowledge to ensure that our campus is a safe, tolerant and inclusive community, and help us move forward together,” she said in a statement Monday evening.

She adds, “Hopefully, this delay will be brief and we will receive the task force’s findings soon. Meanwhile, work continues as we near completion of the campus’s own internal affairs investigation into complaints of officer misconduct, which would be the basis for any personnel actions concerning the accused officers.”

Sources familiar with the investigation told the Vanguard that the key stumbling block is the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, that they called “a really destructive piece of legislation.”

The timeline at this point is up in the air.  Our sources told us they think there is a good possibility that the police officers will not be able to convince an Alameda County judge to grant the temporary restraining order.  If that is the case, then the presentation would be set as soon as possible.

The restraining order would limit the ability of the university’s report to mention actions of specific police officers during the November 18 pepper spraying.  Even if the order is in place, the university could issue forth the report, sanitizing the names of the police officers.

But, as the source told us, it makes little sense to issue a report that does not deal with the police and their actions.

As mentioned, our sources believe that there is a good possibility a restraining order would not be issued, as the union has apparently taken a very broad view of the police officer’s bill of rights.  This exact situation has not come up before, the source informed the Vanguard, therefore the judge may be reluctant to issue a restraining order under those conditions.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

26 Comments

  1. David M. Greenwald

    Elaine: I didn’t put commentary here, but I would add this is precisely why it was not premature to file the lawsuit. Too much uncertainty with the report itself and what happens even after the report is filed.

  2. SODA

    Thx David. Without this, I would have shown up at 3. Any chance it could go on as planned if the court declines the request for restraining order? Guess too close in time. Why did the union wait til the 11th hour. Certainly does not help public sentiment in their favor.

  3. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]Elaine: I didn’t put commentary here, but I would add this is precisely why it was not premature to file the lawsuit. Too much uncertainty with the report itself and what happens even after the report is filed.[/quote]

    LOL I was going to say this goes to show that the investigation was not in fact “whitewashed” as you suggested it would be, and thus proves my point the lawsuit filed by the ACLU was premature. Let’s see how this plays out…

  4. JustSaying

    [quote]“You can’t handle the truth!”[/quote]What a sad development. The police union kept police out of the inquiry, now it joins a last-minute battle on behalf of the folks on administrative leave. (Of course, the “don’t talk to any authorities anytime” readers here will understand and agree with their first decision.)

    By doing this, the union is taking on the interests of the few people who made the decisions at the scene while ignoring the interests of rest of its membership and law enforcement in the broader sense. There is so little support for the pepper spraying decision that protecting the officers involved makes little sense.

    Indeed, I’d think most people want to see more about how this developed and whether the task force thinks it can be avoided future. It’s difficult to understand why the union wouldn’t have stayed out of this battle, leaving the task to those on administrative leave.

    Understanding why this report would be fought by anyone who is under threat of criminal action, the police union is doing itself and its other members a disservice by joining in. Everyone outraged by the decision to spray the protesters now will be outraged that the police don’t want “the truth” out there.

    Justice Reynoso already has framed the debate in the way the union should have anticipated–and the cops already are looking bad…again.

    I’m not sure that delaying the report completely explains the restraining order request. If word got out that the report is “a fully transparent and unexpurgated accounting of the incidents,” wouldn’t it make more sense that the police participants would want to have the report issued in a way that doesn’t implicate them by name? Another short delay doesn’t seem to give anyone much benefit.

  5. Ryan Kelly

    Am I reading correctly that we have one year to investigate (and, if necessary, punish) the officers’ actions? Delay, delay, delay. That seems to me what they are doing. Meanwhile, they are on paid administrative leave. Reynoso is correct. It appears, as a body, the police don’t want us to know what happened. I understand why he doesn’t want to seem to violate in any way the officer’s rights, per the legislation. The officer’s union is walking a fine line between protecting the officer’s rights and insubordination.

  6. Ryan Kelly

    Per the article in The Enterprise, the union wants any names of officers and all information from the interview with officers removed from the report. Hogwash.

    The lawsuit by the ACLA is turning out to be necessary, I guess. If the union thinks that we are not determined to flesh out exactly what happened on that day from all viewpoints, they are really mistaken. What they’ve done is make people even more determined and now this will NEVER go away.

  7. David Suder

    [quote]this goes to show that the investigation was not in fact “whitewashed”[/quote]I disagree. This tells us nothing about the investigation. It only tells us that the police union does not want the report released publicly. No more, no less.

  8. David M. Greenwald

    David Suder is correct. Elaine is assuming that the union knows the content of the report and that is not correct. However, Elaine would note that I have backed off my belief that the report has been whitewashed. I have very specific reasons for believing that that I cannot disclose.

  9. Ryan Kelly

    I’m sure that the union is aware of the names of the officers involved and roughly what these officers said, in response to questioning. It is this that the Union lawyers want removed or redacted from the report. They are quoted as saying that they are fine with the rest of the report being released, just nothing from any officers.

    Since the three officers who are administrative leave did not consent to being questioned, this means that the officers who were questioned don’t want other officers to know what was said. Are they afraid of retaliation from within their own group or are they afraid of how they will appear to the public?

  10. JustSaying

    [quote]“Per the article in The Enterprise, the union wants…all information from the interview with officers removed from the report. Hogwash.”[/quote]This doesn’t make sense to me. David has reported that police officers refused to be interviewed, at least partly because the union told them not to cooperate with Justice Reynoso’s inquiry. Whose reporting is accurate here? Makes a difference in how we look at the as yet unreleased report and the union’s legal actions.

  11. David M. Greenwald

    Just Saying: What they want (and the Enterprise is quoting the LA Times) is for the interviews with the non-subject officers who did speak with Kroll redacted from the report as a violation of POBR.

    He argues “state law requires both the names of officers involved and information taken from interviews with them to be removed from the documents.”

    Most people don’t believe that’s true but that’s the union claim.

  12. Ryan Kelly

    Reynoso reached an agreement with the Union and was allowed to interview all of the officers with the exception of the Chief, Lt. Pike, and the other unnamed officer who are on administrative leave over the incident. It is this testimony that the Union lawyers don’t want released to the public, saying that it is confidential personnel matters.

  13. JustSaying

    [quote]“…they are really mistaken. What they’ve done is make people even more determined and now this will NEVER go away.”[/quote]Ain’t this the truth! Maybe this is why UC officials, including Chancellor Katehi, jumped on this so quickly and unequivocally.[quote]“…Cruz Reynoso, acting on advice from counsel, made the decision to postpone the public release of the report.”[/quote]It doesn’t help the task force or Justice Reynoso if he really is the one who made the decision to withhold release and to announce the decision. This inevitably gives those who distrust the impartiality of the task force ammunition.

    Is it the [u]UC[/u] “General Counsel” whose advice put Justice Reynoso in this awkward position? On the other hand, it gave President Yudof an opportunity make a public call for full disclosure instead of showing up at 3 p.m. and assuring full disclosure.

    Who is working for whom here? If it was the UC General Council that “advised,” then who made the decision? Was it really Cruz Reynoso, as it’s portrayed here? Or, the Chancellor? Or the UC President? There’s more to this decision than we’ve gotten, I’d say.

  14. David M. Greenwald

    I spoke with Cruz Reynoso and believe it was his call acting on the advice of counsel. It’s his task force’s report.

    I don’t think there is more to this decision than we’ve gotten.

  15. JustSaying

    [quote]“Reynoso reached an agreement with the Union and was allowed to interview all of the officers with the exception of the Chief, Lt. Pike, and the other unnamed officer who are on administrative leave over the incident. It is this testimony that the Union lawyers don’t want released to the public, saying that it is confidential personnel matters. “[/quote]Thanks, Ryan, guess I missed this event when it happened.[quote]“What they want (and the Enterprise is quoting the LA Times) is for the interviews with the non-subject officers who did speak with Kroll redacted from the report as a violation of POBR.”[/quote]Thanks, David, for the added info. This might put the decision for the suit in a little different setting, as well as provide a better understanding for the timing of it.

    What does the law have to say about this? What do the union attorneys say? What to the “most people” who don’t believe the union’s correct have to say? Maybe Elaine’s right that we need to see how this plays out a little more before we conclude who has the better hand.

  16. David M. Greenwald

    Ryan: in a sense yes, though not directly one of my people.

    JS: Actually working on a story on those very questions. Right now it’s a bit like chasing my tail.

  17. Ryan Kelly

    Per an article in the Sac Bee, the TRO has been granted until a March 16 hearing. The other officers present at the incident feel that the information in the report will be detrimental to them and don’t want the information released to the public, per their lawyer.

    If they truly feel that this is the case, then I believe them. Their actions to stop the release of the report just makes the police, as a body, look bad. Again, it is an act of confusion over who they are supposed to be serving and protecting – themselves/each other or the campus staff, faculty and visitors.

  18. David M. Greenwald

    A judge has agreed to halt release of the UC Davis pepper spray report until a hearing March 16 to decide whether its release would violate the rights of police officers under the Police Officers Bill of Rights.

    I have also received word that the ACLU will be involved as well now.

  19. JustSaying

    [quote]“If they truly feel that this is the case, then I believe them. Their actions to stop the release of the report just makes the police, as a body, look bad. Again, it is an act of confusion over who they are supposed to be serving and protecting – themselves/each other or the campus staff, faculty and visitors.”[/quote]What I don’t understand is why the union just leave this to the attorneys for the three under investigation. Getting involved at this point doesn’t appear to have done anything beneficial for those three, for the rest of their membership or for their public image.

    Don’t they have at least a small PR operation that could have pointed out the damage that being out front on this does to their own organization?

  20. Mr Obvious

    [quote]What I don’t understand is why the union just leave this to the attorneys for the three under investigation. Getting involved at this point doesn’t appear to have done anything beneficial for those three, for the rest of their membership or for their public image. [/quote]

    If I’m not mistaken part of what the union is trying to block is the release of the personal information of the involved officers. That information probably includes home addresses and phone numbers. The police union has a vested interest in protecting the privacy of it’s members. Uncontrolled release of officers personal information is a safety concern for officers and their families.

  21. JustSaying

    But, Mr. Obvious, the same purpose would be served if the union watched as attorneys for the three under investigation took care of things. And the union wouldn’t suffer the blowback that’s on its way.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for