Skip navigation
The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct - Header

Uc Davis Reynoso Report Pepper Spray Incident Task Force Report 2012

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
UC DAVIS NOVEMBER 18, 2011
“PEPPER SPRAY INCIDENT” TASK
FORCE REPORT
“THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT”
MARCH 2012

TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP
Cruz Reynoso
Chair, Professor Emeritus, School of Law,
UC Davis, and Former Associate Justice,
California Supreme Court

Peter Blando
Business Services Manager, Office of the
Vice Provost—Information and Educational
Technology, UC Davis, and past Chair, UC
Davis Staff Assembly (nominated by the UC
Davis Staff Assembly); Alumnus, UC Davis

Tatiana Bush
Undergraduate Student and former
Associated Students Senator (nominated by
the Associated Students of UC Davis)

Penny Herbert
Director of Strategic Planning, UC Davis
Health System, and Staff Advisor to the UC
Board of Regents

Alan Brownstein
Professor, School of Law, UC Davis
(nominated by the Academic Senate)

Dan Dooley
Senior Vice President, External Relations,
UC Office of the President and Designated
System-wide Administrator for
Whistleblower Complaints; Alumnus, UC
Davis

Katheryn Kolesar
Chair, UC Davis Graduate Student
Association (nominated by the Graduate
Student Association)

Carolyn Penny
Director, International Law Programs and
Principal and Mediator, Common Ground
Center for Cooperative Solutions, UC Davis
Extension (nominated by the UC Davis
Academic Federation)

William McKenna
Law Student, UC Davis (nominated by the
Law Students Association)

Eric Rauchway
Professor, Department of History, UC Davis
(nominated by the Academic Senate)

Patrick Blacklock
Yolo County Administrator and immediate
past-Chair, Cal Aggie Alumni Association

Rebecca Sterling
Undergraduate Student and former
Associated Students Senator (nominated by
the Associated Students of UC Davis)

J udy Sakaki
Vice President, Student Affairs, UC Office of
the President and former Vice Chancellor for
Student Affairs, UC Davis

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ........................................................................... 4
Introduction .......................................................................................... 5
Background........................................................................................... 7
Section I - Deficiencies in the Decision- Making
Process and Substantive Mistakes at the
Administrative Level ......................................................................... 10
A. There Was a Failure to Investigate Whether or Not
“Non- Affiliates” in the UC Davis Occupy
Encampment Were Present .................................................. 10
B. The Administration Decided to Deploy Police to
Remove the Tents on Nov. 18 before Considering
Other Reasonable Alternatives............................................ 11
C. 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 ........................................... 12
D. There Were No Clear Lines Delineating the
Responsibility for Decision- Making between
Civilian Administrators and Police...................................... 14
E. There Was Confusion as to the Legal Basis for the
Police Operation .................................................................. 14
F. The Leadership Team’s Informal, Consensus- Based
Decision- Making Process Was Ineffective for
Supporting a Major Extraordinary Event............................. 15

Section II - The Conduct of the Police Operation ................... 17
A. The UCDPD Failed to Plan for the Intended Action
According to Standard Operating Procedures .................... 17

B. Notwithstanding the Deficiencies in the Operations
Plan, the Incident Was Not Managed According to
the Plan ................................................................................ 18
C. The Decision to Use Pepper Spray Was Not
Supported by Objective Evidence and Was Not
Authorized by Policy............................................................ 18
D. The Pepper Spray Used, the MK- 9, First Aerosol
Projector, Was Not an Authorized Weapon for Use
by the UCDPD ...................................................................... 19
E. There is a Breakdown of Leadership in the UCDPD............ 19
F. Other Police Procedural and Tactical Irregularities ............ 19

Section III - Individual Responsibility ........................................ 21
A. 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 ........................................................................... 21
B. The Chancellor Bears Primary Responsibility for
the Failure to Communicate Her Position that the
Police Operation Should Avoid Physical Force.................... 21
C. 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............................................................................. 22
D. 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
2

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

Police Practices Both Before and During the
Operation as Detailed in the Kroll Report........................... 23
E.

Bears Individual Responsibility for
Abdicating his Duties as Incident Commander................... 24

Officer P

F. 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 ..................... 24

Section IV - Recommendations .................................................... 26
A. Recommendations for the Administration and
Leadership Response........................................................... 26
B. Recommendations for the UC Davis Police ......................... 27
C. Recommendations for System- Wide Consideration ........... 28
D. Recommendation for the Campus Community ................... 29

Appendices
APPENDIX 1 – Terminology and Nomenclature ........................ 30
APPENDIX 2 – The Kroll Report................................................. 32

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Task Force wishes to recognize Law School and campus staff, Office of the President
staff and Kroll for their invaluable assistance enabling completion of this report.

4

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

Introduction
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.
On November 18, 2011, University of California, Davis, police officers used pepper spray
on students sitting in a line in the midst of a protest and “occupation” on the campus
quad. Viral images of the incident triggered immediate and widespread condemnation of
the police action.
To assist the Task Force with fact finding and the identification of best practices in
policing, the University engaged Kroll, Inc., an internationally known risk management
firm. Kroll completed the final draft of its report on Feb. 22, 2012 (the “Kroll Report”).
The Kroll Report describes at length the events leading up to this incident. In brief, at
approximately 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 17, 2011, tents were erected on the
Quad at the Davis campus. The Administration decided to remove the tents, instructing
police to do so at 3:00 p.m. on Friday, November 18, 2011. While attempting to remove
tents, the police arrested several individuals. Subsequently, in the midst of a growing
group of people, the police officers employed pepper spray to remove several students
linking arms in a line across a walkway in the Quad.
The UC Davis protest focused on and drew strength from widespread discontent among
students about the increase in tuition and fees at the University of California. The
incident also took place against the backdrop of worldwide student protests, including
demonstrations by the Occupy Wall Street movement, which triggered similar events
across the nation. These protests presented challenges for all affected universities and
municipalities in attempting to balance the goals of respecting freedom of speech,
maintaining the safety of both protesters and non-protesters, and protecting the
legitimate interests of government and the non-protesting public.
In the immediate aftermath of the UC Davis incident, University of California President
Mark G. Yudof announced the appointment of former California Supreme Court Justice
Cruz Reynoso to chair a Task Force to address the pepper spraying of UC Davis students.
This was a result of a request from Chancellor Katehi for an independent investigation to
review the incident and report findings and recommendations to enable peaceful and
nonviolent protests. All Task Force members are either currently or were once affiliated
with UC Davis and most were nominated by relevant campus organizations.
Charge from the President

The President established the following charge to the Task Force:
x
x
x

Receive and review the fact-finding report from Kroll concerning the events that
took place on November 18, 2011;
Based on that review, and subject to available information, issue findings
regarding responsibility for the events of November 18;
Provide recommendations to Chancellor Katehi and the President on
improvements to police procedures, command protocols, and campus policies
and oversight structures that will help ensure the rights and safety of nonviolent
protesters and the entire campus community.

Kroll provided to the Task Force a lengthy description of the discussions and decisions
leading up to the Nov. 18 incident. It also evaluated the decision-making process and
substantive conduct of campus administrators and police in comparison to a best
practices standard for dealing with situations involving the deployment of police in
response to protests. To avoid redundancy and to make the analysis and conclusions of
the Task Force more accessible to readers, the Task Force report incorporates by
reference the description of the evidence described in the Kroll Report.
The Charge to the Task Force did not include requesting recommendations for
disciplinary action. An Internal Affairs investigation is running concurrent with the work
of the Task Force which would address disciplinary action for police officers. Subject
officers (those directly subjected to the Internal Affairs investigation) declined to be
interviewed by Kroll. As of the date of this report, the Yolo County District Attorney has
declined to charge arrestees who were cited for unlawful assembly, failure to disperse, or
illegal camping. The Task Force was directed to issue findings assigning responsibility
for these events. This Report includes such findings as well as recommendations
designed to ensure the rights and safety of nonviolent protesters and the entire campus
community are protected.
Furthermore, the Task Force has not been asked to evaluate nor did we receive from
Kroll any information regarding communications from UCOP to the campus.

6

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

Background
The Leadership Team’s Focus on the Occupy Movement Influenced its Perception
of the Encampment at UC Davis
According to Kroll, the UC Davis Leadership Team originated in 2009, in response to
student protests over high and rising tuition costs at the University of California. As fees
increased sharply so did the frequency and size of protests.
Demonstrations against fees drew sufficient support from a large number of students
and came so often that by 2009 they began to overwhelm the ordinary capacity of the
Office of Student Affairs to handle protests, which provided the occasion for the Office to
create a force of volunteers, to stay in contact with demonstrators and to provide
information about protests to the administration.
Concern over tuition inspired the numerous protests including the protests at Berkeley
on November 9 and the occupation of Mrak Hall on November 15.
This existing discontent over tuition merged with the tactics of the national Occupy
movement in the fall of 2011.
The decision of the Occupy movement, which originated in New York City in the fall of
2011, to use long term encampments as a primary protest strategy confronted
municipalities, and later universities, with a new situation – one that they had seldom
encountered in earlier protests. As the movement spread to over 100 cities, many
municipal leaders became concerned that the movement’s encampments created health
and safety risks to the public. In many situations, city officials ordered the dismantling of
the encampments. These events attracted national media attention. As municipal
authorities challenged city encampments, encampments were increasingly located on
university campuses.
The UC Davis administration was well aware of these developments. Indeed, a member
of the campus Leadership Team sent an e-mail to Campus Police Chief Spicuzza in Nov.
2011 alerting her to a New York Times article describing the “growing concerns” of
municipal authorities “over health and safety” issues involving the encampments and the
fact that “protesters have begun to erect more tents on college campuses.”
An Occupy encampment in Central Park in the City of Davis was started on Oct. 15, 2011.
City officials took no steps to take down the protesters’ tents. The challenge to an Occupy
encampment that probably received the most media attention in Northern California was
the dismantling of the Occupy Oakland encampment by police on Oct. 25, 2011. Vice
Chancellor Meyer sent an e-mail to Chancellor Katehi, Provost Hexter, and other
administrative staff on that same day. Referring to a possible protest at the UC Davis
campus, he wrote that if protesters attempted to camp on the Quad, “Camping is not
allowed on the quad, however, the removal of occupants may create a scene with Police
removing individuals and property that could be troublesome. We do worry that if
camping persists it could attract individuals that have no affiliation with the campus
which raises other security issues. We are assessing our legal options and are not
inclined to allow tents or structures.”

Oakland authorities permitted the Occupy Oakland protesters to rebuild their
encampment. Police dismantled the encampment a second time on Nov. 14. This second
police action responded to media accounts reporting drug use and violence in the
encampment including the shooting of an individual participating in the encampment
nearby.
On Nov. 9, 2011, responding to an attempt to set up an encampment at UC Berkeley,
police wearing riot gear used batons to clear protesters from the area and take down the
few tents that had been erected. The police use of force at Berkeley drew substantial
criticism. On Nov. 15 thousands of protesters held a rally at UC Berkeley and erected new
tents in Sproul Hall Plaza. Newspapers reported that “Hundreds of occupiers displaced
Monday from the Occupy Oakland Camp joined forces with a resurgent Occupy
movement at UC Berkeley. “ Police in riot gear moved in to dismantle the UC Berkeley
encampment at 3:30 a.m. on Nov. 17. Police raided and dismantled a similar Occupy
encampment at UCLA at 5:15 a.m. on Nov. 18.
When tents went up on the Quad on Nov. 17, the longstanding protest against high and
rising tuition and fees in the UC found expression through the tactics of the national
Occupy movement. Campus administrators focused on the relation of this event to other
Occupy movement encampments. Political demonstrations are not uncommon at Davis
and the Quad occupies a unique status as the traditional location where protests occur. It
is a central and highly visible location which makes it an ideal location for speakers to
reach the audience they are addressing, the university community. It is also a location
where robust expressive activity can occur without unreasonably interfering with the
University’s ability to perform its duties of teaching and research or unduly burdening
the interests of non-protesting students, staff, and faculty. The administration did not
consider the Occupy movement encampment to be a conventional campus protest. The
Leadership Team appeared to perceive it as a vehicle through which non-affiliates might
enter the campus and endanger students.
During an interview conducted by Kroll staff with Chancellor Katehi on Dec. 20, 2011,
about a month after the pepper spray incident, the Chancellor explained her concerns
about the involvement of “non-affiliates” with the UC Davis Occupy movement and
encampment. Chancellor Katehi stated, “We were worried at the time about that [nonaffiliates] because the issues from Oakland were in the news and the use of drugs and
sex and other things, and you know here we have very young students . . . we were
worried especially about having very young girls and other students with older people
who come from the outside without any knowledge of their record . . . if anything
happens to any student while we’re in violation of policy, it’s a very tough thing to
overcome.”
Vice Chancellor Meyer expressed similar concerns in an interview conducted on Dec. 7.
He explained, “our context at the time was seeing what’s happening in the City of
Oakland, seeing what’s happening in other municipalities across the country, and not
being able to see a scenario where [a UC Davis Occupation] ends well . . . Do we lose
control and have non-affiliates become part of an encampment? So my fear is a longterm occupation with a number of tents where we have an undergraduate student and a
non-affiliate and there’s an incident. And then I’m reporting to a parent that a nonaffiliate has done this unthinkable act with your daughter, and how could we let that
happen?”

8

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

When explaining their decisions on Nov. 17 and 18, UC Davis administrators repeatedly
referenced this concern about individuals not affiliated with the university at Occupy
movement protests and encampments on campus, and the security risks created by their
presence. Indeed, in Chancellor Katehi’s letter distributed to campus protesters on Nov.
18, the day of the pepper spray incident, the Chancellor wrote “We are aware that many
of those involved in the recent demonstrations on campus are not members of the UC
Davis community. This requires us to be even more vigilant about the safety of our
students, faculty and staff.” As our report will indicate these concerns were not
supported by any evidence obtained by Kroll.

Section I – Deficiencies in the Decision- Making Process and
Substantive Mistakes at the Administrative Level
A. There Was a Failure to Investigate Whether or Not “Non-Affiliates” in the UC
Davis Occupy Encampment Were Present
As detailed below, the Task Force concludes that the failure to conduct any additional
investigation into the presence of non-affiliates in the encampment was a significant
error in the Leadership Team’s decision-making process.
UC Davis campus administrators identified the security risks created by non-affiliates
participating in the Occupy encampment as a critical factor influencing their decision to
remove the tents erected in the Occupy UC Davis encampment. One source for their
concern was the information reported by news media regarding drug use and violence at
municipal encampments, particularly the Occupy Oakland encampment, and the
presence of non-affiliates at protests and encampments at other universities, such as UC
Berkeley.
Campus police reports supported the conclusion that a substantial number of the Occupy
movement protesters on campus were not students. One UC Davis police officer who
spent the night at a Mrak Hall protest on Nov. 15 wrote that “the majority (of protesters)
were NOT affiliated with the University [but were] part of the ‘Occupy’ movement.” UC
Davis Police Chief Spicuzza informed the Leadership Team that her officers suggested
that 80% of the protesters participating in the encampment on the Quad were not
students.
This information was directly challenged by Student Affairs staff and volunteers. One
student volunteer suggested that all of the protesters at Mrak Hall on the night of Nov. 15
were either students or faculty. Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro informed the
Leadership Team that based on her observations of the Occupy encampment on the
Quad on Nov. 17, “the only non-affiliates I saw were people from the interfaith
communities providing food . . . and they were not spending the night.” Assistant Vice
Chancellor Castro explicitly challenged Chief Spicuzza’s report that a substantial number
of the protesters at the encampment were non-affiliates and the Police Chief conceded
that Castro’s information was more credible than the reports of her officers. The
Chancellor addressed Castro's report, asking if she could “prove” that the protesters were
mostly students. Castro replied, “I didn’t ask for IDs. It’s just from my sense of what I
know.” The Leadership Team did not discuss the matter further.
To date, the assertion that many non-affiliates were involved in the Occupy movement
encampment on the Quad has not been substantiated. The status of the protesters
arrested on Nov. 18 does not support the contention that many non-affiliates were
involved in these events.
Because the presence of non-affiliates on campus in the encampment was the expressed
foundation of the Leadership Team’s safety concerns, an accurate determination of the
number of non-affiliates in the encampment would substantially support or undermine
any immediate need to order the tents on the Quad to be taken down. Yet,
notwithstanding the conflicting intelligence presented to the Leadership Team, the Task
10

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

Force has seen no evidence that any further inquiry was conducted to resolve this
question. While the Leadership Team may have worried that the continued existence of
the encampment would attract non-affiliates to the campus over time, this concern
would not justify ordering the immediate dismantling of the encampment.
B. The Administration Decided to Deploy Police to Remove the Tents on Nov. 18
before Considering Other Reasonable Alternatives

As noted, the Leadership Team’s conclusion that the presence of non-affiliates in the
encampment posed a risk to students was challenged as to its accuracy. Still, one might
reasonably decide that even when confronted with uncertainty as to the existence or
extent of risks to students, the prudent course would be to intervene immediately to
ensure student safety. That decision presupposes that there were no reasonable
alternative means available to the administration other than ordering the tents to be
removed immediately to adequately ameliorate the risk to students.
Possible alternatives for protecting students in the encampment seem almost selfevident. For example, police officers could have been posted to monitor and provide
security for the encampment overnight, an alternative suggested by Vice Chancellor
Castro. There is a financial cost to such arrangements, and providing security for the
encampment might not be feasible as a long term solution to the problem. The question
here, however, is not whether this approach is practical long term, but rather whether it
could have been utilized at least for a few days.
Delaying the deployment of police to remove the tents for even a few days would have
provided campus administrators more time to carefully evaluate the nature and scope of
the problem, more time to carefully evaluate the costs and consequences of different
university responses to the encampment and more time for discussion, negotiation, and
mediation with the protesters to attempt to defuse the situation. Also, and importantly, it
would have created the opportunity to expand the decision-making process by reaching
out to the campus community more broadly. Conversely, requiring immediate action
provided limited opportunities for consultation with other campus stakeholders and
constrained decision-makers’ opportunities to rigorously evaluate their reasoning and
plans. The Task Force concludes that there was no immediate need to order the police to
take down the tents on Friday, Nov. 18.
The Task Force has received no information describing the extent to which the
Leadership Team considered alternatives to the immediate deployment of the police. It is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Leadership Team’s analysis of alternatives
seems inconsistent and incomplete.

C. 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

Chancellor Katehi explained in interviews after the fact that she envisioned the
deployment of police on Nov. 18 to be a limited operation in which police would demand
that the tents be taken down but would use no other force to accomplish their mission if
the protesters resisted their efforts. The chancellor did not effectively communicate this
expectation to other members of the Leadership Team. During a conference call on Nov.
17, Provost and Vice Chancellor Hexter stated that “We don’t want it [the police
operation] to be like Berkeley.” Chancellor Katehi immediately agreed with that
comment. We have no other explicit evidence of any other statement describing the
scope of the police operation or the manner in which it was to be carried out by the
Chancellor, Provost Hexter, or Vice Chancellors Meyer or Wood.
It is clear that different members of the Leadership Team understood the scope and
conduct of the police operation differently. Vice Chancellor Meyer explained that “he did
not understand that Chancellor Katehi believed that no force at all would be employed in
taking down the tents until her comments following the November 18 police action.”
Police Chief Spicuzza, at least initially, argued to her officers that the police operation
was to be limited in various respects. She attempted, unsuccessfully, to dissuade her
officers from using batons and pepper spray or to prevent them from wearing “riot gear”
during the operation. There is also evidence that she wanted her officers to withdraw if
they encountered resistance. Because Chief Spicuzza was not available to be interviewed,
we have no way to determine the basis for her concern that the police operation be
carefully constrained.
The Police Department’s pre-event November 15 operations plan, however, stated that
“the use of force is highly likely in this type of situation based on past events,” and it
forecast the potential use of pepper ball guns and pepper spray (although not the MK 9
canister that they actually used in the event). Senior officers in the Department also
believed that the use of physical force might well be required to conduct the operation.
No members of the Leadership Team took responsibility for ensuring that all the
members of the Team including the Police Chief had a common understanding of the
scope and conduct of the police operation to be executed on Nov. 18. We have no
indication that members of the Leadership Team other than the Police Chief were aware
of or reviewed the campus police department’s operations plan. The Police Chief never
brought the concerns expressed by her officers to the attention of the Leadership Team.
No attempt appears to have been made by either the Chief or Vice Chancellor Meyer, her
most direct superior, to confirm that the understanding by the police as to how the
operation was to proceed was consistent with the goals of the civilian administration of
the University. As the Kroll Report concludes, there was a “significant gap between the
instructions that Chancellor Katehi believed the Leadership Team had provided to

12

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

campus police (‘no violence’) and the police operation that was planned, mounted, and
finally carried out by the campus police under her authority.”
At no time in this process did the Leadership Team activate standardized emergency
management planning protocols. There are both statewide and national emergency
services standards for decision-making by governmental agencies, including university
campuses, when dealing with extraordinary events. The National Incident Management
System (NIMS) is modeled on California’s Standardized Emergency Management
System (SEMS) which includes within its scope the use of the Incident Command System
(ICS) for managing actual events. NIMS/SEMS are designed “to give standard response
and operation procedures to reduce the problems and potential for miscommunication
on such incidents”
(http://www.calema.ca.gov/PlanningandPreparedness/Documents/SEMS_%20Foundat
ion_ver_01-2010.pdf) and are flexibly designed to be available for all forms of
government including universities. NIMS/SEMS procedures are specifically designed to
support pre-event planning. Elements addressed within NIMS/SEMS include a formal
organizational structure and decision-making process, standardized processes for
developing incident objectives to ensure uniform understanding, expectations for
internal and external communication strategies and divisions specifically charged with
gathering intelligence and planning for alternative scenarios. Failures identified within
the Leadership Team’s processes including miscommunication, ineffective
communication with relevant stakeholders, inadequate intelligence regarding the actual
event and an apparent failure to plan for alternative strategies are examples of the types
of activities NIMS/SEMS is specifically designed to address.
Given the uncertainty as to the scope of the police operation to remove the tents and the
manner in which it would be carried out, it is difficult to understand how the costs and
risks of the operation could be meaningfully balanced against the goals the Leadership
Team sought to accomplish. The Leadership Team clearly believed that the removal of
the tents served the goal of maximizing safety. It is less clear how they could effectively
evaluate the costs and risks of conducting the police operation when there was no
common understanding of what that operation would entail. Similarly, comparisons
between the costs of providing security to the encampment for a few nights and the risks
associated with a confrontation between police and protesters would be difficult to
evaluate when the scope and kind of police operation under consideration remained so
ambiguous.
Again, the utilization of NIMS/SEMS protocols should have mitigated if not avoided
these problems. A key unit within the NIMS/SEMS structure is a Planning Division. The
Planning Division is charged with gathering intelligence. In a scenario such as November
18, the work of a Planning Division might have included accurately assessing the number
of students versus non-affiliates, identifying potential health and safety risks and then
working with the operations division to develop appropriate strategies to mitigate risks,
such as temporary restroom facilities or enhanced policing to ensure student safety. The
NIMS/SEMS structure was not activated for the November 18 event.
Instead, the Leadership Team as noted above was influenced by concerns derived from
the Occupy incidents occurring elsewhere. There appeared to be a near universal
assumption that not only would non-affiliates be a significant participant in any protests

at UC Davis but also that allowing tents would encourage additional non-affiliates and
potential criminal activity such as seen at other Occupy events. These assumptions do
not appear to be tested or validated. In addition, there is no evidence that the Leadership
Team considered alternative strategies to mitigate the aforementioned risks and allow
the protest and tents to continue.

D. There Were No Clear Lines Delineating the Responsibility for Decision-Making
between Civilian Administrators and Police

As described above NIMS/SEMS is specifically designed to clarify roles and
responsibilities in planning for and addressing extraordinary events. In the absence of
NIMS/SEMS on November 18, however, the roles and responsibilities were not defined
and not well understood. One significant example is the decision to remove the tents at
3:00 pm. This decision became a primary tactical event objective, yet the Leadership
Team offered conflicting viewpoints on how it was determined. What is clear is, as Kroll
notes, it was “a process where the police department failed to express its objections and
concerns adequately, while the administration failed both to hear the police and to
understand that they were ‘heard’ to be issuing an order.”
Kroll notes that “the evidence indicates that it was Chancellor Katehi who chose this time
frame…and that police leadership opposed this time frame but failed to register a strong
objection to it with the Leadership Team.” Furthermore, Kroll views the “timing of any
police operation is a key tactical consideration” to be determined by the Police Chief.
Chancellor Katehi did in fact make a tactical decision: that the tents would be removed
during the day. Kroll notes, however, that there was no objection by the Police Chief to
this tactical intrusion stating “Meyer stated that there was no ‘push back’ regarding the
3:00 pm Friday afternoon time from Chief Spicuzza or anyone else on the conference
call” and that ”Chief Spicuzza did not raise any strategic or tactical objections to the 3:00
pm operation.” There is conflicting evidence on this point, however. Dispatch Supervisor
Garcia-Hernandez stated in an interview conducted on Feb. 1, 2012 that during a
conference call on Nov. 18, 2011, Chief Spicuzza did raise objections to the 3:00 p.m.
time of the operation and argued “we should go in at night.” No member of the
Leadership Team recalls such concerns being communicated to them by Chief Spicuzza.
The above example is illuminating in that it showcases a process where a major incident
objective was determined in an ad hoc setting and where the principal decision maker,
Chancellor Katehi, did not realize her statement was both viewed as an “executive order”
and a “tactical decision.” It is worth noting that in a NIMS/SEMS system, not only is
there a clear delineation between policy objectives and tactical strategies but also event
action plans and associated objectives are written and recorded.
E. There Was Confusion as to the Legal Basis for the Police Operation

As of the writing of its report, Kroll indicates that it has been “unable to identify the legal
basis for the decision of the Leadership Team to act against the protesters and for the
operation mounted by the UCDPD.” There is a record of continuing questions and
14

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

dialogue about the University’s legal authority to support tent removal with police action.
At different times, various statutes and administrative regulations have been cited to
support the University’s authority in this matter. Kroll notes “At the time the operation
was mounted (and continuing until the present) it was not clear what legal authority
existed for the campus police to remove the tents and arrest those who opposed them.”
The police officers in charge of the police operation were uncertain as to the legal
grounds for the action they were taking and consulted with University Counsel on the
issue. Even on November 18, Police Department leadership continued to question their
legal authority to remove tents during the day in order to implement legal prohibitions
against overnight camping.
This confusion as to the legal basis for the police operation to remove the tents had
several consequences. First, and most obviously, if there was no legal basis for deploying
the police to take down the tents, the operation should never have taken place. Second, a
clear understanding of the legal support for the operation might have helped to clarify
(and possibly narrow) the scope of the operation and its mission. Third, without a clear
understanding of the legal foundation for the operation, the University could not
communicate effectively to the protesters. Protesters have a right to be told what laws
they are alleged to be breaking. When there is ambiguity as to whether or not the police
action is lawful or not, it is foreseeable that there will be an increased likelihood that
protesters will resist police demands.
F. The Leadership Team’s Informal, Consensus-Based Decision-Making Process
Was Ineffective for Supporting a Major Extraordinary Event

As Kroll explains, “It was the systemic and repeated failures in the civilian, UC Davis
Administration decision-making process that put the officers in the unfortunate
situation in which they found themselves shortly after 3 p.m. [on Nov. 18, 2011].” The
Leadership Team is described as operating under an informal, consensus based,
decision-making process that is flexible in its configuration. As Kroll describes it, “The
Leadership Team did not have a formal name or roster of members, met via conference
call, and did not have an agreed upon method to communicate or record decisions.” This
structure failed to effectively support managing the events of November 18.
NIMS/SEMS calls for a formal organizational structure and decision-making process
when preparing for or managing major events. The process by which incident objectives
are determined is clearly defined and recorded. The very purpose of this formal structure
is to ensure uniform understanding and reduce miscommunication. Failure to activate a
NIMS/SEMS structure left the Leadership Team acting in their normal loose structure.
As Kroll states, the outcome is that “key decision-makers on the Leadership Team held
conflicting views on what decisions were made, when they were made and the basis on
which they were made.”
It is also true that even short of implementing NIMS/SEMS, campus organizations and
governing bodies routinely keep records of decisions made. It would not be
extraordinary to expect the same of the Leadership Team.

As noted above, the Leadership Team was providing guidance that the Police
Department was interpreting as an “executive order.” Two significant decisions, the
decision to remove the tents and the timing of tent removal, originate from the
Leadership Team. The Leadership Team, however, appears to have made these decisions
with incomplete information. Key sources of information, such as Student Affairs’
concerns that the encampment and protest were comprised primarily of students and
that the use of police to remove the tents was premature and counterproductive, failed to
generate robust or compelling discussion within the Team. Important decisions such as
the afternoon timing of the operation were not rigorously vetted as to their
consequences. In a NIMS/SEMS environment, the Planning Division would be
specifically charged with gathering, verifying and reporting intelligence on issues such as
the ratio of students to non-affiliates. Similarly, the Operations Division would be
charged with discussing the advantages and disadvantages of operational strategies
including timing. Unfortunately, in the absence of NIMS/SEMS these pivotal issues
remained unaddressed.
Even as decisions were emerging from the Leadership Team, conflicts in understanding
existed. As Kroll says, “When decisions were made, they were often not sufficiently
articulated, and key decisions were often understood to mean different things to
different people.” The picture that emerges is of a decision-making structure and
process where, based on incomplete information, the Leadership Team made significant
tactical and policy decisions that were not uniformly understood even among Leadership
Team members. These poorly understood decisions were then communicated to the
Police Department as “executive orders”.

16

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

Section II – The Conduct of the Police Operation
The Kroll report provides substantial detail regarding the conduct of UCDPD leadership
and officers related to this event. Needless to say, there were many breaches of protocol
and procedures and a considerable lack of leadership. This section is intended to detail
the most serious issues in this regard and not set forth all issues contained in the Kroll
report.
Notwithstanding that the police had expressed reservations about a 3:00 pm action to
remove the tents, they planned for and executed a plan to do so. They entered the Quad
at 3:15 pm in a skirmish line. At 3:29 pm the first dispersal order was given. A total of six
dispersal orders were given over the next several minutes. They advanced to remove the
tents at approximately 3:35 and made several arrests in the process. At approximately
3:47 pm the crowd surrounded the police and arrestees as they waited for transportation
for the arrestees. Sometime before 4:00 pm, the pepper spray was applied and all of the
arrestees were transported from the Quad by 4:15 pm.
A. The UCDPD Failed to Plan for the Intended Action According to Standard
Operating Procedures

Once again, UC Davis police did not following national or state-mandated rules
regarding incident/event planning (NIMS/SEMS). There are specific law enforcement
rules and regulations about mutual aid and joint response to emergencies. The
operations plans that were created by the UCDPD did not follow the appropriate and
normal format. They lacked signature blocks for creation, review and approval. Large
portions of the operations plans were left blank.
There were operational elements described that the police did not execute. The plan
failed to account for prisoner transport from the scene of the event/operation to the site
of prisoner processing. Kroll notes, “A key flaw of the police operations plan prepared by
and Pike is that the plan failed to address prisoner transport.”
Officer P
The Department Operations Center (which is referred to in the plan) was not set up in an
appropriate fashion. Kroll notes as well the failure to pre-brief the Davis Police
Department, the closest quick-reaction force in the event of a problem, was a significant
oversight.
Perhaps most importantly, the operations plan did not clearly define or inappropriately
defined the roles of the supervisors of the police in the field. For example, Lieutenant
Pike was not given a role in the Operations Plan for November 18. Moreover, the
assignment of the two lieutenants to the actual dismantling of the tents by the Chief of
Police was an inappropriate role for supervisors, especially for the Incident Commander.
As Kroll observes, “the roles of the supervisors were either unclear or inappropriate.”

B. Notwithstanding the Deficiencies in the Operations Plan, the Incident Was Not
Managed According to the Plan

As Kroll reports, “The actions of the Chief of Police caused confusion during this
operation. She was not present at the pre-event briefing and is not listed in any form on
the operations plan. Her role in the field, where she was present on the Quad but not
with the police, and was calling in directions via the command post, was problematic and
added to the confusion already present in the operation. Indeed, at least one officer
stated in his interview that during the most turbulent minutes of this operation, he
observed the chief standing opposite him in the crowd filming the police actions with her
cell phone.”
The Operations Plan identified Officer P
as the incident commander and defined
no role for Lt. Pike. Yet Lt. Pike appears to have made the command decision to use
pepper spray. No one in a command position was in the Department Operations Center,
which impaired coordination and communication.
C. The Decision to Use Pepper Spray Was Not Supported by Objective Evidence and
Was Not Authorized by Policy

The Kroll report states, “The video that went viral and sparked the international concern
about this event was the pepper spraying of the seated line of protesters by Lieutenant
Pike and then of a smaller portion of them by Officer O acting at Lieutenant Pike’s
direction. This leads to the obvious question: Why did Lieutenant Pike deploy pepper
spray?”
Interviews with officers involved in the incident indicate that they apparently felt that
they were surrounded by a hostile mob and that the use of pepper spray was necessary to
create a path for the officers and arrestees to leave the Quad. While there is some
support for this conclusion, a detailed review of the objective evidence undermines this
conclusion.
First, and foremost, the apparent reason for the officer and arrestees remaining on the
Quad after the tents were down was because there had been no arrangements made to
transport the arrestees from the Quad. The lack of timely decision-making by Lts. Pike
and Officer P to respond to this unplanned situation caused an escalation of an already
volatile situation.
There are a number of other factors that undermine the belief that there was no
alternative to use of pepper spray. Specifically, the following belie the conclusion:
x
x

18

was able to walk arrestees through the crowd to a waiting squad
Officer F
car for transport to the Police Station;
was able to step over the line of seated protesters and walk
Officer P
through the crowd to meet with the Davis PD who arrived to provide mutual aid.

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

x
x

He led the Davis PD contingent back through the crowd to the protesters without
incident;
Lt. Pike’s actions and body language include stepping over the seated protesters
to get to their faces, a move that would not generally be undertaken with a hostile
crowd.
Approximately 20 minutes after the pepper spray was used, Lt. Pike and one
other officer returned to Quad without riot gear and asked protesters to remove
additional tents that had been erected. The tents were removed without incident.

On balance, there is little factual basis supporting Lt. Pike’s belief that he was trapped by
the protesters or that his officers were prevented from leaving the Quad. Further, there is
little evidence that any protesters attempted to use violence against the police. The Kroll
report did note that Officer Q felt a protester was attempting to “attack” another officer
and they had a brief altercation.
Kroll concludes, “Considering all the available evidence - while recognizing that Kroll
investigators were not able to interview Lieutenant Pike to learn and report on his state
of mind at the moment he used the pepper spray - the deployment of pepper spray does
not appear to have been an objectively reasonable use of force.” The Task Force agrees.
D. The Pepper Spray Used, the MK-9, First Aerosol Projector, Was Not an
Authorized Weapon for Use by the UCDPD

UCDPD General Order No. 559 provides that pepper spray can be used, but specifically
refers to the MK-4 (a smaller canister). Furthermore, the investigation found no
evidence that any UCDPD officer had been trained in the use of the larger MK-9.
Kroll supported their conclusion that use of pepper spray was not reasonable use of force
by stating, “This conclusion is buttressed by the facts that the MK-9 was not an
authorized weapon under UCDPD guidelines and that UCDPD officers were not trained
in its use.” The Task Force agrees.
E. There is a Breakdown of Leadership in the UCDPD

The command and leadership structure of the UCDPD is very dysfunctional. Lieutenants
refused to follow directives of the Chief. This breakdown is illustrated by the heated
exchanges between the Chief and her Lieutenants as to the scope and conduct of the
operation and the Chief's apparent concession that her officers will do things their own
way and there is nothing she can do about it.
F. Other Police Procedural and Tactical Irregularities

“The actual crowd control formations used by UC Davis Police did not comport to
contemporary policing practices”, according to Kroll. The use of an inverse wedge as a
skirmish line is very unorthodox. While Officer F
successfully removed arrestees
from the site, there is no evidence that he communicated with the Incident Commander.

If Lts. Pike and Officer P had been aware of Officer F
considered a different tactic.

success, they may have

There is no evidence that standard debriefings occurred after the incident or that afterincident reports were appropriately prepared. The lack of standard, after-incident
reports impede a thorough review of what happened from the police perspective.

20

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

Section III – Individual Responsibility
A. 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

Initially, the police operation to remove the tents on the quad was set to occur at 3 a.m.
on the morning of Friday, Nov. 18, 2011. That plan remained in place until
approximately 6 p.m. on Nov. 17, 2011, when Chief Spicuzza and Officer P
the
Incident Commander for the operation, called Vice Chancellor Meyer to tell him that
there would be too few police officers available to implement the plan on Friday
morning. Chief Spicuzza wanted to postpone the operation to 3 a.m. on Saturday, Nov.
19, 2011.
Later, either during a conference call at 10 p.m. on Nov. 17, 2011, or one the following
morning, members of the Leadership Team (at least including the Chancellor, Vice
Chancellors Meyer and Wood, and Chief Spicuzza) adjusted the timing of the operation
— on the Chancellor’s proposal — from 3 a.m., Nov. 19, to 3 p.m., Nov. 18. Several
reasons for changing the time of the police deployment from early morning to late
afternoon were discussed. The Chancellor was concerned that Friday night was a “party
night” and that the encampment might “become a place for fun [and] the use of alcohol
and drugs and everything.” Leadership Team members on the call other than Chief
Spicuzza worried that conducting the operation in the dark might be unsafe.
The initial suggestion to change the time of the police operation to 3 p.m. was presented
by the Chancellor and it is clear that she expressed concerns about deploying police to
take down the tents on a weekend night. Chancellor Katehi’s subordinates heard her
suggestion of a 3 p.m. operation and concerns about a Saturday morning operation as an
executive order. As noted in the Kroll Report, the timing of a police operation is an
important tactical decision. Conducting the operation during the daytime may have
jeopardized the legal basis for the operation. More importantly, it may well have
contributed to the size of the crowd responding to the police action, a factor that
increased the likelihood of a confrontation between the protesters and the police.
No one can know for certain what would have happened if the police operation had been
conducted in the early morning on Saturday, or a day or two later on Sunday or Monday
night. What is clear is that the timing of a police operation is a tactical decision that
should be determined by police officers rather than civilian administrators.
B. The Chancellor Bears Primary Responsibility for the Failure to Communicate
Her Position that the Police Operation Should Avoid Physical Force

On Nov. 17, 2011, at 8:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. respectively, the Chancellor held two
conference calls with members of the Leadership Team to plan the campus’s response to
the protest and encampment expected the next day. The decision to remove the tents
before the weekend was clearly stated and understood during those calls. Indeed,

different members of the Leadership Team had been recommending as early as Oct. 25
that any tents that protesters might set up on the Quad should be taken down.
However, as noted previously, Chancellor Katehi failed to express in any meaningful way
her expectation that the police operation was to be sharply limited so that no use of force
would be employed by police officers other than their demand that the tents be taken
down. The lack of effective communication by the Chancellor at this time not only
contributed to misunderstandings that made it difficult to evaluate the decision to use
police to take down the tents. This communication failure also substantially undermined
the goal of avoiding a physical confrontation between the police and protesters. The
decision to limit the conduct of the police to verbal demands that the tents be taken
down and nothing more should have been stated explicitly. The Police Chief should have
been required to acknowledge her understanding of those constraints and to evaluate
their feasibility and consequences. Instead, the only message communicated to the police
was the ambiguous suggestion that the Chancellor and the Provost did not want the
police operation “to be like Berkeley.”
C. 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

The members of the Leadership Team, including Chancellor Katehi, Vice Chancellor
Meyer, Vice Chancellor Wood, Police Chief Spicuzza, and others, share responsibility for
many of the decisions discussed and criticized in this report. Vice Chancellor Meyer, for
example, was an early advocate for the position that tents on the quad would have to be
taken down. He also understood that the deployment of police on Nov. 18 would require
the use of physical force and supported this decision. Accordingly, he bears some
significant responsibility for the decision to use the police and to risk a confrontation
with protesters on Nov. 18. Vice Chancellor Meyer also exercised administrative
responsibility over UCDPD. In that capacity, he, more than other members of the
Leadership Team, should have taken steps to determine if police leadership had concerns
about the contemplated operation and to ensure that those concerns were understood
and evaluated by the Leadership Team.
Vice Chancellor Wood also bears substantial responsibility by failing to respond to
Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro’s warnings about removing the tents and her report that
few if any of the protesters were non-affiliates. On the 10 p.m. Leadership Team
conference call of Nov. 17, 2011, Assistant Vice Chancellor (AVC) for Student Affairs
Griselda Castro spoke for nearly forty minutes, detailing her conversations with
protesters, counseling caution on the part of the Leadership Team, and advocating
against removal of the tents. As Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and AVC Castro’s
immediate supervisor, Vice Chancellor Wood would be expected to ensure that AVC
Castro’s concerns were carefully considered and evaluated. Instead, AVC Castro’s
statement was met with silence.

22

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

D. 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

Many of Chief Spicuzza’s actions both with regard to the Leadership Team (her
superiors) and the Lieutenants in command of the operation (her subordinates) were
critically flawed. In terms of the Leadership Team, those mistakes contributed to the
imprudent decisions to deploy police at all, as well as to do so during the day. As Kroll
explained and we discussed above, the decision to launch the operation in the afternoon
“was a key factor in the growth of the crowd which resulted in the encirclement of police
and the decision to use pepper spray.” In terms of the police operations, the Chief’s
mistakes led to poor tactical decisions and, in Kroll’s words, reflected a failure to
“perform in the manner that police commanders during such an incident should . . .
conduct[] themselves.” For example, the Chief did not attend the department’s
operational briefing for its Nov. 18 response, and yet — without assuming actual
command responsibility — “from the moment her officers were deployed on the Quad,
[the Chief] began relaying orders to them via her cell phone.”
At the Leadership Team level, the Chief failed to challenge effectively the Chancellor’s
proposal of a 3 p.m. operation instead of a 3 a.m. operation. Whether she voiced
objections to the proposal is unclear; however, even if she had, “it appears that the
objections were not clearly expressed to the . . . Leadership Team.” As the highest
ranking officer on UCDPD, she must have known of the tactical significance of the timing
of the operation, and it was her duty to “affirmatively resist” the Chancellor’s misguided
tactical direction. Her Lieutenant Pike and Officer P made sure she knew the timing
was a problem — voicing concerns about the operation’s timing from the moment they
learned of the change to immediately before the operation began. None of the UC Davis
administrators Kroll interviewed, however, recalled the Chief conveying those concerns
to the Leadership Team. Had Chief Spicuzza objected forcefully to the timing of the
police operation or the Chancellor making a tactical decision, the entire Leadership
Team might have hesitated to go forward with a 3 p.m. operation.
Chief Spicuzza also failed to clarify the role police would play during the operation itself
with the Leadership Team. The Chief neglected to insist that there be a valid legal basis
for police involvement in the tent removal operation before its commencement.
Apparently it was only “because of Lieutenant [Pike and Officer P s continued
concern over the legal basis for removing the tents” that the Chief sought legal advice on
enforceability of the no camping policy just “[a] few hours before the operation
commenced.” She also failed to convey adequately to the Leadership Team the
probability of escalating use of force in such an operation. The Chief’s experience, “the
recent events involving encampments at UC Berkeley and Oakland,” Lieutenant Pike and
Officer P insistence on wearing riot gear despite her contrary instructions, and the
information in the related operations plans, all “suggested that the use of force would be
difficult to avoid.” Notably, the Department’s Nov. 15, 2011, operation plan expressly
stated that use of force was “highly likely” in a situation where police are removing tents

from the quad. In short, the Chief should have been well aware of the risk and made that
risk clear to the policymakers to whom she reported.
E.

Officer P

Bears Individual Responsibility for Abdicating his Duties as
Incident Commander

Nominally at least, Officer P
was the designated Incident Commander for
the Nov. 18 operation. As detailed above and by Kroll, Officer P
did not act “in the
manner that [a] police commander should.” He failed to follow basic ICS/SEMS protocol
from planning the incident to commanding it, resulting in unclear operational
parameters and an unclear command structure, both of which contributed to his inability
to command the operation effectively. His involvement with taking down the tents
precluded him from obtaining an overview of the entire operation, a prerequisite to
making informed command decisions.

F. 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

We agree with Kroll’s conclusion that Lieutenant Pike’s use of force in pepper spraying
seated protesters was objectively unreasonable.
Some of the officers Kroll interviewed reported their subjective belief that, during the
Nov. 18 incident, the crowd was hostile, they were surrounded, and they were at risk of
losing their prisoners. On cursory review, the testimonial, photographic, and video
evidence showing that in fact a crowd had partially encircled the police and was shouting
chants like “If you let them go, we will let you leave” may appear to support that
contention. However, a more careful review reveals several facts that conflict with that
belief and which the commanders should have known. For instance, there were breaks in
the circle around the officers. Where the circle was unbroken, the line was often still only
one- or two-people deep, some of whom were seated, and many of whom may have been
observers — crowding around to see what would happen — not protesters. Also, the more
hostile chants were cut off by the majority of the crowd almost as quickly as they had
started. Nor did they appear to reflect an actual intent by the crowd to prevent police
from leaving with their prisoners. In fact, it was during one of the “If you let them go, we
will let you leave” chants that Officer F
was able to leave, escorting an arrestee to
an awaiting police car by simply walking him straight through the crowd, without
incident or force escalation. Officer F
then returned and escorted another arrestee
out through the crowd, again without incident. Both of the ranking officers in charge of
the operation, Lt. Pike and Officer P
were also able to move through the crowd
freely, stepping over seated protesters on at least three occasions and just minutes before
Lt. Pike sprayed those same protesters with pepper spray. Nor did Kroll identify
objective evidence of any attempt by a protester to use violence. We agree with Kroll: on
balance, the evidence does not provide an objective, factual basis for Lt. Pike’s purported

24

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

belief that he was trapped, that any of his officers were trapped, or that the safety of their
arrestees was at issue.
Lt. Pike is also responsible for the specific pepper spray weapon he used, the MK-9, and
the manner in which he used it. The MK-9 is not an authorized weapon under UCDPD
guidelines. UCDPD officers were not trained in how to use it correctly. And Lt. Pike did
not use it correctly. The MK-9 is a higher pressure type of pepper spray than what
officers normally carry on their utility belts (MK-4). It is designed for crowd dispersal
rather than field applications and “[t]he recommended minimum distance for . . .
application of the MK-9 is six feet.” Lt. Pike appeared to be spraying protesters at a much
closer distance than 6 feet.

Section IV - Recommendations
The Task Force expects that the following recommendations will be implemented
through a consultative process with various stakeholders throughout the campus
community. Campus administration should develop interim actions until all stakeholder
groups are consulted. All recommendations should be vigorously pursued and
continually evaluated as to effectiveness and intended objective.
A. Recommendations for the Administration and Leadership Response

Administration and Leadership Response Recommendation No. 1
The Task Force recommends the campus develop a broadly accepted agreement on rules
and policies that regulate campus protests and instances of civil disobedience. This
broadly accepted agreement should be grounded in our campus culture and regularly
communicated to students. These rules and policies should be subject to regular review.
Campus rules should:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Be consistent with free speech doctrine;
Recognize the unique circumstances of a university community and the
importance of open and vigorous debate to our institutional function and
identity;
Respect the rights and interests of non-protesting students, faculty and staff;
Respect the legitimate needs of the University to fulfill its educational function
and operate its programs without undue interference;
Recognize that the legitimate purpose of protest in a campus setting is to inform
and persuade, not to coerce;
Determine and define “non-violent” versus “active resistance” and “violent”
protests and clarify the use of force and the force continuum as recommended by
Kroll;
Accurately identify and clearly describe and communicate the legal basis for the
University’s response to any protest or instance of civil disobedience;
Identify the consequences for breaches of the rules and policies.

Administration and Leadership Response Recommendation No. 2
The Task Force recommends the Leadership Team engage in (1) proactive
communication and consultation with the Academic Senate, Academic Federation, Staff
Assembly, Graduate Student Association, Associated Students of UC Davis, and student
governments of professional schools to build relationships and identify issues early; (2)
invest in prevention through engagement in community dialogue and communitybuilding; and (3) develop a structure for campus constituents to raise issues (such as
holding regular office hours).

26

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

Administration and Leadership Response Recommendation No. 3
The Task Force recommends that campus leadership develop NIMS/SEMS compliant
procedures and protocols in order to achieve standardized procedures for planning,
managing, communicating, and collaborating to manage a large scale event or incident.
The procedures and protocols will include:
x

x

x

Delineation of the appropriate engagement of University administrative
procedures as opposed to law enforcement engagement, clearly defined
thresholds for activating and leadership roles in ICS (Incident Command
System), and regular meaningful rehearsals (outside of state mandated training)
of emergency preparedness including rigorous after action analysis of ICS. In
particular, all members of the Leadership Team, including the Chancellor, should
become familiar with NIMS/SEMS standards;
Designation by the Chancellor of a senior administration official who has explicit
responsibility for managing all matters related to incidents of this nature. This
management responsibility includes protocols and procedures for collecting and
validating information on the nature of the incident and participants. The official
should be the direct liaison with the police department and the portal through
which other senior officials funnel information;
Establishment by the Leadership Team of clear and concise procedures that
delineate policy decision-making from tactical implementation. Related training
for both administration and police leadership must be undertaken on this issue.

Administration and Leadership Response Recommendation No. 4
The Task Force recommends the Leadership Team devote itself to healing processes for
the university community, including steps to operationalize the Principles of
Community, and that the administration consider Restorative Justice among other tools
to address behavior that negatively impacts the campus climate.
B. Recommendations for the UC Davis Police

UC Davis Police Recommendation No. 1
The Task Force recommends the Chancellor employ outside assistance to review UC
Davis police department protocols and procedures. Once the review is completed,
specialized training should occur with all members of the PD to assure compliance with
modern and contemporary practices for a campus-based police department. This review
should include:
x Recommendations related to all manner of PD operations including appropriate
levels of oversight and review;
x Recommendations related to an evaluation of how the police requirements for
our campus can be fulfilled including an analysis of the number of officers needed
and the ratio of sworn officers (authorized to carry weapons) to other personnel;
x Determination of the appropriate command structure, how incident command is
managed, coordination related to mutual aid, and procedures and protocol for

x

x

use of all manner of force consistent with our campus culture. The protocol for
use of force should include provisions for conditions for which riot gear is used;
A review of the job description of the Chief of Police to ensure that the scope of
practice as defined reflects the current campus needs and that the qualifications
and experience reflect campus acuity. In addition, there should be a review of
staffing and skill mix, benchmarking with other UC campuses and national
university benchmarks if available. Any officer recruitment should consider the
skills necessary to fit with the campus culture;
Recommendations for annual competency trainings and annual performance
evaluations.

UC Davis Police Recommendation No. 2
The Task Force recommends the Chief of Police evaluate the appropriate role of student
involvement in police functions such as increasing the size and utilization of the Aggie
Hosts. The focus should be on fostering a deeper sense of community.
UC Davis Police Recommendation No. 3
The Task Force recommends the UC Davis police department should strive to be a model
of policing for a university campus and ensure best practices are followed.
C. Recommendations for System-Wide Consideration

System-wide Recommendation No. 1
The Task Force recommends the University of California study, evaluate, and adopt
policies involving the training, organization, and the operation of UC Police Departments
to ensure that they reflect the distinct needs of a university community and utilize best
practices and policing adapted to the characteristics of university communities.
System-wide Recommendation No. 2
The Task Force recommends the University of California adopt a system-wide policy for
inter-agency support that requires responding agencies to respect the local campus’ rules
and procedures, including specifically those for the use of force.
System-wide Recommendation No. 3
The Task Force recommends The Office of the President should review provisions of the
Police Officers’ Bill of Rights that appear to limit independent public review of police
conduct and make appropriate recommendations to the Legislature. The Task Force did
not have access to the subject officers. This limitation does not serve the police or the
public. When information necessary to understand and evaluate police conduct is
unavailable to the public, the public has less confidence in the police and the police
cannot perform their duty without public confidence.

28

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

D. Recommendation for the Campus Community

Campus Community Recommendation No. 1
The Task Force recommends that all members of the campus community adhere to the
Principles of Community, respecting members of the campus community and acting with
civility towards others.

Appendix 1 – Terminology and Nomenclature
Because they are central to the analysis and recommendations, the Task Force uses some
phrases repeatedly in its report. In order to communicate clearly, we want to take a
moment to clarify these phrases.
The Leadership Team
Administrative decisions at UC Davis are made by an informal group of administrative
and police officers, not all of whom participate in the discussion of every issue
considered by the group. The Kroll Report describes this group as the “Leadership
Team.” We have adopted that descriptive title for this report as well. The members of
the Leadership Team are as follows:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Linda P.B. Katehi, Chancellor
Ralph J. Hexter, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
John Meyer, Vice Chancellor – Administration and Resource Management
Fred E. Wood, Vice Chancellor – Student Affairs
Karl M. Engelbach, Associate Chancellor and Chief of Staff
Michael F. Sweeney, Associate Campus Counsel
Steven Drown, Campus Counsel
Annette M. Spicuzza, Campus Police Chief
Griselda Castro, Assistant Vice Chancellor – Student Affairs
Cynthia Harrison Barbera, Executive Director of Strategic Communications
Claudia Morain, News Service Director

NIMS/SEMS
Both the Kroll Report and the Task Force Report make frequent references to the
acronyms NIMS and SEMS. Indeed, a recurrent theme in both reports is that SEMS
protocols were not activated or followed in this event.
Universities are placed in the local government organizational level of SEMS and are
expected to employ SEMS for major events. SEMS can both be used to respond to
unexpected disasters and to proactively plan for planned activities ranging from major
sporting events, to parades, to protests such as the November 18 event.
SEMS stands for Standardized Emergency Management Systems. It is described in
California Emergency Management Agency’s (CAL EMA) website,
http://www.calema.ca.gov/planningandpreparedness/pages/standardized-emergencymanagement-system.aspx, as follows:
“SEMS has been established to provide effective management of multi-agency and
multijurisdictional emergencies in California. By standardizing key elements of the
emergency management system, SEMS is intended to: facilitate the flow of information
within and between levels of the system, and facilitate coordination among all
responding agencies.
Use of SEMS will reduce the incidence of poor coordination and communications.

30

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

Local governments are required to use SEMS when their emergency operations center
is activated or a local emergency is declared or proclaimed in order to be eligible for
state funding of response-related personnel costs.”
NIMS stands for The National Incident Management System (NIMS). It is a national
model for emergency services management. NIMS was developed partly on the SEMS
model and expanded upon SEMS to build a national framework for responding to
emergency events. In California, the focus is generally on SEMS since it is specific to our
state and includes the same principles.
ICS stands for the incident command system (ICS). It is a component of both SEMS and
NIMS. ICS describes the structure and command system used for the field response. The
Incident Commander in an ICS structure is usually the most qualified police or fire
representative on site, in the field, at an event.
A key component of SEMS is written action plans for preparing for and responding to
events. The CALEMA website describes the two standard types of action plans relevant
to this Report.
“Incident Action Plans: At the field response level, written or verbal incident action
plans contain objectives reflecting the overall incident strategy and specific tactical
action and supporting information for the next operational period. Incident action
plans are essential and required element in achieving objectives under ICS.”
“EOC Action Plans: At local, operational area, regional and state levels, the use of EOC
action plans provide designated personnel with knowledge of the objectives to be
achieved and the steps required for achievement. Action plans not only provide
direction, but they also serve to provide a basis for measuring achievement of
objectives and overall system performance. Action plans can be extremely effective
tools during all phases of a disaster.”

Appendix 2 – The Kroll Report

32

THE REYNOSO TASK FORCE REPORT

February 22, 2012
Office of the President, University of California
Report Concerning the Events at UC Davis on November 18, 2011
Confidential – Do Not Distribute

An Altegrity Company

RESTRICTED USE WARNING

This report was prepared by Kroll at the request of the client to whom it is furnished. The
client agrees that reports and information received from Kroll, including this report, are strictly
confidential and are intended solely for the private and exclusive use of the client. Any other
use and any communication, publication, disclosure, dissemination or reproduction of this
report or any portion of its contents without the written consent of Kroll is strictly forbidden.
Kroll assumes no direct, indirect or consequential liability to any third party or any other
person who is not the intended addressee of this report for the information contained herein,
its interpretation or applications, or for omissions, or for reliance by any such third party or
other person thereon. To the extent information provided in this report is based on a review of
publicly-available records, such information, as presented, relies upon the accuracy and
completeness of those records, which have not been corroborated by Kroll. Statements
herein concerning financial, regulatory or legal matters should be understood to be general
observations based solely on Kroll’s experience as risk consultants and may not be relied
upon as financial, regulatory or legal advice, which Kroll is not authorized to provide. All such
matters should be reviewed with appropriately qualified advisors in these areas. THIS
REPORT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A RECOMMENDATION, ENDORSEMENT, OPINION OR
APPROVAL OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO ANY TRANSACTION, DECISION OR
EVALUATION, AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON

AS SUCH UNDER ANY

CIRCUMSTANCES.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

2

CONTENTS
1.

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 5

2.

SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS ......................................................................... 6

3.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................ 9

4.

BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 13
4.1

UC Davis: Organizational Structure and Key Actors ................................................... 13

4.1.1

Decision-making by the Leadership Team ............................................................. 14

4.1.2

Student Affairs is Re-organized and Student Activism Increases ........................... 15

4.2

The Occupy Movement ................................................................................................... 17

4.3

Occupy comes to UC Berkeley ...................................................................................... 18

4.4

Pre-Occupy Activism at UC Davis ................................................................................. 22

OCCUPY COMES TO UC DAVIS ............................................................................ 25
5.1

Planning for the Arrival of Occupy at UC Davis ........................................................... 25

5.1.1
5.2

Discussion of Non-Affiliates ................................................................................... 27
Occupy Demonstrations at UC Davis ............................................................................ 29

5.2.1

Occupy Demonstration on October 27 ................................................................... 29

5.2.2

Occupy Demonstration on November 9 .................................................................. 31

5.2.3

UC Davis Police Plan Response ............................................................................ 33

5.3

Occupation of Mrak Hall ................................................................................................. 35

5.4

Occupiers Voluntarily Leave Mrak Hall and Plan Encampment .................................. 40

5.5

Tents are Erected on the Quad and Administration Plans Eviction ........................... 43

5.5.1

Use of Force Discussed on Conference Calls ........................................................ 43

5.5.2

Administration Prepares for Encampment .............................................................. 46

5.5.3

Tents are Erected on the Quad .............................................................................. 47

5.5.4
5.6

Student Affairs Staff Engage with Activists ............................................................ 49
Planning the Eviction of the Encampment ................................................................... 51

5.6.1

Initial Plan for a Friday Morning Operation at 3:00 a.m. ......................................... 51

5.6.2

Subsequent Plan for a Friday Afternoon Operation ................................................ 52

5.6.3

Chief Spicuzza and Her Lieutenants Plan Operation ............................................. 54

5.6.4

Non-Affiliates Discussed on 10:00 p.m. Leadership Conference Call .................... 56

5.6.5

Drafting of Letter from Chancellor Katehi to Activists ............................................. 58

5.6.6

UCDPD Officers Raise Questions about the Legal Basis for a Daytime Operation 60

5.6.7

Spicuzza Tells Leadership Team about Her Lieutenant’s Views ............................ 61

5.6.8

Pike and

5.6.9

UCDPD Gathers Intelligence Regarding Encampment .......................................... 66

5.6.10

Operations Plan for Eviction ................................................................................... 67

Officer P

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Reject Tactical Direction from Chief...................................... 63

3

POLICE OPERATION ON THE QUAD .................................................................... 69
6.1

Preparing for the Police Action ..................................................................................... 69

6.1.1

Dispatch Supervisor Garcia-Hernandez at DOC .................................................... 69

6.1.2

UCDPD Conduct Briefing and Prepare for Operations ........................................... 70

6.1.3

Chief Spicuzza Requests the Tents be Removed .................................................. 72

6.1.4

Communication between Chief Spicuzza and the Lieutenants ............................... 74

6.1.5

Discussion of Legal Framework and Tactical Ground Rules .................................. 76

6.1.6

Pepper Spray ......................................................................................................... 78

6.2

Police Action Commences ............................................................................................. 80

6.2.1

Chief Spicuzza Authorizes Operation to Begin ....................................................... 80

6.2.2

UCDPD Engage with Activists and Make Arrests ................................................... 82

6.2.3

Tents are Taken Down ........................................................................................... 86

6.2.4

Officers on Police Skirmish Lines Pull Back to Surround Arrestees ....................... 87

6.2.5

Karl Engelbach Leaves Quad to Update Chancellor Katehi ................................... 88

6.2.6

Activists Encircle Officers on Quad ........................................................................ 89

6.2.7

Lieutenant Pike Warns Seated Activists about Potential Use of Force .................. 91

6.2.8

Arrestees are Led through Encircled Activists and Onlookers without Incident ...... 95

6.2.9

Pike Again Warns Seated Activists about Potential Use of Force .......................... 97

6.2.10

The Decision to Use Pepper Spray ........................................................................ 99

6.2.11

Application of Pepper Spray ................................................................................. 102

6.2.12

Transportation of Arrestees .................................................................................. 103

6.2.13

Officers Leave the Quad ...................................................................................... 104

ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 107
7.1

The Leadership Team ................................................................................................... 107

7.2

The Legal Basis for Removing the Tents .................................................................... 110

7.3

The Decision to Remove the Tents in the Afternoon ................................................. 115

7.4

The Use of Force and Decision to Use Pepper Spray ................................................ 117

7.5

Additional Police-Related Issues ................................................................................ 124

RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 127
8.1

UC Davis Leadership Team .......................................................................................... 127

8.2

System-wide Policing at the University of California ................................................ 128

8.3

Additional Recommendations for UC Policing ........................................................... 130

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

4

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

1
1.

INTRODUCTION

Kroll was retained by the Office of the President, University of California, to investigate the
November 18, 2011 pepper spray incident at the University of California, Davis (“UC Davis”).

Kroll was asked to prepare a report detailing the facts and circumstances that led to the
confrontation between campus police and activists and onlookers on the UC Davis Quad, and
the application of pepper spray on seated activists there, and to provide analysis and
recommendations related to those facts.

This report will be provided to the UC Davis Task Force, chaired by retired California
Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, which is charged with issuing recommendations to UC
Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and UC President Mark Yudof.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

5

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

2
2.

SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS

On November 22, 2011, Kroll was retained by the Office of the President, University of
California (“UC”), to undertake an independent fact-finding investigation of the November 18
pepper spray incident at UC Davis.

Kroll’s mandate is to serve a university-created Task Force in its review of the event and its
subsequent recommendations. Kroll’s investigation is not intended to be used for
administrative sanction; an Internal Affairs investigation is running separate and apart from
Kroll’s investigation. 1 The report of the Internal Affairs investigation will be confidential,
pursuant to California law, while the Kroll report is intended to be public.

After being retained, Kroll provided UC with a formal request for documents on November 29.
On December 1, the Kroll team arrived at UC Davis and began its investigation. On
December 9, as the Kroll team completed its initial round of interviews, an email was sent to
the UC Davis campus community asking witnesses to the November 18 incident to contact
Kroll investigators.

From December 2 through December 20, Kroll investigators identified a total of 96 potential
witnesses and interviewed a total of 49 individuals, including UC Davis administrators,
faculty, staff, student activists, and other students who had witnessed the November 18
incident. 2 During this period, Kroll was unable to interview any of the 21 UC Davis Police
Department (“UCDPD”) officers that were identified as relevant to the investigation, any of the

1 We must stress at the outset that the Kroll Team has had virtually no contact with the Internal Affairs (IA)
investigative team. The IA investigative team has not provided or shared any information with the Kroll Team,
including a witness list. 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. 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 potential subject of discipline; only witness officers have
been interviewed.
2 Several UC Davis employees were not formally interviewed but provided valuable guidance to Kroll investigators
throughout the investigation, including Chief Campus Counsel Steven Drown and Senior Campus Counsel Michael
Sweeney.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

6

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

ten individuals arrested during the incident, and a total of 16 other witnesses who either
refused to be interviewed or did not respond when contacted.

On December 28, Kroll submitted a second formal request for documents.

Extensive discussions regarding legal issues related to interviewing police officers resulted in
Kroll ultimately being allowed to interview 14 of the 21 UCDPD officers identified as relevant
to the investigation on January 19 and 20, 2012. Several other relevant officers, including
Lieutenant John Pike and Chief Annette Spicuzza, declined to be interviewed by Kroll
investigators.3

Also in mid-January, Kroll interviewed five additional UC Davis staff members who had been
identified from the review of documents produced by UC Davis and conducted two reinterviews of UC Davis administrators.

In gathering the documents requested by Kroll, UC Davis staff stated that they followed their
customary practices used to respond to Public Records Act requests, other University
administrative investigations, and litigation discovery requests. Documents were provided to
Kroll starting on November 30, 2011 and continued to be provided in several waves, including
as late as February 2, 2012. Kroll was ultimately provided with over ten thousand pages of
records. Several requested documents were either not produced or produced with redactions,
including the following: certain communications between UC Davis employees and campus
counsel that were identified as attorney client communications and were withheld on the
basis of attorney-client privilege; records withheld on the basis of peace officer personnel
record provisions; telephone records that were redacted to protect private confidential
information; and, text messages,4 which were not produced.

Additionally, Kroll reviewed numerous media reports and information available online,
including over 50 videos of the November 18 incident that were uploaded to portals such as
YouTube or provided directly to Kroll investigators. Kroll has downloaded and stored these
videos.

3 Kroll was provided with a lengthy statement by Lieutenant Pike regarding the November 18 incident.
4 The expense and forensic expertise required to obtain text messages were deemed to outweigh the potential
probative value of these documents.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

7

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

The fact-gathering in Kroll’s investigation was limited by several factors, including Kroll’s
inability to interview many of the student activists involved in the November 18 incident, 5
several key UCDPD officers,6 and the UC police officers from sister campuses to Davis who
participated in the November 18 incident. Kroll has also relied upon UC Davis in the area of
document production; it was deemed infeasible for budgetary, timing, and other reasons for
Kroll to conduct an independent, systemic forensic review and analysis of UC Davis servers,
hard drives, and electronic devices.

Kroll will provide the Office of the President of the University of California and the UC Davis
Task Force with the evidence collected in this investigation, which has been stored
electronically.

5 None of the ten arrestees or eight possible pepper spray targets identified by Kroll agreed to be interviewed, for
instance.
6 Chief Annette Spicuzza and Lieutenant John Pike declined to be interviewed for this report.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

8

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

3
3.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This investigation and review stem from the highly public and widely condemned use of
pepper spray by UC Davis police officers on seated activists on November 18, 2011. The
image of Lieutenant John Pike spraying the activists has gone beyond viral to the point of
being iconic, with Lieutenant Pike’s image inserted into videos, cartoons, famous paintings,
etc. Soon after the incident, Kroll was engaged to investigate and determine the facts
surrounding the event and to analyze those facts using the best policing and administrative
insight and expertise that could be brought to bear.

On November 18, 2011, the UC Davis Police Department (“UCDPD”) mounted a planned
police operation that was sanctioned by UC Davis’ civilian leadership. The aim of the police
operation was to remove tents that had been placed on the campus as part of a protest linked
to both the national “Occupy” movement and to student activism on other UC campuses. To
understand what happened in those few minutes when the activists were sprayed, Kroll
investigators started with the first mergers of student activism and the Occupy movement at
UC Davis in October 2011. Kroll carefully reviewed the subsequent demonstrations on the UC
Davis campus and the deliberations of and responses from the UC Davis Administration and
campus police that led up to the decision to mount this ill-fated police operation.

In response to the increasing number of demonstrations against funding cuts and tuition
increases on UC campuses in 2009, the UC Davis Administration formed a “Leadership
Team” to respond to demonstrations and other campus events. The Leadership Team did not
have a formal name or roster of members, met via conference call, and did not have an
agreed upon method to communicate or record decisions. As a result, Kroll investigators
found it difficult to identify the “who, what, where, when, why and how” of decision-making by
the Leadership Team. In fact, key decision-makers on the Leadership Team held conflicting
views on what decisions were made, when they were made and the basis on which they were
made. When decisions were made, they were often not sufficiently articulated, and key
decisions were often understood to mean different things to different people.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

9

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Nonetheless, Kroll identified several key, flawed decisions by the Leadership Team that set
the stage for the use of pepper spray, including:

1. The decision to mount a police operation to remove the tents. At the time the
operation was mounted (and continuing until the present) it was not clear what
legal authority existed for the campus police to remove the tents and arrest those
who opposed them. Members of the Leadership Team referred to a UC Davis
policy against overnight camping on University property in emails, but no legal
basis for campus police removing tents was stated.

Questions regarding the legal authority for campus police to remove tents from
the Quad were raised by UCDPD leadership in calls to Campus Counsel just
hours before the operation was commenced as well as by the activists
themselves, who repeatedly challenged the legal basis of the police operation
before and during the event.

2. The decision to remove the tents in the afternoon. Even if the campus police had
the legal authority to remove the tents, the timing of the operation was ill-chosen
and directly led to the gathering of the crowd and the encirclement of the police.
A major police operation that confronts protesters and activists should be
mounted during a time when the number of supporters can be minimized, not
maximized. Three o’clock in the afternoon on a sunny fall day at the center of the
campus Quad seems guaranteed to bring the maximum number of onlookers and
protesters to the scene, and in fact that is exactly what occurred. The timing of
this operation was in direct contrast to the majority of operations nationwide to
remove Occupy encampments: most have been conducted during early morning
hours.

The evidence indicates that it was Chancellor Linda Katehi who chose this time
frame, and that police leadership opposed this time frame but failed to register a
strong objection to it with the Leadership Team. The dynamics of the
conversations and decision-making resulted in a flawed decision—to remove the
tents at 3:00 p.m.—in a process where the police department failed to express its
objections and concerns adequately, while the administration failed both to hear
the police and to understand that they were “heard” to be issuing an order.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

10

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Chief Annette Spicuzza was the representative of the UCDPD on the Leadership Team and
communicated her understanding of the guidance from the Leadership Team to Lieutenant
Pike and

Officer P including that the operation was not to be “like Berkeley” and was to be

conducted on Friday afternoon. 7 When her Lieutenants questioned the legal basis for the
operation, she joined them for a call with Campus Counsel. When her Lieutenants called the
3 p.m. time frame a “bad idea,” she told them that this direction came directly from the
Chancellor’s office. At UCDPD headquarters, during the 24 hours leading up to the police
operation on November 18, the legal basis for the operation, the timing of the operation and
the use of force options were questioned by Lieutenant

Pike and Officer P and other

officers.

The police operation and police leadership on November 18 were flawed in both planning and
execution. The UCDPD Operations Plan did not comply with basic standards of incident
command and failed to account for key eventualities, such as the transport of prisoners from
the scene to the police station. Chief Spicuzza failed to attend the operation briefing and
then, from the moment that her officers were deployed on the Quad, began relaying orders to
them via her cell phone. Lieutenant Pike and Officer P behaved more like officers than
supervisors and leaders: the Lieutenant personally removed the tents; Lieutenant Pike used
the pepper spray; and

Officer P

nominally the Incident Commander, was

moving throughout the scene, confronting protesters, and leaving the area to meet the newly
arrived Davis Police Department (“DPD”) reinforcements. In short, none of the three
performed in the manner that police commanders during such an incident should have
conducted themselves.
The actual deployment of pepper spray by Lieutenant Pike and by Officer O at Pike’s
direction was flawed and unnecessary. Kroll did not have access to either of these officers to
hear first-hand their state of mind at the time of the deployment. Nonetheless, the facts of the
incident as depicted on video and the fact that several officers were able to leave the
encircled crowd without the use of force, including

Officer F

who led two

prisoners through the encircled crowd at the height of the confrontation, do not support the
objective reasonableness of deploying pepper spray to clear the seated protesters.

The UCDPD officers interviewed by Kroll reported that the crowd was hostile and acted like a
mob. Some officers and one onlooker reported seeing members of the crowd pick up rocks.

7 Chief Spicuzza declined to be interviewed by Kroll.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

11

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

At times the chants took on a more adversarial tone. In the hours of video reviewed by Kroll,
however, not a single violent act on the part of the activists was captured.

Having said that, our key finding bears repeating. While the deployment of the pepper spray
on the Quad at UC Davis on November 18, 2011 was flawed, it was the systemic and
repeated failures in the civilian, UC Davis Administration decision-making process that put
the officers in the unfortunate situation in which they found themselves shortly after 3 p.m.
that day.

We hope that this report and its recommendations can serve as a roadmap for the needed
changes in policing the university environment that this incident has brought to light. We see
room for improvement at the university leadership level and within the UC police
departments, and hope that this report will generate the impetus to make these changes.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

12

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

4
4.

BACKGROUND

The events at UC Davis on November 18, 2011 are best understood in the context of the
institution and leadership of UC Davis, the appearance of the Occupy movement two months
earlier, and the recent history of activism related to fee increases and budget cuts on
University of California campuses.

4.1

UC Davis: Organizational Structure and Key Actors

University of California, Davis (“UC Davis”) was founded in 1905, with the first students
admitted in 1908. 8 As of 2010, UC Davis had 32,290 enrolled students and approximately
18,000 non-student employees. 9 UC Davis is an “open campus” and no identification is
necessary to walk onto the campus. 10

UC Davis is under the leadership of Chancellor Linda Katehi, who was appointed on August
17, 2009. Chancellor Katehi is advised by a 15-member Cabinet that includes Provost and
Executive Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter, five vice chancellors, four vice provosts, an
associate chancellor/chief of staff, a publicity executive and others.11 The UC Davis Chief of
Police is not a member of the Cabinet, but rather is a department head who answers to a vice
chancellor.12 In addition, Chancellor Katehi is also advised by two student advisory boards,
the Chancellor’s Graduate and Professional Student Advisory Board and the Chancellor’s
Undergraduate Advisory Board.

8 http://facts.ucdavis.edu/general_statistics.lasso
9 http://facts.ucdavis.edu/employee_population_by_fund_source.lasso; including additional employees at the UC
Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, the combined population of UC Davis is over 60,000.
10 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 18, line 25. [Exhibit 1]
11 http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/about/cabinet.html
12 In October 2009, the UC Davis administration was restructured to create the Office of Administrative and
Resource Management and a number of groups, including police and fire, were brought under the oversight of Vice
Chancellor Meyer. The UC Davis Chief of Police and “about a dozen” other campus leaders report directly to
Meyer.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

13

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

According to members of the UC Davis administration, decisions regarding student protests
and other issues are made by an informal group of officials that includes Chancellor Katehi
and usually meets via conference call. The group does not have a formal name or members;
it was variously described as the “crisis team” 13 or “senior leadership team.” 14 This group,
which will be referred to as the “Leadership Team” in this report, generally included the
following individuals, subject to their availability for each conference call:15

4.1.1

x

Linda P.B. Katehi, Chancellor

x

Ralph J. Hexter, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

x

John Meyer, Vice Chancellor – Administration and Resource Management

x

Fred E. Wood, Vice Chancellor – Student Affairs

x

Karl M. Engelbach, Associate Chancellor and Chief of Staff

x

Michael F. Sweeney, Associate Campus Counsel

x

Steven Drown, Campus Counsel

x

Annette M. Spicuzza, Campus Police Chief

x

Griselda Castro, Assistant Vice Chancellor – Student Affairs

x

Cynthia Harrison Barbera, Executive Director of Strategic Communications

x

Claudia Morain, News Service Director

Decision-making by the Leadership Team

Chancellor Katehi described the decision-making process on the Leadership Team
conference calls as follows: “These are consensus-building phone calls. We try to get as
much information … and as many points of view as possible, so we don't make a mistake....
People speak their point of view. We talk about what everybody has to say and then we try to
come to a decision as a group. If anyone raises an objection to something … then we come
back and we discuss it again.”16

According to Chancellor Katehi’s Chief of Staff, Karl Engelbach, a group consensus is
reached on the Leadership Team calls and the Chancellor “reaffirms” the group decision.

13 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume I, page 13, line 9. [Exhibit 2]
14 Transcribed interview of Ralph Hexter, December 8, 2011, page 8, line 23. [Exhibit 3]
15 Not everyone on the University’s management team was involved in every conference call. Associate Campus
Counsel Michael Sweeney referred to the conference calls as “catch-as-catch-can.”
16 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 19, lines 7-15. [Exhibit 1]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

14

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Engelbach said that he uses the word “reaffirms” rather than “approves.” Engelbach stated,
“If you’re asking like who officially approves the group think, I guess technically it’s her but …
I think we come together more as a group.” 17

According to Vice Chancellor Meyer, there were in fact several key decision-makers within
the group: “For some of these primary decisions, it would always be Chancellor, my position,
Fred Wood’s position, and Mike Sweeney would typically be there as a resource. Provost
[Hexter] would typically be on the call even though he was off-campus” on November 18.18
According to Meyer, there are also “support folks” such as Student Affairs representatives like
Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro and Chief Spicuzza “providing advice.” 19 “So you have a
broad group, but key decision-makers are there.” 20

4.1.2

Student Affairs is Re-organized and Student Activism Increases

In the fall of 2009, the UC Davis “Office of Student Programs and Activity Center,” which had
overseen the administration’s response to student demonstrations and rallies from the civilian
side, was restructured as the “Center for Student Involvement.” 21 The staff, which had
reported to Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro, was reduced from a director and 14 employees
to “three activities advisors” to serve “500 student organizations.”22 The three staff members
are Anne Myler, Associate Director, Paul Cody, Coordinator, and Lori Fuller, Coordinator. 23

As students began organizing an increasing number of demonstrations against funding cuts
and tuition increases in 2009, Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro and her staff found it difficult
to help with demonstrations and take care of the more routine aspects of their jobs. 24 To
provide additional support, volunteers were recruited from UC Davis employees in “housing,
from the financial aid office, the student success center” to form the “Freedom of Expression

17 Transcribed interview of Karl Englebach, December 12, 2011, page 12, lines 10-25. [Exhibit 4]
18 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 4, line 9 through page 5, line 1.
[Exhibit 2]
19 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 4, line 9 through page 5, line 1.
[Exhibit 2]
20 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 4, line 9 through page 5, line 1.
[Exhibit 2]
21 These departments were part of UC Davis’ Student Affairs unit, headed by Vice Chancellor Fred Wood, and
reported to Assistant Vice Chancellor Griselda Castro. Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011,
page 9, line 19 through page 10, line 25. [Exhibit 5]
22 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 10, lines 22-25. [Exhibit 5]
23 http://campusunions.ucdavis.edu/?page_id=930
24 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 11, line 18-23. [Exhibit 5]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

15

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Support Team” (initially named the “Student Activism Response Team”) which would maintain
contact with student activists and report to Castro, who would report to the administration.25

At the same time, the UC Davis administration was “trying to develop [a process for getting]
information to the decision-making” administrators so that they could respond to the oftenunpredictable events that resulted from student activism.26 The administration began to have
Leadership Team conference calls and Castro sometimes joined the calls so that she could
communicate directly with the Leadership Team. 27

At the beginning of the 2011 academic year, there was a Leadership Team meeting in
anticipation of protest activity at UC Davis. According to Vice Chancellor Meyer, the
Leadership Team designated support staff from the UC Davis Police Department (“UCDPD”)
to run an Emergency Operations Center and to help with logistics and a second team within
Student Affairs to conduct outreach with protest groups and work to “have things end well and
safely, not trying to get in the way of free speech.” 28 According to Meyer, Student Affairs
representatives had successfully facilitated safe and successful endings to volatile situations
in recent years. Meyer also stated that alerts and mediation provided by the Student Affairs
representatives resulted in less confrontations between activists and both City of Davis and
UC police.29

In the event of a student demonstration, Vice Chancellors Meyer and Wood each had “folks
on the ground” under their authority, with campus police under Meyer and Student Affairs
staff and Freedom of Expression Support team volunteers under Wood. 30 Meyer described
the two groups as “parallel efforts with complementary, but little different missions [sic].” 31
Meyer and Wood are “sort of partnered” and were “taking competing views and … sharing
those competing views with the Chancellor and Provost.”32

25 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 13, line 19-24, and page 14, lines 15-22.
[Exhibit 5]
26 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 11, line 18-23. [Exhibit 5]
27 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 13, line 19-24, and page 14, lines 15-22.
[Exhibit 5]
28 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, page 31, lines 14-15. [Exhibit 2]
29 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, page 29, line 22 through page 30, line 8. [Exhibit 2]
30 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2011, page 11, lines 2-3. [Exhibit 40]
31 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2011, page 11, lines 2-3. [Exhibit 40]
32 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2011, page 11, line 8 and page 12, line 9. [Exhibit 40]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

16

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

4.2

The Occupy Movement

The Occupy movement began in the financial district of New York City in September 2011
under the banner of Occupy Wall Street. As the name implies, a central tactic of the
movement is the occupation of space, and the first encampment was established in Zuccotti
Park, a privately-owned, publicly-accessible park near Wall Street. The Occupy movement
subsequently spread to more than 100 cities in the United States and actions in over 1,500
cities globally.33 As the Occupy movement has grown, its slogan “we are the 99 percent,” its
messages related to economic inequality and corporate power, its occupation of public
spaces and clashes with police have received wide-spread media attention—in both
traditional media and new forms of social media—and have been credited with changing the
national discussion about domestic and international economic challenges.

According to an Occupy-affiliated website, the movement promotes “methods, techniques
and knowledge about peaceful occupation of public spaces while developing sustainable
ways of living based on participatory democracy.” 34 The Occupy movement is widely
understood to be a leaderless movement and ‘Occupations’ are organized using a “nonbinding consensus based collective decision making tool known as a ‘people’s assembly.’” 35

In the weeks leading up to the incident that is the subject of this report, Occupy
encampments around the United States were being challenged by city governments.
According to a November 13 New York Times article, “as city officials around the country
move to disband Occupy Wall Street encampments amid growing concerns over health and
public safety, protesters have begun to erect more tents on college campuses.” 36 (This article
was emailed by Chief Spicuzza to members of the Leadership Team on Monday, November
14).37

The Occupy Oakland encampment, to cite a nearby example, was erected in early October
and dismantled by police on October 25. Clashes between police and activists during the
eviction resulted in more than 100 arrests and multiple injuries, including an Iraq war veteran
and activist who suffered a skull fracture receiving wide-spread attention. The camp was

33 http://occupywallst.org/about/ [Exhibit 6]
34 http://occupywallst.org/about/ [Exhibit 6]
35 http://occupywallst.org/about/ [Exhibit 6]
36 “Occupy protesters shift focus to campuses,” The New York Times, November 14, 2011. [Exhibit 7]
37 Email from Spicuzza to Meyer, Hexter, Drown, Castro, Benson, Wood, Barbera, Morain, November 14, 2011 at
12:39 p.m. [Exhibit 8]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

17

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

subsequently allowed to rebuild. After an Occupy participant was fatally shot near the
encampment and media reports of “increasing drug use and violence” were published, the
encampment was cleared by police in the early morning hours of November 14. 38 The
eviction of the Oakland encampment, located less than six miles away from UC Berkeley,
occurred just days after the Occupy movement arrived at UC Berkeley.
An Occupy encampment was created in the City of Davis on October 15, 2011. 39 It was
erected in Davis’ Central Park, close to where a farmer’s market is held, and was allowed to
stay “despite the fact that the encampment [violated] a city ordinance that prohibits any type
of camping in public parks.”40 According to an article in the Davis Enterprise, Davis Mayor
Joe Krovoza said that “city leaders decided they would support the protesters’ First
Amendment rights by allowing them to camp in the park even though city ordinance prohibits
it.”41 After the first “month or two,” however, the city’s comfort level with taking “a strong 100
percent free-speech attitude … started to wane.” 42

According to media reports, several UC Davis students were involved with the Occupy Davis
encampment before Occupy UC Davis was established. 43 When the UC Davis Occupy
encampment was re-established following the events of November 18, “the two camps [were]
in communication, and occupiers [spent] time at both sites, [but] they identify as separate
Occupations, with separate facebook pages and websites.” 44

4.3

Occupy comes to UC Berkeley

The Wednesday, November 9 Occupy demonstration at UC Berkeley is a pivotal event for
this report because the use of batons by police against activists that day brought the issue of
“police brutality” to equal footing with tuition increases and budget cuts, and heightened

38 “Oakland, Cal brace for Occupy troubles,” The San Francisco Chronicle, November 14, 2011. [Exhibit 9] Media
reports of problems at Occupy encampments have been criticized for failing to report the positive achievements of
these communities, as well as failing to take into account that these communities welcomed the most marginalized
members of society, such as the homeless and the unemployed.
39 http://occupydavis.org/about-us/ [Exhibit 10]
40 “City weighs First Amendment rights and breaking the law with Occupy Davis,” Davis Enterprise, December 1,
2011. [Exhibit 11]
41 “City weighs First Amendment rights and breaking the law with Occupy Davis,” Davis Enterprise, December 1,
2011. [Exhibit 11]
42 “City weighs First Amendment rights and breaking the law with Occupy Davis,” Davis Enterprise, December 1,
2011. [Exhibit 11]
43 “Occupy Davis has moved, but still standing in Central Park,” The California Aggie, November 22, 2011. [Exhibit
12]
44 “The ‘other’ Occupy camp gets warned by police,” Davis Patch, November 30, 2011. [Exhibit 13]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

18

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

concern among the UC administration and police leadership about potential conflicts and
potential violence.

The Occupy movement could be said to have arrived at UC Berkeley on November 9, as
students prepared for walkouts and demonstrations leading up to a planned meeting of the
UC Board of Regents in San Francisco the following week. The occupation of campus
buildings and outdoor spaces by student activists, however, has been a commonly utilized
tactic by activists on University campuses for several decades.

The central issue of the walkouts and demonstrations held on November 9—tuition increases
for students attending public universities in California—had been the cause of rallies and civil
disobedience by student activists on University of California campuses for several years.
According to Contra Costa Times article, “some say the Occupy movement was born at UC
Berkeley last year, when students and others repeatedly staged sit-ins at campus buildings”
and numerous activists were arrested.45

Days before the demonstration, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau “warned
students” 46 that encampments were not allowed on campus and stated that “the present
struggles with entrenched encampments in Oakland, San Francisco and New York City led us
to conclude that we must uphold our policy.” 47 Student organizers responded by asserting
that encampments were important expressions of free speech. 48

On November 9, “students voted to set up an encampment in defiance of university orders,
and as soon as they had three tents erected in front of Sproul Hall, baton-wielding police
moved in on them.”49 The tents were erected at approximately 3:00 p.m., after a protest and a
march that had started at noon.50 Students linked arms to defend the tents and numerous
hand-held video cameras captured images of UC police and Alameda County sheriff’s
deputies clad in riot gear swinging and ramming batons against activists. The videos were
soon uploaded to YouTube and viewed by a worldwide audience.

45 “UC Berkeley students face down police over tents set up near Sproul Hall,” Contra Costa Times, November 9,
2011. [Exhibit 14]
46 “UC Berkeley students plan to set up Occupy camp,” Associated Press, November 9, 2011. [Exhibit 15]
47 “Occupy protesters shift focus to campuses,” The New York Times, November 14, 2011. [Exhibit 7]
48 “UC Berkeley students plan to set up Occupy camp,” Associated Press, November 9, 2011. [Exhibit 15]
49 “Occupy heads to UC,” The San Francisco Chronicle, November 10, 2011. [Exhibit 16]
50 “UC Berkeley students face down police,” Contra Costa Times, November 9, 2011. [Exhibit 14]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

19

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

After the officers removed the tents and withdrew, activists “quickly set up their tents again,
declaring that they would try to stay all night.”51 Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Harry Le
Grande attempted to negotiate with the activists, saying that they could stay “but only with
certain conditions, such as not sleeping at the site or using sound amplifiers.” 52 Officers
“forcibly removed” the tents again at approximately 10:00 p.m. “Over two days, 40 protesters
were taken into custody, including 32 students, one professor and seven people not affiliated
with the campus,” according to media reports. 53 Most were released within a day, “many
complaining of bruises and lacerations.”54

Responding to the controversy that ensued, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau and
UC Berkeley police maintained that the activists who linked arms to prevent the police from
tearing down the tents were not acting nonviolently. In an email to faculty, students and
university employees, Birgeneau stated that he “honored” those activists who “acted in the
tradition of peaceful civil disobedience” but that those who had formed a human chain were
not engaged in “nonviolent civil disobedience.”55 UC Berkeley police

Officer V

was quoted as saying that "the individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself
is an act of violence.” 56 Others, including the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild, objected
to these assessments, however, saying that “the officers tactics appeared to be a severe
overreaction.”57

Local criticism of UC Berkeley’s methods also preceded the events of November 9. On
November 8, the Berkeley City Council voted to refuse to sign a mutual aid agreement with
UC Berkeley police, citing excessive force and free speech violations during previous
events/clashes.58 UC Berkeley Police Chief Mitch Celaya later responded by saying that it
was “unfortunate” that the City of Berkeley had refused a mutual aid agreement with his
department and commented on the November 9 demonstration, saying that the video only
show one perspective and does not show “the posturing, the yelling, the screaming and the
physical threats to the police.” Celaya was quoted as saying “the protesters had a choice to

51 “Occupy heads to UC,” The San Francisco Chronicle, November 10, 2011. [Exhibit 16]
52 “Police move to disband UC Berkeley ‘Occupy’ camp,” Associated Press, November 9, 2011. [Exhibit 17]
53 “UC Berkeley police defend Occupy crackdown,” Contra Costa Times, November 10, 2011. [Exhibit 18]
54 “UC aims to avoid repeat of clash,” The San Francisco Chronicle, November 13, 2011. [Exhibit 19]
55 Demonstrators at UC vote for general strike Tuesday,” The San Francisco Chronicle, November 11, 2011.
[Exhibit 20]
56 “Tensions high in East Bay,” The San Francisco Chronicle, November 11, 2011. [Exhibit 21]
57 “Tensions high in East Bay,” The San Francisco Chronicle, November 11, 2011. [Exhibit 21]
58 “Berkeley leaders refuse mutual aid agreements,” Contra Costa Times, November 9, 2011. [Exhibit 22]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

20

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

move, and they chose not to and they chose physical confrontation. I would have preferred
there not be acts of violence by the protesters.” 59

On November 13, The San Francisco Chronicle published an article that began as follows:
“Mocked and criticized UC Berkeley administrators are softening their defense of the violent
response by campus police against protesters, and say they hope to avoid similar aggression
this week at a planned student walkout. At the same time, campus police say they are
investigating their response and considering whether pepper spray and tear gas might be
used in future protests.” 60 Celaya said “there are tough questions to be asked. Protesters
don’t appear in the video to be aggressive. What were we trying to accomplish?” Celaya said
officers chose not to use pepper spray and tear gas on protesters last week because the
effects can be worse than using batons.61 But as police planned for future protests, Celaya
said, "I'm looking at it." 62

On Monday, November 14, the UC Board of Regents cancelled their meeting scheduled for
Wednesday in San Francisco, after UC law enforcement officials provided “credible
intelligence” which indicated that “rogue elements intent on violence and confrontation with
UC public safety officers were planning to attach themselves to peaceful demonstrations
expected to occur at the meeting.”63

On Tuesday, November 15, as many as 10,000 activists rallied at UC Berkeley and tents
were erected on Sproul Plaza at around 9:30 p.m. “Hundreds of occupiers displaced Monday
from the Occupy Oakland camp joined forces with a resurgent Occupy movement at UC
Berkeley, where they rallied into the night and voted overwhelmingly to establish an
encampment at the campus. Police did not immediately respond, and instead “regularly
warned [the activists] through the day Wednesday that the tents had to go,” according to
media reports.64

59 “UC police chief pledges to work with Berkeley,” The Oakland Tribune, November 14, 2011. [Exhibit 23]
60 “UC aims to avoid repeat of clash,” The San Francisco Chronicle, November 13, 2011. [Exhibit 19]
61 This is a controversial comment and would be disputed by most use-of-force experts in the law enforcement
community.
62 “UC aims to avoid repeat of clash,” The San Francisco Chronicle, November 13, 2011. [Exhibit 19]
63 Board of Regents, Press Release, November 14, 2011. [Exhibit 24]
64 “Police clear Sproul Plaza encampment in quiet raid,” The San Francisco Chronicle, November 18, 2011.
[Exhibit 25]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

21

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

An apparently unrelated incident caused ”tensions” to surge at Sproul Plaza on Tuesday
afternoon, “when campus police shot … a man who … appeared to be carrying a weapon in a
computer lab at the Haas School of Business a half a mile from the protest site.”65

At 3:30 a.m. on Thursday, November 17, police in riot gear raided the encampment in Sproul
Plaza. More than 100 officers surrounded the approximately 40 campers and gave them 10
minutes to disperse; all but two did, and these two were arrested. UC Berkeley police were
accompanied by members of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department and police
departments from Oakland, Emeryville, Newark and Union City. 66

At 5:15 a.m. on Friday, November 18, police evicted an encampment at UCLA, where
students had staged coordinated rallies with Berkeley and other UC campuses. 67 Police
arrested 13 students and one alumnus while breaking the encampment of 25 tents on UCLA’s
Wilson Plaza. Approximately 40 activists left after police ordered the crowd to disperse. 68

4.4

Pre-Occupy Activism at UC Davis

Like UC Berkeley and many other university campuses, both public and private, occupations
of university buildings by student activists had occurred before at UC Davis. Kroll has
conducted only limited research regarding the history of student activism at UC Davis, but
identified several relevant events during the tenure of Chancellor Katehi.69

In November 2009, approximately three months after Katehi arrived at UC Davis, 52 activists
were arrested—47 of them students—after they refused to leave Mrak Hall. After students
demanded amnesty for those arrested, UC Davis administrators agreed not to pursue
disciplinary action against the students who had been arrested. Chancellor Katehi reportedly
left a message for the Yolo County District Attorney in which she asked him “to consider that

65 “University students vent frustration,” Los Angeles Times, November 16, 2011. [Exhibit 26]
66 “Police clear Sproul Plaza encampment in quiet raid,” The San Francisco Chronicle, November 18, 2011.
[Exhibit 25]
67 “14 arrested in anti-Wall Street protests at UCLA,” Associated Press, November 18, 2011. [Exhibit 27]
68 “14 arrested Occupy UCLA members to referred to first amendment rights program,” Daily Bruin, January 6,
2012. [Exhibit 28]
69 No protest-related events at UC Davis prior to Chancellor Katehi’s arrival in August 2009 are included in the
research and analysis contained in this report. Research regarding events since August 2009 has been mostly
limited to media reports and to selected, publicly-available video footage.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

22

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

the students who had occupied the university's administration building Nov. 19 in protest of
fee hikes were respectful, well-behaved and had done no damage.” 70

Following this event, the administration attempted to change its tactics in responding to
student protests. According to Katehi, “since 2009, we have decided whenever students take
over a building we give them a night to somehow settle and then for us to get to find out how
to speak with them and try to understand what the demands are.” 71

In February 2010, students organized a demonstration at the UC Davis library, in which they
staged a “study-in” after the library was supposed to close. Administrators responded by
keeping the library “open around the clock for the weekend.”72 Vice Chancellor Meyer called
the administration response to the library action “a huge success.” 73

In March 2010, hundreds of students rallied against “fee hikes and mismanagement of the
UC administration,” marching through the UC Davis campus and “pulling fire alarms” in eight
buildings. 74 The students continued to march, blocking intersections and a bus terminal,
before finally moving toward an on-ramp to the I-80 freeway. Activists tried to “push past” 120
officers from 10 law enforcement agencies, who stood shoulder-to-shoulder “in full tactical
gear” to block the path of the demonstrators. Police “fired pepper balls at the ground in front
of the protesters” and “at one point, used batons to beat back a throng of students pushing
forward.”75 A single demonstrator was arrested “on suspicion of inciting a riot and resisting
arrest” and activists “left the scene after police agreed to cite and release” the arrestee. 76

According to Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro, her staff of three activities advisors “were in
the middle of the [California Highway Patrol] and the students” when the activists attempted
to march onto the freeway. Castro, who was attending a funeral that day, said that her staff
“prevented a calamity out there. But they said we never want to be put in this situation again
…. It was clear that I couldn’t … tap them all the time and take them away from their jobs.”
According to Castro, this incident contributed to the formation of a volunteer “Student

70 “UCD chancellor speaks up on behalf of protesters,” The Sacramento Bee, November 26, 2009. [Exhibit 29]
71 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 10, lines 3-6. [Exhibit 1]
72 “Budget protests spread in state, nation,” The Sacramento Bee, February 28, 2010. [Exhibit 30]
73 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume I, page 24, line 11. [Exhibit 2]
74 “March 4 campus rally culminates at freeway entrance,” California Aggie, March 8, 2010. [Exhibit 31]
75 “Protesters clash with police in attempt to block I-80,” California Aggie, March 5, 2010. [Exhibit 32]
76 “March 4 campus rally culminates at freeway entrance,” California Aggie, March 8, 2010. [Exhibit 31]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

23

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Activism Team” (later renamed the “Freedom of Expression Support Team”) to monitor
campus demonstrations and report to the administration and to campus police. 77

In May 2010, a small group “set out to ‘reclaim the Quad’ … with the pitching of tents on the
north end” of the Quad and “a half dozen or so people” camped on the Quad on Tuesday and
Wednesday nights, “according to the campus Police Department.” 78 The small demonstration
took place as larger demonstrations were held to “protest the elimination of four sports
teams” and “budget cuts in ethnic studies,” and no disciplinary action was reported.

In March 2011, UC Davis students accused administrators of spying on their activist
movement after receiving documents obtained through a Public Records Act request with the
university. 79 According to a California Aggie opinion article, “a network of student leaders,
high-ranking administrators and police leadership” was formed in 2010-2011 to “keep
peaceful protesters under the administration’s control through direct communication with
university leadership, including Chancellor Linda Katehi.” 80 While the author of the opinion
article did detect “a heart-felt desire to protect first amendment rights” in administration’s
efforts, he wanted to “point out the significance of an administration treating its students,
many of whom will be burdened by student debt for years after graduating, as untrustworthy
thugs…. The real issue here is respect.” 81

In an April 2011 California Aggie article, Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro defended the
Student Activism Team, saying that “having a presence at student protests isn’t anything new”
and that “administrators recruited volunteers and formalized the team in August of 2010” after
realizing that “the budget crisis would likely stir more action this year.” 82 According to the
article, “while members of [the Student Activism Team] view it as a way of ensuring student
safety and promoting free speech, others deem it a breach of trust as well as an infringement
of first amendment rights.”83

77 Transcribed interview with Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011. [Exhibit 5]
78 http://dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=12730 [Exhibit 33]
79 “Students say UC Davis violates their free speech by spying on protests,” The Sacramento Bee, April 12, 2011.
[Exhibit 34]
80 “UC Davis police and administration infiltrate peaceful student protest,” California Aggie, March 10, 2011.
[Exhibit 35]
81 “UC Davis police and administration infiltrate peaceful student protest,” California Aggie, March 10, 2011.
[Exhibit 35]
82 “Administrators formalize team to monitor activism,” California Aggie, April 5, 2011. [Exhibit 36]
83 “Administrators formalize team to monitor activism,” California Aggie, April 5, 2011. [Exhibit 36]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

24

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

5
OCCUPY COMES TO UC DAVIS
Members of the UC Davis administration took notice when an Occupy encampment arrived in
the City of Davis; on October 5, Chief Spicuzza sent an email to Vice Chancellor Meyer and
others on the Leadership Team with a link to a Davis Patch article about a planned
encampment at Central Park in the City of Davis.84 As discussed above (see The Occupy
Movement section), the encampment was allowed to exist by city officials “despite the fact
that the encampment [violated] a city ordinance that prohibits any type of camping in public
parks.”85

In the weeks that followed, the administration became aware that the first Occupy UC Davis
events had been scheduled, in coordination with other public universities in California, for
Thursday, October 27 and Wednesday, November 9.

5.1

Planning for the Arrival of Occupy at UC Davis

On Tuesday, October 25, Vice Chancellor Meyer wrote an email to Chancellor Katehi,
Provost Hexter, and other officials, in which he alerted them to the planned protest on
October 27 and provided recommendations for the following two scenarios:
x

If Mrak Hall is occupied: “We believe the most effective manner in which to remove
protesters from Mrak Hall (assuming all is peaceful) is to remove them at 5:00 p.m.”
on the day following the Occupation. “This allows us to work with other agencies to
obtain mutual aid resources in a reasonable manner that does not overextend their
resources or budgets. If occupants are not peaceful, then Police would remove
protesters sooner as appropriate.”

84 Email from Spicuzza to Mohr, Meyer, Trauernicht, Dickinson, Sandy, October 5, 2011 at 3:29 p.m. [Exhibit 37]
85 “City weights First Amendment rights and breaking the law with Occupy Davis,” Davis Enterprise, December 1,
2011. [Exhibit 11]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

25

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

x

If protesters camp on the Quad: “Camping is not allowed on the quad, however
removal of occupants may create a scene with Police removing individuals and
property that could be troublesome. We do worry that if camping persists it could
attract individuals that have no affiliation with the campus which raises other security
issues. We are assessing our legal options and are not inclined to allow tents or
structures.”86

Approximately fifteen minutes later, Chancellor Katehi replied to the group, stating “this is a
good plan.”87

According to Vice Chancellor Meyer, his recommendations were the result of conversations
between “Fred and I and Student Affairs folks and police … so everyone’s sort of gathering
this intelligence and this was just my attempt to do the initial frame … for the Chancellor or
Provost.” 88 At the time, members of the Leadership Team were getting information from
administration at other UC campuses “within our silos,” so that Meyer would hear from
various Vice Chancellors and campus police would hear from other UC police departments. 89

According to Katehi, “the first thing … we normally do [in responding to a student activism] is
to ask Fred Wood’s office [Student Affairs] … to start the process of … approaching the
students. They have staff to do that.”90 In the case of the student activists associated with the
Occupy movement, Katehi said that the Student Affairs staff was asked to find out “what they
want” and “get them to understand that they cannot have the tents.”91 The Student Affairs
staff informed the Leadership Team that “it was very hard to approach the students,”
according to Katehi.92

86 Email from Meyer to Katehi, Hexter, Wood, Spicuzza, Officer S Barbera, Benson, Officer P Castro,
Loessberg-Zahl, Raycraft, Carter-Dubois, Dickinson, Engelbach, Parker, October 25, 2011 at 12:09 p.m. [Exhibit
38]
87 Email from Katehi to Meyer, Hexter, Wood, Spicuzza, Officer S Barbera, Benson, Officer P Castro,
Loessberg-Zahl, Raycraft, Carter-Dubois, Dickinson, Engelbach, Parker, October 25, 2011 at 12:09 p.m. [Exhibit
39]
88 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2011, page 18, lines 21-25. [Exhibit 40]
89 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 19, lines 20-24. [Exhibit 40]
90 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 14, line 24 through page 15, line 6.
[Exhibit 1]
91 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 16, lines 1-2. [Exhibit 1]
92 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 16, lines 7-8. [Exhibit 1]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

26

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Katehi’s goal was to obtain “a list of demands … so we can have that discussion [with a
smaller representative group] and then … have them take the tents away.” 93 According to
Katehi, Vice Chancellor Wood had informed the Leadership Team that the Occupy group was
“leaderless” and that it was “very difficult to speak with them,” but that there were “students
who wanted to speak with me or us.” 94 Katehi did not comment further on the tensions
between her approach and the well-publicized characteristics of the Occupy movement, in
which there are no specific demands and occupation of space is asserted both as a core
message and organizing tactic. According to Katehi, “there were a lot of … discussions
[about] how to make sure that we can get the students to work with us and remove the
tents.”95

5.1.1

Discussion of Non-Affiliates

In planning its response to Occupy-related activism, the Leadership Team discussed the
presence of “non-affiliates” in the Occupy group. According to Chancellor Katehi, “We had
noticed that this group, this year specifically, has people—even when they came to Mrak—
who were not students.”96 “We were worried at the time about that because the issues from
Oakland were in the news and the use of drugs and sex and other things, and you know here
we have very young students … we worried especially about having very young girls and
other students with older people who come from the outside without any knowledge of their
record … if anything happens to any student while we’re in violation of policy, it’s a very
tough thing to overcome.” 97

According to Vice Chancellor Meyer, “our context at the time was seeing what's happening in
the City of Oakland, seeing what's happening in other municipalities across the country, and
not being able to see a scenario where [a UC Davis Occupation] ends well … Do we lose
control and have non-affiliates become part of an encampment? So my fear is a long-term
occupation with a number of tents where we have an undergraduate student and a nonaffiliate and there's an incident. And then I'm reporting to a parent that a non-affiliate has

93 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 17, lines 21 through page 18, line
2-5. [Exhibit 1]
94 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 17, lines 21 through page 18, line
2-5. [Exhibit 1]
95 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, page 19, lines 1-2. [Exhibit 1]
96 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 17, lines 15-17. [Exhibit 1]
97 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 18, lines 6-17. [Exhibit 1]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

27

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

done this unthinkable act with your daughter, and how could we let that happen?”98 According
to Meyer, “My concern wasn’t non-affiliates in the Mrak Hall group. My concern was playing
the chess move forward and you got an occupation for four weeks and people are
attracted.”99

During the week leading up to November 18, “there was a sense [among members of the
administration] that all these non-students had arrived” on campus, but Student Affairs
staffers who spent time with the activists that week did not observe any significant presence
of non-affiliates, according to Associate Director Anne Myler. 100

Andrew Wells, a Freedom of Expression Support Team volunteer who spent the night at Mrak
Hall when it was occupied on November 15, estimated that the 50 activists that spent the
night in Mrak consisted of 98 percent students and a single faculty member. He was not sure
if there were any non-affiliates there, and said “there might have been a couple,” although he
admitted that he had no way of knowing for sure.101 Wells reported to the Leadership Team
through Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro, who also spent time with the activists. On the
evening of Thursday, November 17, Castro observed the activists who had erected the
encampment that afternoon, and reported to the Leadership Team later that night that “the
only non-affiliates I saw were people from the interfaith communities providing food … and
they were not spending the night.” 102

This assessment was not shared by campus police, who reported to the Leadership Team
through Chief Spicuzza. According to a UC Davis officer who also spent the night at Mrak
Hall on November 15, “through conversation with the occupants, it was determined that the
majority were NOT affiliated with the University [but were] part of the ‘Occupy’ movement.” 103
On the Leadership Team conference call on the night of November 17, Chief Spicuzza said
that her officers believed that 80 percent of the activists in the encampment on the Quad
were not students, according to Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro.104 When Castro challenged
this assessment, Spicuzza replied that she believed Castro’s assessment was more accurate

98 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume I, page 26, lines 4-15. [Exhibit 2]
99 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2011, page 15-, line 25 through page 16, line 2. [Exhibit 40]
100 Transcribed interview of Anne Myler, January 19, 2012.page 33, lines 16-17. [Exhibit 41]
101 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 22, lines 17 through page 23, line 15. [Exhibit
42]
102 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro interview, December 8, 2011, page 33, lines 5-8. [Exhibit 5]
103 Email,
Spicuzza,

Officer M

(who was advised by Officer F
who had stayed overnight at Mrak Hall) to
Pike, November 16, 2011 at 6:02 a.m. [Exhibit 43]

Officer P Officer S

104 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011,page 33, line 18-21. [Exhibit 5]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

28

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

than that of her own officers. 105 Castro told Kroll investigators that she then proceeded to
make a long argument to the Leadership Team on the advantages of not removing the
encampment on the following day, and her remarks were met with “silence.” 106 According to
Castro, “I didn’t say ‘don’t do anything’ because I’m not the risk management … I have to be
respectful of the people on the call who have the risk management on their shoulders if
something goes wrong.”107

The view that non-affiliates had a significant presence among the Occupy activists survived
this discussion. The letter from Chancellor Katehi that was distributed to activists on the
Quad at approximately 11 a.m. on Friday, November 18 stated:
“We are aware that many of those involved in the recent demonstrations on campus are
not members of the UC Davis community. This requires us to be even more vigilant about
the safety of our students, faculty and staff.”

Indeed, in a January 13, 2012 letter to Kroll investigative staff, Senor Campus Counsel
Michael Sweeney noted “several Kroll investigators have asked questions about the laws that
apply to camping on the quad, and the laws that were cited in the police arrest citations. I will
use this opportunity to briefly clarify this topic. The law that most clearly applies is California
Code of Regulations, title 5, section 100005, enclosed, which prohibits non-affiliates
[emphasis added] from camping on University property.” 108 Thus, in response to questions
about the legal basis for the police action109 the administration cites legal authority that only
applies to non-affiliates.

5.2

Occupy Demonstrations at UC Davis

5.2.1

Occupy Demonstration on October 27

On Thursday, October 27, a demonstration was held on the UC Davis Quad and activists
marched through campus and ended the demonstration at the Occupy Davis encampment in

105 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 33, line 18 through page 34, line 4. [Exhibit
5]
106 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 34, lines 6-12. [Exhibit 5]
107 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 36, lines 15-17. [Exhibit 5]
108 Letter from Sweeney to Berkow, January 13, 2012. [Exhibit 44]
109 A topic discussed in detail below.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

29

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Central Park.110 Talking points were circulated by the administration for the demonstration,
which, in addition to statements on “fee increases” and “student debt”, included the following
statements:

“We respect students’ free speech and the importance of lawful protest to our democracy.”

“Student activism is recognized as a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and an
important learning opportunity.”

“Safety is the top priority at protests.”

“University policy prohibits the use of university property for overnight camping. And it also
has specific requirements for booking space on campus, using amplified sound and
creating symbolic structures on campus.”

An Operations Plan was prepared by
demonstration.

112

111

Officer P

of UCDPD for the October 27

In the event of a “building occupation,” the Operations Plan detailed a

potential scenario in which students would “secure doors from the inside” of a campus
building, “encourage others to join via an electronic network” and then “mass outside the
occupied building.” The Operations Plan provided the “tactical considerations,” including the
creation of a skirmish line to effect arrests and provide for the “safe extraction” of arrestees,
the use of “helmets with face shields” and “pepper ball available,” and the “control [of the]
entire perimeter around [the] building.” If the occupation occurred after hours, students would
be arrested for trespassing; for “open air events, or during normal course of business,” the
police would “utilize the dispersal order and 409 PC notification.”113

No non-police member of the UC Davis administration told Kroll that they reviewed, or were
aware of, this or any other UCDPD Operation Plan; Meyer stated that he did not review the
Operation Plan.114 The Operations Plan obtained by Kroll was not visibly authorized by Chief

110 Email from Castro to Leadership Team members, October 27, 2011 at 2:25 p.m. [Exhibit 45]
111 Email from Morain to Barbera, Benson, Engelbach, October 27, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. [Exhibit 46]
112 October 27th 2011 Protest, Operations Plan, prepared by
Department, Operations, October 27, 2011. [Exhibit 47]

Officer P

UC Davis Police

113 October 27th 2011 Protest, Operations Plan, prepared by
Department, Operations, October 27, 2011. [Exhibit 47]

Officer P

UC Davis Police

114 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 25, line 5. [Exhibit 40]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

30

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Spicuzza or anyone else and Kroll did not determine if Chief Spicuzza reviewed it or
authorized it.115

On Wednesday, November 2, Chief Spicuzza wrote an email to Leadership Team members
(Chancellor Katehi was not included) saying “I’m sure we are all very happy as to how October
27th turned out for the campus” and suggesting that planning begin for the planned
demonstrations starting November 9.116 Chief Spicuzza also raised the question of whether a
“definitive answer” was reached as to whether tents would be allowed on the Quad. Vice
Chancellor Wood and Meyer subsequently emailed each other confirming their opinion that tents
would not be allowed. Wood emailed Wood to confirm his understanding that “if the tents stayed
up for some period of time then Police [are] going to take them down.”117

In the exchange of emails between Wood and Meyer, they passed as an attachment a statement
on the “Use of University Properties.”118 This document restated the policies relating to use of
University property, referring to the UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual Chapter 270,
Properties Use and Extracurricular Activities Section 20, Use and Reservation of University
Properties/Event Arrangements. This policy states simply that “[u]se of University properties for
overnight camping is prohibited.”

5.2.2

Occupy Demonstration on November 9

On Monday, November 7, Chief Spicuzza emailed Leadership Team members to set up a
conference call and stated that “no setting up of tents or ‘camping’ will be allowed on
campus” and that police would be used to “remove” activists from Mrak Hall if an Occupation
occurred.119

The decision by UC Davis administrators to disallow encampments on campus was
consistent with other UC campuses at the time: on Tuesday, November 8, Provost Hexter

115 As Chief Spicuzza is currently on administrative leave and considered a possible subject of discipline, Kroll
investigators were not authorized to interview her.
116 Email from Spicuzza to Meyer, Wood, Hexter, Drown, Sweeney, Engelbach, November 2, 2011 at 11:52 a.m.
[Exhibit 48]
117 Email from Meyer to Wood, November 2, 2011 at 12:13 p.m. and email from Wood to Meyer, November 2,
2011 at 12:21 p.m. [Exhibit 49]
118 Use of University Properties, University of California, Davis. This pamphlet was compiled from information from
the following source: http://manuals.ucdavis.edu/ppm/270/270-20.pdf [Exhibit 50]
119 Email from Spicuzza to Wood, Drown, Sweeney, Engelbach, Meyer, Officer P Officer
Parker, Myler, Crossley, Ealy, Hull, Green, November 7, 2011 at 6:58 p.m. [Exhibit 59]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

S

Pike, Yahnke,

31

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

emailed Chancellor Katehi and other members of the Leadership Team the statement that
Chancellor Birgeneau had emailed to the UC Berkeley community. Birgeneau asserted that
UC Berkeley shared “many of the highest principles associated with the OWS movement”
and was a “model of the right to free speech, assembly and activism,” but outlined “basic
expectations” that included that “encampments or occupation are not allowed on our
campus.” The statement equated “setting up encampments” with “pulling fire alarms …
graffiti, or other destructive actions that disrupt or interfere with anyone’s ability to conduct
regular activities ” such as going to class, studying and carrying out research.

120

The

statement cited the costs of encampments: “in these challenging times, we simply cannot
afford to spend our precious resources and, in particular, student tuition on costly and
avoidable expenses associated with violence or vandalism.” 121 The statement did not mention
the possible use of force by police or arrests, but instead said that violations would be
“subject to the campus Code of Student Conduct.” As noted above (see Occupy comes to
UC Berkeley section), police confronted activists immediately after tents were erected on UC
Berkeley’s Sproul Hall on November 9 and videos captured the use of batons against
activists who were linking arms to defend the encampment.

Throughout Wednesday, November 9, Chief Spicuzza, Lieutenant Pike and

Officer P

received updates about the demonstration at UC Berkeley, including an 11:32
a.m. message that the “first OCCUPY OAKLAND protesters have arrived on campus” and a
2:59 p.m. message that “UCPD engaging protesters trying to set up encampment on Sproul
Plaza area.”

122

In contrast with UC Berkeley, the demonstration held at UC Davis on November 9 took place
without incident. A demonstration was held at noon on the UC Davis Quad and lasted about
an

hour,

with

approximately

50-60

participants

who

discussed

plans

for

further

demonstrations at the upcoming Board of Regents meeting, according to Chief Spicuzza. 123

Kroll’s email review shows that, in the days that followed, members of the UC Davis
administration were aware of the violent confrontation that had occurred at UC Berkeley. Not
all members of the administration had detailed knowledge of this event, however; Chancellor

120 “Message to Campus Community,” by Robert J. Birgeneau, Chancellor, Geroge Breslauer, Executive Vice
Chancellor & Provost and Harry Le Grande, Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs, November 7, 2011. [Exhibit 51]
121 “Message to Campus Community,” by Robert J. Birgeneau, Chancellor, Geroge Breslauer, Executive Vice
Chancellor & Provost and Harry Le Grande, Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs, November 7, 2011. [Exhibit 51]
122 Email from Leticia Garcia-Hernandez to Spicuzza,
11:32 a.m. and 2:59 p.m. [Exhibit 56]

Officer P

Pike,

Officer S

Souza, November 9, 2011 at

123 Email from Spicuzza to a UC Police Chief listserv, November 9, 2011 at 5:05 p.m. [Exhibit 52]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

32

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Katehi told Kroll investigators that she did not view video footage of the UC Berkeley incident
in the week leading up to November 18, even though this incident was an important reference
point in the administration’s planning for November 18. Kroll’s email review identified the
following communications:
x

On November 10, Vice Chancellor Meyer was emailed a link to the San Francisco
Chronicle article on the “two violent confrontations with student protesters that
prevented them from building an Occupy encampment on the campus” by a colleague
in the UC Davis Office of Community Engagement.124

x

The following Monday, November 14, Birgeneau sent another email message to the
UC Berkeley community, stating that he had reviewed the videos of the November 9
protest and found them to be “very disturbing,” and said that “they point to the
dilemma that we face in trying to prevent encampments and thereby mitigate longterm risks to the health and safety of our entire community.” Birgeneau stated that he
would “move forward by granting amnesty from action under the Student Code of
Conduct to all Berkeley students who were arrested and cited solely for attempting to
block the police in removing the Occupy Cal encampment.” The message was sent to
Assistant Vice Chancellor Emily Galindo who forwarded it to Vice Chancellor Wood
on November 15.125

5.2.3

UC Davis Police Plan Response

On November 15, 2011, the UCDPD established a Departmental Operational Center (DOC)
in the main conference room of the police department to respond to planned demonstrations
at UC Davis that week. The DOC was under the control of Lieutenant John Pike.126

Officer P

prepared an Operations Plan for the November 15 demonstration that

anticipated the potential for the occupation of campus buildings and camping on the Quad.127
On November 15 at 9:31 a.m.,

Officer P

emailed the Operations Plan to

124 Email to Meyer, November 10, 2011.
125 Email from Galindo to Wood, November 15, 2011 at 3:43 p.m. [Exhibit 53]
126 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
127 November 15, 2011 Protest, Operations Plan, prepared by
Department, Operations, November 15, 2011. [Exhibit 55]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Officer P

UC Davis Police

33

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Lieutenant Pike. 128

To date, Kroll has not learned whether anyone else reviewed this

document.

The November 15 Operations Plan included the same scenario and tactical considerations
for a building occupation as the October 27 Operations Plan and added a quote from Vice
Chancellor Meyer’s October 25 email regarding what to do “if Mrak Hall is occupied.” 129

Under the heading “Camping on the Quad,” the Operations Plan stated that encampments
“will not be allowed” and continued:
x

“The use of force is highly likely in this type of situation based on past events.
Once a structured area has been established, the following tactics will apply:
o

It will take approximately 40 officers to deploy about the structured area. Once
the perimeter is established the order will be given for an unlawful assembly.
Instead of trying to fight through protesters to remove structures, all those
remaining in the area will be systematically taken into custody with the final
outcome of removing all structures. The decision will then be made to cite and
release or book into Yolo County jail.”

x

“Officer Safety (Use of force highly likely)
o

Protesters will typically move their backpacks to the front of their body rendering
baton strikes ineffective.

o

The use of the pepper ball and the MK 9 [pepper spray] should be considered.
[Emphasis added]

o

Protesters recently have thrown blunt objects such as rocks, bottles, shields and
the use of liquid bombs.”130

Although the November 15 Operation Plan does not state which “past events” its assessment
was based on, it is likely that the confrontation between Occupy activists and police at UC
Berkeley and in Oakland were being referenced.

According to the Operations Plan, custody of arrestees would be accomplished “by utilizing a
‘jail bus’ from the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office if necessary.” 131

128 Email from Officer P to Pike, November 15, 2011 at 9:31 a.m. [Exhibit 57]
129 November 15, 2011 Protest, Operations Plan, prepared by
Department, Operations, November 15, 2011. [Exhibit 55]
130 November 15, 2011 Protest, Operations Plan, prepared by
Department, Operations, November 15, 2011. [Exhibit 55]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Officer P
Officer P

UC Davis Police
UC Davis Police

34

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

5.3

Occupation of Mrak Hall

On Tuesday, November 15, “several hundred people” marched through campus and held a
rally on the UC Davis Quad (estimates of the crowd at its peak ranged from 500 to 2,000).132
At the rally, speakers “linked protests against tuition hikes to the broader Occupy Wall Street
movement decrying corporate greed” and “denounced the use of batons by police” at UC
Berkeley the previous week “to keep protesters from setting up an Occupy Cal
encampment.”133

The administration was informed by Student Affairs staff that there was “considerable faculty
involvement” with the rally and Chief Spicuzza reported that she was “being told [that]
instructors are telling students to attend the Quad event and receive extra credit. 134 Spicuzza
followed up with an email that UCDPD officers had received from a UC Davis student, in
which a professor offered extra credit to students who attended the noon rally on that day
and wrote a two page report “on what you learned/saw.” Chief Spicuzza forwarded this email
to Wood, Meyer and Hexter, writing “kept [sic] it to just the three of you at this time.” 135

Speakers on the Quad addressed not only confrontation between police and activists at UC
Berkeley, but the response of the UC Berkeley administration to that confrontation, including
criticisms of the UC Berkeley Chancellor for reportedly declaring “linking arms [to be] an act
of violence.”136

At 1:57 p.m.,

Officer P

and noise from [the] protest.”

reported that he had received a complaint “re profanity
137

At 3:00 p.m., 150-200 people marched from the Quad to occupy Mrak Hall, the primary
administration building at UC Davis.138 The students “filled the second floor landing area of

131 November 15, 2011 Protest, Operations Plan, prepared by
Department, Operations, November 15, 2011. [Exhibit 55]

Officer P

UC Davis Police

132 “Rally ties tuition fight to Occupy movement,” The Davis Enterprise, November 15, 2011. [Exhibit 58]
133 “Rally ties tuition fight to Occupy movement,” The Davis Enterprise, November 15, 2011. [Exhibit 58]
134 Email from Spicuzza to Wood, Katehi, Hexter, Meyer, Barbera, Morain, Drown, Castro, November 15, 2011 at
12:04 p.m. [Exhibit 60]
135 Email from Spicuzza to Wood, Hexter, Meyer, November 15, 2011 at 12:33 p.m. [Exhibit 61]
136 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8A6D-deN8c&feature=related, according to information supplied with the
video on the YouTube website, the speaker was Sarah Juliet Lauro, PhD. See
http://english.ucdavis.edu/people/directory/slauro [Exhibit 62]
137 Officer P to Spicuzza, November 15, 2011 at 1:57 p.m. [Exhibit 63]
138 Email from Morain to Fell, Benson, Easley, November 18, 2011 at 10:51 a.m. [Exhibit 64]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

35

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Mrak, and then the stairs, and then all of the first floor lobby,” according to Wells, who had
accompanied them on as they marched, and stayed with them in Mrak Hall through 6 a.m.
the following day.139

At 3:24 p.m., Chief Spicuzza emailed the Leadership Team to report that the group occupying
Mrak Hall “is now stating they are not leaving.” During the next hour, Student Affairs staffers
discussed their ability to stay at Mrak Hall after the building closed, along with Freedom of
Expression Team volunteers.

When Chief Spicuzza was asked if Aggie Hosts would be

available to stay with the activists, she replied “not sure what the Aggies would be doing?” 140

Leading up to 5:00 p.m., an administrator for Mrak, Bob Loessberg-Zahl, made an
announcement, saying that “you are going to hear some sirens pretty soon. The Fire
Department is responding to a hazardous chemical situation over in the Chemistry Building
… they’re not responding here. They’re not going to hurt you…. But I just want to let you
know you’re probably going to hear sirens pretty soon.” 141

After this announcement, Professor Joshua Clover spoke to the group, warning them about
cooperating with the administration, urging them to take matters into their own hands and
stating, “right now, we’re the law.”142 According to Wells, the activists “went back and forth”
about what to do next. At approximately 4:45 p.m., the activists used consensus-style
decision-making to reach the decision to continue to occupy Mrak Hall after it closed at 5:00
p.m. and to “use bike locks and chains to lock the building doors open.” 143 According to
Wells, “the logic that they used was that we are afraid the police are going to come to the
building, lock the doors shut, to trap us into the building, and then come in and arrest us …
so they arrived at the conclusion that we need to lock the doors open. And they kept those

139 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 12, lines 14-16. [Exhibit 42]
140 “Aggie Host Security Officers are non-sworn, student security officers who provide a variety of public safety
services to the campus,” including free “security escort services;” “special event security for concerts, athletic and
theater events and large-scale campus events;” and “site surveillance at various locations on campus to deter
vandalism, fire damages or burglary.” “Aggie Host Security Officers are trained in risk mitigation, threat
assessment, access control and crowd management. They can be identified by their black shirts with gold lettering
and departmental equipment.” (see http://police.ucdavis.edu/aggie-host-security-service/aggie-host-programescort-service).
141 Andrew Wells interview, January 19, 2012, page 12, line 21 through page 13, line 10. 2011. [Exhibit 42]
142 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwtesQzF_bk [Exhibit 65]
143 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 13, lines 14 through page 15, line 3. [Exhibit
42]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

36

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

doors open all night long. I was with them in the building from 3:00 p.m. to 6 a.m. Wednesday
morning. And it got cold in there.” 144

The decision to chain the doors open was not consistent with the expectations of campus
police, who had anticipated that students would barricade themselves inside a campus
building by chaining the doors closed, according to the November 15 Operation Plan. 145

Leading up to 5:00 p.m., there was a lot of discussion about “what are we going to do when
the police show up?” according to Wells. 146 The students “were having a lot of … peer to peer
education about what to do if you’re arrested, what your rights are, what to say, who to
call.”147 They were discussing, “Are we going to link arms? Are we going to huddle? ... What’s
going to be our strategy? And that theme of what to do when the police get here, that was [a]
conversation that they had throughout the week.” 148

The Leadership Team decided to allow the activists to remain on the first floor and the stairs
leading up to the second floor on Tuesday night. According to Bob Loessberg-Zahl, Chief
Spicuzza expressed on a Leadership Team call that she did not have sufficient officers to
remove the group from Mrak Hall.149 Also on that call, the possibility of moving the students
out of Mrak Hall the following day after many of the activists left to attend rallies in the Bay
Area was discussed.150 Katehi said that “usually when students come [to Mrak Hall] we allow
them to stay … overnight because that gives us more time to talk things [about] with them.”151
According to Meyer, allowing the students to stay overnight gave the campus police time to
“manage their staffing and their overtime costs” and provides “the double benefit of more time
for conversation [with activists].” 152

UC Davis

Officer F

was present during the night at Mrak Hall and reported

that the initial number of activists was 75 to 100, but the numbers had dwindled to about 40

144 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 13, lines 14 through page 15, line 3. [Exhibit
42]
145 November 15, 2011 Protest, Operations Plan, prepared by
Department, Operations, November 15, 2011. [Exhibit 55]

Officer P

UC Davis Police

146 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 16, lines 5-7. [Exhibit 42]
147 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 16, lines 16-18. [Exhibit 42]
148 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 16, lines 19-22. [Exhibit 42]
149 Transcribed interview of Bob Loessberg-Zahl, December 12, 2011, page 15, lines 5-22. [Exhibit 66]
150 Transcribed interview of Bob Loessberg-Zahl, December12, 2011, page 15, line 25 through page 16, line 13.
[Exhibit 66]
151 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 9, lines 4-6. [Exhibit 1]
152 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, Volume II, page 23, line 1-3. [Exhibit 40]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

37

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

as people came and went throughout the night.153

Officer F

reported that, “through

conversation with the occupants, it was determined that the majority were NOT affiliated with
the University [but were] part of the ‘Occupy’ movement.”
“there were no criminal incidents.”

154

Officer F

reported that

According to a chronology of Occupy UC Davis

subsequently created by a member of the University’s news service, at 11:00 p.m. there were
“about 50 protesters in Mrak lobby; many of them non-students.”155

These assertions about the presence of non-affiliates at Mrak Hall conflicted with the
assessments of Student Affairs staff. When asked to break down the proportion of students,
faculty, staff and non-affiliates in the crowd that occupied Mrak Hall on Tuesday, Wells
estimated “70 percent undergraduate students, probably 28 percent, 29 percent graduate
[students] and then Professor Clover. I don’t know that there were any [non-]affiliates there.
There might have been a couple. But there in Mrak, I think it was mostly students.”156 When
pressed on whether there were representatives from the larger Occupy movement at the
event, Wells said “there were people wearing hats that were some sort of legal advisors, or
legal observers … I don’t know what their role was, and for all I know those were students
that have gone to the Bay Area for special training.”157
According to Wells, “as the night of the 15th progressed … the protesting, and the
demonstrating, and the speaking, kind of evolved into studying.”158 According to Wells, during
the occupation of Mrak, “I had a lot of really good conversations with a lot of students. And I
had a lot of opportunities to explain to them why I was there, and … what my role was.” 159
Wells said that the activists were friendly, but challenged him about the ethics of his decision
to work with the administration. Regarding the potential for police intervention:

“Their assumption was [that] we should anticipate that if we are engaged in nonviolent
protests the police are still going to use violence against us. Because from the students’
perspective, the presence of police on campus is intrinsically violent. Their belief, before
the pepper spray incident, and their statement beforehand, had been that we want police
off campus because police are military, and they are violent, and look what they do at

153 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 13, lines 14 through page 15, line 3. [Exhibit
42]
154 Email from Officer M (who was advised by Officer F
who had stayed overnight at Mrak Hall) to Spicuzza,
Officer P Officer S Pike, November 16, 2011 at 6:02 a.m. [Exhibit 43]
155 Email from Morain to Fell, Benson, Easley, November 18, 2011 at 10:51 a.m. [Exhibit 64]
156 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 22, lines 16-20. [Exhibit 42]
157 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 22, line 23 through page 23, line 3. [Exhibit 42]
158 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 19, line 22-2. [Exhibit 42]
159 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 15, lines 12-15. [Exhibit 42]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

38

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Berkeley, look what they do at UCLA. We don’t want this here. This is not what we
envision in a University campus.”

160

Also on Tuesday night, the activists set up two tents on the north side of Mrak Hall. Wells
“texted” Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro about this and she provided him with a stack of
flyers that summarized the campus policy prohibiting camping overnight161 Wells went out to
the tents and spoke with the activists there, but nobody would tell him who the tents belonged
to, so he left some flyers and asked them to let the owners know that the tents were not
allowed. Ten minutes later, the tents were put away and it was not an issue for the rest of the
night, according to Wells.162

At 7:32 p.m., Chief Spicuzza alerted the Leadership Team to this event with an email that
stated “the tents came down voluntarily. That’s good news.”163 She did not specify whether it
was police or student affairs took the steps to achieve this result, and Meyer subsequently
told Kroll investigators that campus police had requested the tents come down. 164 At 7:33
p.m., Chancellor Katehi responded “Excellent!” and at 8:05, Provost Hexter wrote “Bravo.” At
8:59 p.m., Vice Chancellor Wood responded “I am very proud of the student affairs staff for
professionally asking them to take them down. I am also proud of our students for responding
well to the request.”165

Vice Chancellor Wood, who stayed at Mrak Hall on Tuesday night until 1:30 a.m., referred to
the activists as “my children” and said that in the morning they were “very polite, they were
gathering their stuff, you know being sure they weren’t getting in the way of doorways and
what have you.”166

At 10:27 p.m. on Tuesday night, Vice Chancellor Wood forwarded to the Leadership Team an
email from Chancellor Birgeneau to the UC Berkeley community, in which he stated “we all
share the distress and anger at the State of California’s disinvestment in public higher
education” and called for “the political leadership from Sacramento” to come to UC Berkeley

160 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 17, lines 3-12. [Exhibit 42]
161 Use of University Properties, University of California, Davis. This pamphlet was compiled from information from
the following source: http://manuals.ucdavis.edu/ppm/270/270-20.pdf [Exhibit 50]
162 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 30, line 14 through page 31, line 3. [Exhibit 42]
163 Email from Spicuzza to Katehi, Wood, Meyer, Hexter, Castro, Engelbach, November 15, 2011 at 7:32 p.m.
[Exhibit 67]
164 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume I, page 31, lines 21-24. [Exhibit 2]
165 Email from Wood to Hexter, Katehi, Spicuzza, Meyer, Castro, Engelbach, November 15, 2011 at 8:59 p.m.
[Exhibit 68]
166 Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 11, line 5-17. [Exhibit 69]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

39

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

to “debate the future of public higher education.” 167 In forwarding the email, Wood wrote:
“Linda and Ralph, FYI – I wanted to be sure you knew about this note, which is circulating
widely.” No response appears to have been sent by Chancellor Katehi or Provost Hexter.

5.4

Occupiers Voluntarily Leave Mrak Hall and Plan Encampment

On Wednesday morning, November 16, the UC Davis Police Department formally requested
that Yolo County agencies be placed on standby for mutual aid assistance of approximately
40 officers.168

At 10:18 a.m., Chief Spicuzza emailed the Leadership Team saying that the activists were
planning a rally at Mrak Hall after the “bus people” had returned and when the building was
scheduled to be closed at 5:00 p.m. 169 Chief Spicuzza stated that her staff were “working up
three plans” to evict the students at 2:00 p.m., 5:00 p.m. or 11:30 p.m. and suggested that the
2:00 p.m. time might be optimal because the number of activists could be “as low as 20” and
her officers would have a chance of removing them “without arrest” and without much media
coverage.170 The Leadership Team held a conference call at 1:00 p.m.

As expected by Chief Spicuzza, most of the activists at Mrak Hall boarded buses on
Wednesday morning to attend rallies in the Bay Area. Chief Spicuzza suggested to the
Leadership Team that the remaining activists in Mrak Hall be cleared out before the buses
returned.171

The UCDPD, assisted by the Davis Police Department (“DPD”), were deployed to remove the
activists occupying Mrak Hall at approximately 2:30 p.m. Further mutual aid from Yolo County
was not utilized.172 According to one Leadership Team member, there were 14 police officers
at Mrak Hall, including seven from UCDPD and seven from DPD, but activists claimed that
there were 25 police officers present. 173

167 Email from Wood to Katehi, Hexter, Meyer, Barbera, Morain, November 15, 2011 at 10:27 a.m.
168 Email from Torres to

Officer S

et al., November 16, 2011 at 9:39 a.m. [Exhibit 71]

169 Email from Spicuzza to Wood, Meyer, Drown, Hexter, Katehi, Engelbach, Benson, Barbera, Castro, Morain,
November 16, 2011 at 10:18 a.m. [Exhibit 72]
170 Email from Spicuzza to Wood, Meyer, Drown, Hexter, Katehi, Engelbach, Benson, Barbera, Castro, Morain,
November 16, 2011 at 10:18 a.m. [Exhibit 72]
171 Email from Spicuzza to Wood, Meyer, Drown, Hexter, Katehi, Engelbach, Benson, Barbera, Castro, Morain,
November 16, 2011 at 10:18 a.m. [Exhibit 72]
172 Email from Torres to

Officer S

et al., November 16, 2011 at 1:27 p.m. [Exhibit 73]

173 Email from Morain to Fell, Benson, Easley, November 18, 2011 at 10:51 a.m. [Exhibit 64]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

40

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

At 2:00 p.m., Chief Spicuzza emailed Loessberg-Zahl, requesting that he announce that the
“building is closed and they need to leave” at 2:25 p.m., giving him five minutes to negotiate
with the activists before the police arrived.174 According to Loessberg-Zahl, who serves as an
unofficial “building manager” 175 for Mrak Hall, he proceeded to ask the activists to leave,
without a visible police presence, and the activists agreed. As the activists were voluntarily
gathering their belongings and signs, a group of officers with helmets and riot gear entered
the building, according to Loessberg-Zahl.176

Activists later expressed their frustration to UC Davis public information representatives that
police been summoned to clear Mrak Hall after the University had indicated that it would not
respond forcefully to peaceful protests. 177

Wednesday afternoon, Provost Hexter received the following email from

Student 1 a UC

Davis graduate student, activist and member of student government:

Ralph,

Between you and me, we need a new police chief here. Two years ago during a town hall that was
held after the big walk-out she said something that really shows naivete [sic] on her part, saying
“…because I choose to be a law abiding citizen…” In other words she doesn’t really have a good
grasp of concepts which transcend narrow police-centric views.

I am ex-officio in student gov’t, so I believe I have standing on such an issue …

What happened today [at Mrak Hall] was a huge blunder from the admin’s point of view. The
students were literally on the verge of leaving the building (!) So in effect, the admin kicked them
out, using riot cops, before they could manage to leave on their own accord. Because of this there
are now at least a dozen more students who have been face to face with riot police who had never
come face to face with them before. They will not forget this experience. It will serve to motivate
them to become leaders in the Occupy UCD movement. Personally, I’m glad it happened that way,
but we still need a new police chief.

178

174 Email from Spicuzza to Loessberg-Zahl, November 16, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. and 2:06 p.m. [Exhibit 74]
175 Transcribed interview of Bob Loessberg-Zahl, December 8, 2011, page 3, line 10. [Exhibit 66]
176 Transcribed interview of Bob Loessberg-Zahl, December 8, 2011, page 20, line 23 through page 21, line 13.
[Exhibit 66]
177 Transcribed interview of Katherine Kerlin, December 6, 2011, page 14, lines 11-22. [Exhibit 75]
178 Email from Student 1 to Hexter, November 16, 2011, 3:19 p.m. [Exhibit 76]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

41

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

On Wednesday night, Provost Hexter forwarded the email to Chief of Staff Engelbach,
characterizing it as coming “from the point of view of one student with well-known views.”
Engelbach forwarded the email to Chancellor Katehi, who responded, “I am not surprised that
this comes from

Student 1 179

Vice Chancellor Wood said that following the closure of Mrak Hall, he expressed to Vice
Chancellor Meyer his concern about the number of police with batons that were deployed for
the closure of the building.180 Wood said “that’s as engaged in tactics as I have ever been …
it’s just as a Student Affairs person knowing that the students will react to that.”

At 3:27 p.m., Communications Director Barbera forwarded “talking points” to the Leadership
Team to serve as “guidelines for all of us internally and externally.” According to the talking
points:

We understand the frustrations of the students have [sic] about the state’s budget cuts,
the current economic conditions and rising tuitions and we try at all times to provide them
with a safe environment to express this frustration.

However, based on available information and in response to concerns about safety, the
administration decided to close Mrak Hall today at 2:30.

181

A conference call for the Leadership Team was scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
November 16.

At 5:00 p.m., 150-200 activists held a “general assembly” on the north steps outside of Mrak
Hall where they decided to hold a noon rally on Thursday “and then camp indefinitely on the
Quad.”182

At 5:16 p.m., Morain emailed the Leadership Team to report that the “assembly just now
voted to set up tents in quad after noon rally tomorrow and to occupy quad ‘in support of rally

179 Email from Katehi to Engelbach, November 16, 2011 at 9:52 p.m. [Exhibit 77]
180 Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 31, line 17 through page 32, line 4. [Exhibit 69]
181 Email from Barbera to Engelbach, Katehi, Wood, Drown, Spicuzza, Hexter, November 16, 2011 at 3:27 p.m.
[Exhibit 78]
182 Email from Morain to Fell, Benson, Easley, November 18, 2011 at 10:51 a.m. [Exhibit 64]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

42

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

indefinitely.’” 183 The decision was made by “50-70 people” and resulted in “consensus and
applause.”184

Later that night, Loessberg-Zahl sent an email to employees who worked at Mrak Hall stating
that Mrak Hall would be open for business the following day, but that “only staff who work in
Mrak Hall will be permitted to enter” and “students with Registrar, Admissions or Grad Studies
business will be redirected to another location or escorted in and out of the building by
staff.”185
A Leadership Team conference call scheduled for 8:00 p.m. was not held that night. 186

5.5

Tents are Erected on the Quad and Administration Plans Eviction

The Quad is a picturesque green space in the center of the UC Davis campus. Concerts and
student assemblies are regularly held there, but require approval from grounds and a
reservation permit.187 From noon to 1 p.m., amplified sound is permitted on the South Patio of
the Memorial Union, on the northern edge of the Quad, and that is where rallies are often
held.188

5.5.1

Use of Force Discussed on Conference Calls

Leadership Team conference calls were held at 8:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Thursday, November
17th. 189 On these calls, Chancellor Katehi made it clear that, if tents were erected, they
should be removed “before the weekend,” according to Provost Hexter. 190

183 Email from Morain to Barbera, Engelbach, Katehi, Wood, Hexter, Spicuzza, Benson, Drown, November 16,
2011 at 5:16 p.m. [Exhibit 79]
184 Email from Morain to Barbera, Engelbach, Katehi, Wood, Hexter, Spicuzza, Benson, Drown, November 16,
2011 at 5:16 p.m. [Exhibit 79]
185 Email sent on behalf of Loessberg-Zahl, from @ucdavis.edu to mrakcoordinators@ucdavis.edu on November
16, 2011 at 7:09 p.m. [Exhibit 80]
186 Email from Meyer to Spicuzza, November 16, 2011 at 8:04 p.m. [Exhibit 81]
187 Transcribed interview of Anne Myler, January 19, 2012, page 26, lines 23-24. [Exhibit 41]
188 Transcribed interview of Anne Myler, January 19, 2012, page 5, lines 10-25. [Exhibit 41]
189 Transcribed interview of Ralph Hexter, December 8, 2011, page 18, lines 3-15. [Exhibit 3]
190 Transcribed interview of Ralph Hexter, December 8, 2011, page 18, lines 5-8. [Exhibit 3]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

43

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Specific police tactics and options for the use of force by police were not discussed on the
Leadership Team conference calls.191 The use of batons, pepper spray or hands-on physical
force was never discussed.

The only specific guidance provided by the Leadership Team to Chief Spicuzza regarding the
use of force by police occurred on the 1 p.m. call, when Provost and Vice Chancellor Ralph
Hexter said, "We don't want it to be like Berkeley," meaning that UC Davis did not want their
officers to engage in force like the UC Berkeley officers employed on November 9 at Sproul
Plaza.192 Chancellor Katehi “immediately agreed,” according to Hexter. 193

The Leadership Team did not discuss any specifics about how this guidance should be
interpreted. Ralph Hexter said “In fact … there wasn't even a drill down, even though we had
invoked Berkeley on the 9th, there was not even, ‘What do we do if they link arms?’" 194

According to Chancellor Katehi, Hexter’s guidance regarding Berkeley meant that there
should be “no violence. That’s what it meant to me, to tell you the truth.” Chancellor Katehi
stated that she did not view the “video clips from Berkeley” but understood that there was a
“violent interaction with the police,” and that students, faculty and police were “hurt.” 195
Furthermore, she did not want to have arrests. 196 According to Katehi, “it was clear in my
mind and others … that we wanted to remove the tents … and we wanted to do it without any
violence – safely.”197

Chancellor Katehi said that she did not provide direction on how to achieve these goals. She
expected “that Annette [Spicuzza] with John [Meyer], or with Fred [Wood] or by herself … will
go and make the appropriate decisions to make this happen.” 198

191 Transcribed interview of Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 56, lines 3-7; transcribed interview of John
Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 27, line 16 through page, 28, line 4; transcribed interview of Ralph
Hexter, December 8, 2011, page 22, lines 1-25; transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 31,
lines 4-7. [Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 69]
192 Transcribed interview of Ralph Hexter, December 8, 2011, page 21, lines-19-25 and page 23, lines 4-25.
[Exhibit 3]
193 Transcribed interview of Ralph Hexter, December 8, 2011, page 23, lines 27. [Exhibit 3]
194 Transcribed interview of Ralph Hexter, December 8, 2011, page 27, lines 19-21. [Exhibit 3]
195 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 24, lines 7-21. [Exhibit 1]
196 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 24, lines 22-23. [Exhibit 1]
197 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 25, lines 1-7. [Exhibit 1]
198 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 25, line 8 through page 26, line 5.
[Exhibit 1]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

44

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Chancellor Katehi’s understanding that “no violence” would be employed in the removal of
the tents was not clear in the mind of Vice Chancellor Meyer, however. Meyer’s interpretation
of the Berkeley guidance was that some use of force by police would be acceptable in taking
down the tents. When the Berkeley reference was mentioned, Meyer understood that to
mean that the Leadership Team did not want the police to use batons.199 John Meyer said
“That was our symbol and direction … If we we're going to do it, we have to do it in a manner
that doesn't create that outcome. We can't go there. I mean … you're with the Chancellor,
and the Leadership Team, the Chief, all sort of understanding … that is the line we can't
cross … I think in the Chancellor's mind that might be of no use of force. I think in my mind, I
think … if you're taking people out of tents, you might put some hands on … there's some
relativity there that you might have to actually do hands-on, which technically, you know,
should define it. But the line drawn – and I think … in the Chancellor's comments … he [sic]
gave direction of, ‘It can't go to that place’, or really that level of force, I think is very clear.” 200

According to Meyer, he understood that “there’s an escalation of uses of force” and that “if
I’m trying to bring someone out of the tent or … break a line physically by grabbing your arm
and moving you apart … I think I understand that that was still allowable.” 201 Meyer said that
he did not mention “hands-on” or other specifics regarding his understanding of what type of
force might be permissible on the Leadership Calls, and that Chief Spicuzza asked no
questions regarding how to interpret the Leadership Team’s guidance.202 According to Meyer,
he did not understand that Chancellor Katehi believed that no force at all would be employed
in taking down the tents until her comments following the November 18 police action. 203

Several participants on the calls said the consensus of the calls was that confrontation was to
be avoided, and that the police would back off if there was resistance.204

None of the participants on the Leadership Team calls interviewed by Kroll said that Chief
Spicuzza ever spoke about the challenges that her officers would encounter in creating a
different outcome than that at UC Berkeley. Kroll has not determined if Chief Spicuzza

199 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 16, lines 14-21. [Exhibit 2]
200 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 16, line 23 through page 17, line 13.
[Exhibit 2]
201 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 4, lines 1-9. [Exhibit 40]
202 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 6, line 21 through page 7, line 25. [Exhibit 40]
203 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2011, page 42, line 14 through page 43, line 4. [Exhibit 40]
204 Transcribed interview of Claudia Morain, December 6, 2011, Volume II, page 34, lines 12-15; Transcribed
interview of Emily Galindo, page 30, line 23 through page 31, line 3; Transcribed interview of Fred Wood,
December 8, 2011, page 17, lines 11-19. [Exhibits 82, 83, 69]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

45

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

reviewed the Operations Plan that her officers wrote for the November 15 her command staff
believed that the use of force was “highly likely” when removing tents from the Quad, and that
the use of both batons and pepper spray were being considered. 205 For the officers, the
recent events involving encampments at UC Berkeley and Oakland suggested that the use of
force would be difficult to avoid.

5.5.2

Administration Prepares for Encampment

On Thursday morning, Student Affairs representatives and UCDPD officers were sent to
observe the Quad for signs of an encampment being erected. Also that morning,
Communications Director Barbera and Provost Hexter were discussing plans for a “campuswide symposium regarding the Occupy Movement here and around the world.” 206

At 10:38 a.m., Chief Spicuzza and Vice Chancellor Meyer were forwarded a link to a Twitter
message from Occupy Davis that stated: “ATTENTION: Police have arrived at Central Park
and are seeking to remove the encampment. It is imperative that YOU get down here
NOW!”207 Chief Spicuzza emailed Meyer, “now they will come to our neck of the woods….let’s
hope not!” 208

A rally began on the South Patio at noon on Thursday. At 1:43 p.m., Assistant Vice
Chancellor Castro emailed Vice Chancellor Wood to describe the rally, saying that it “started
with about 50 but it grew to about 100 after they marched to the Bank” and described an
incident in which a separate group “was gathered to talk about the series of hate incidents
directed at students of color and the occupy group tried to join in. One student declared we
are not into occupying, we are into decolonization.” 209

At 1:51 p.m., Chief Spicuzza emailed Davis Police Chief Landy Black (“Chief Black”) asking if
he planned to remove the Occupy encampment from Central Park, saying “I am wondering if

205 November 15, 2011 Protest, Operations Plan, prepared by
Department, Operations, November 15, 2011. [Exhibit 55]

Officer P

UC Davis Police

206 Email from Barbera to Hexter, November 17, 2011 at 9:38 a.m. [Exhibit 84]
207 Email from Mohr to Spicuzza and Meyer, November 17, 2011 at 10:38 a.m. This message was incorrect; Davis
police distributed rules for the encampment to protesters in Central Park, but did not issue any citations or seek to
remove the encampment, according to media reports. [Exhibit 85]
208 Email from Spicuzza to Meyer, November 17, 2011 at 11:25 a.m. [Exhibit 86]
209 Email from Castro to Wood, November 17, 2011 at 1:43 p.m. [Exhibit 87]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

46

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

they will come over to my neck of the woods if they are displaced.” 210 This email followed up
on the Twitter message that Spicuzza had received that morning, that suggested that the
Davis Police Department was planning to remove the City of Davis Occupy encampment.

At 2:57 p.m., Chief Black replied with a brief message, “No plan to move them. Just getting
them to cooperate with some stuff (fire safety, etc.).” At 6:17 p.m., Chief Black replied in much
greater detail to Spicuzza, saying that there were no current plans to remove the
encampment, and further stating, “regarding folks leaving Central Park for campus: we have
heard that the young and student members of the Occupy Davis folks are thinking about
pulling up stakes (literally) and joining the Occupy UCD group on your Quad. I don’t believe
we are the impetus behind that decision since we were pretty low-key today.” 211 Chief
Spicuzza replied, “thanks, but I’m told some of your [sic] are now mine” and Chief Black
replied, “that could very well be.” 212

5.5.3

Tents are Erected on the Quad

Despite the advance concern over the erecting of tents on the campus and the deployment of
both Student Affairs personnel and UCDPD personnel to prevent this from occurring, tents
were set up on the Quad at approximately 3:00 p.m.

According to Vice Chancellor Meyer, “we had police out on the Quad … thinking we were
going to prevent tents … and the students were so incredibly organized.”213 “They were so
smart … they brought little carts from the housing co-op … full of tents, full of provisions.
They had 15 tents set up in ten minutes on the quad … They were up in a flash. It was a work
of art.”214 The Leadership Team had decided that tents would not be allowed on the Quad
before they were erected, but “they were up before … anyone could engage.”215

210 Email from Spicuzza to Black, November 17, 2011 at 1:51 p.m. [Exhibit 88]
211 Chief Black also discussed his strategy for the dealing with the Occupy encampment in Central Park, saying “I
suspect [our City Council doesn’t] have the stomach for what would very likely be the outcome of attempts to
confiscate tents or enforce the 10:00 p.m. park closure. (That may make my job easier, but [we’d] all be dealing
answering a lot more irate citizen calls) … If we do take action, right now, I’m leaning toward using citations first,
not arrests, which we think will get the townies that are part of the protests to be more concerned with their pocketbooks than the protest and go home. After some time with that strategy, we expect the ranks to thin to just the
hard-cases, which should be less of a problem, if we up the ante.”
212 Email from Black to Spicuzza, November 17, 2011 at 6:54 p.m. [Exhibit 89]
213 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 13, lines 19-23. [Exhibit 40]
214 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 5, line 18 through page 6, line 22. [Exhibit 40]
215 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 5, line 18 through page 6, line 22. [Exhibit 40]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

47

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Immediately after the tents were erected, Freedom of Expression volunteers, Student Affairs
staff and “some campus police” reacted by distributing flyers stating that encampments were
against campus policy. 216 At 3:34 p.m., Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro emailed Vice
Chancellor Wood, stating that the handouts regarding camping “have been given out and
disregarded … we have a tent city.” 217 In addition, that same afternoon, two UC Davis Police
officers advised the activists that they might be arrested if the tents were left in place.218
Kroll identified a video of two officers approaching activists on the Quad on November 17. 219
When the officer begins to speak, the activists “mic checked” the officer, inviting him to speak
to them “in our method of speech, in our home.” A selective transcription of the video is as
follows:

Officer: “You understand that by doing this you are violating University policy, right?”

Activist: “In that case, then University policy is defying our constitutional rights.”

Officer: “You understand that you are subject to arrest?”

Activist: “We are not subject to arrest for our right to peaceably assemble.”

Activist2: “What’s our crime?”

Officer (motions to a yellow flyer): “Has anybody read this thing?”

Activist: “Officer, what is the crime that we are committing right now?”

Activist: “Is this an order to disperse?”

Officer: “Not at this time.”

(Activists cheer)

Officer: “What I am trying to do here is let everybody know that they are in violation of University
policy. Does everyone understand that?”

216 Email from Morain to Fell, Benson, Easley, November 18, 2011 at 10:51 a.m. [Exhibit 64]
217 Email from Castro to Wood, November 17, 2011 at 3:34 p.m. [Exhibit 87]
218 Transcribed interview of

Student 2

December 13, 2011, page 6, lines 11-16. [Exhibit 90]

219 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sasQlHXUU60&feature=channel_video_title [Exhibit 91]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

48

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Activists: No.

Activist: “We were told that we are actually in compliance with the University policy right now.”

Officer: “Well you understand that the University policy is that camping is not allowed on University
property.”

Activist: “How do you define camping?”

Officer: “Erecting tents and staying here.”

Activist: “We are using this space for organizing.”

Officer: “Ok”

Activist: “According to this piece of paper, under article five of section two, ‘use of University
property for OVERNIGHT camping.’”

Thus it is clear that the University was aware of the tents from virtually the moment they were
erected and it is equally clear that the activists were well aware from the time that they set
them up that the University was concerned with the existence of the tents and wanted them
removed.

5.5.4

Student Affairs Staff Engage with Activists

Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro and Wells were on the Quad with the activists starting at
approximately 5:00 p.m. on Thursday.220

According to activist

Student 2

he had a conversation with Assistant Vice Chancellor

Castro at six or seven in the evening on Thursday in which he asked that the administration
“let the First Amendment right override whatever ordinance [applies to] the Quad” and “she
nodded her head and said, ‘well, I’m not really in charge.’” 221 According to

Student 2

he told

Castro that they were “willing to compromise on any point but taking the tents down.” 222

220 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 30, lines 9-14; transcribed interview of
Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 34, lines 1-5. [Exhibits 5, 42]
221 Transcribed interview of
222 Transcribed interview of

Student 2
Student 2

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

December 13, 2011, page 4, lines 8-15. [Exhibit 90]
December 13, 2011, page 5, lines 3-11. [Exhibit 90]

49

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

According to Wells, the activists told him that they were attempting to not break any campus
rules, with the exception of the “camping thing.” 223

Wells raised safety concerns with the activists, and they responded by showing him that they
had already set up “a watch rotation with people that are going to stay up all night.”224 Wells
noted that although “they had set an expectation that … aside from the camping thing, [they
were] not going to break any campus rules, this is a drug and alcohol free event,” he saw
people “smoking joints.” 225 When he brought this up to the activists, they replied, “oh yeah,
well you know, we’ll address that.” 226 According to Wells, “at the same time … they set up
their own compost heap, and their own recycle bin … there are some things about which this
group is very conscientious. They are very careful about making sure everybody’s involved in
the decisions. They’re very careful about making sure everybody’s rights are respected. But,
you know, they pick and choose what rules to follow.”227

During the conversations with Wells and the activists, the issue of “non-affiliates” was
discussed. According to

Student 2

he and Wells counted the number of outside people, “and it

was lower than the ratio for clubs. Like there’s a certain ratio [of UCD students to non-UCD
students] that clubs have to have.” 228

Student 2

comments appear directed at the UC Davis

policy for Registered Student Organizations (“RSOs”), which states that UC Davis students
must comprise at least three-fourths of an RSO’s membership and “retain decision-making
authority and control over its programs and finances.”229 Non-student members of RSOs “may
attend the RSO meetings and events, teach, participate in discussions, serve as guest
speakers on an occasional basis, and perform incidental tasks for the University.” This rule
does not apply to the current situation, however, in that neither the activists nor the
encampment were actions of any registered student organization.

As he spent time with the activists on Thursday evening, Wells was beginning to feel that he
had “developed some connections with some of the … stronger personalities in the group.
Because this whole Occupy movement, they don’t have leaders … but there are certainly
223 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 41, lines 1-4. [Exhibit 42]
224 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 40, lines 10-15. [Exhibit 42]
225 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 41, lines 1-7. [Exhibit 42]
226 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 41, lines 1-7. [Exhibit 42]
227 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 41, line 21 through page 42, line 2. [Exhibit
42]
228 Transcribed interview of Student 2 December 13, 2011, page 60, lines 22-25. Wells said that this
discussion sounded familiar, but that he may not have pursued it with the student because he was not familiar with
the policies governing RSOs. [Exhibit 90]
229 “Registered Student Organizations (RSO),” Section 270-05, Exhibit B, October 12, 2011.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

50

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

some students, either by virtue of their self-confidence, or their passion for the issues, or
their lack of fear, kind of rise to the top in terms of the loudest voices. And I managed to
connect with some of those students.” 230

According to Vice Chancellor Meyer, Student Affairs staffers and campus police “were trying
to have conversations” with the activists, but “you’re going to negotiate with the leader, but
there isn’t a leader.”231

5.6

Planning the Eviction of the Encampment

The next scheduled Leadership Team conference call was not held until 10:00 p.m.
Thursday,232 but the erection of the tents on the Quad resulted in a flurry of calls between
members of the Leadership Team throughout the afternoon and evening on Thursday. While
the times and participants for these calls have not been definitively established, there
reportedly were calls at approximately 3 p.m., immediately following the establishment of an
encampment, and at approximately 6:00 p.m., after Chief Spicuzza reported to Vice
Chancellor Meyer that the UCDPD was unable to secure enough officers to conduct an early
morning operation on Friday. There was no formal recordation of the content of the
discussion on these calls (or on any of the Leadership Team conference calls) and no
definitive schedule for the calls has been provided to Kroll.

5.6.1

Initial Plan for a Friday Morning Operation at 3:00 a.m.

The initial plan was to dismantle the tents at 3:00 a.m. on Friday morning, and was consistent
with the tactics employed by other UC campuses that week (UC Berkeley removed the
encampment from Sproul Plaza early Thursday morning and UCLA would remove an
encampment early Friday morning).233 At approximately 6 p.m., however, Chief Spicuzza and

Officer P

informed Vice Chancellor Meyer that the campus police would not be

230 Transcribed interview of Andrew Wells, January 19, 2012, page 34, lines 15-25. [Exhibit 42]
231 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 13, line 24 through page 14, lines 8-9. [Exhibit
40]
232 Transcribed interview of Ralph Hexter, December 8, 2011, page 18, lines 13-16. [Exhibit 3]
233 At 10:12 a.m. on Friday, November 18, Chief Spicuzza forwarded an email to Officer P
Lieutenant Pike and Officer S
that she had received from UCLA’s police chief, James Herren
describing the eviction of the encampment at UCLA at approximately 5:00 a.m. Members of the Leadership Team
were also copied on the email. According to Herren, “the event went very smoothly with no uses of force.”

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

51

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

able to muster the appropriate number of officers for a Friday morning operation. 234 Chief
Spicuzza wanted to extend the operation another 24 hours from 3:00 a.m. Friday to 3:00 a.m.
Saturday in order to seek mutual aid from sister campuses. She stated that she felt more
comfortable obtaining aid from other UC campuses than from regional police. 235

5.6.2

Subsequent Plan for a Friday Afternoon Operation

According to Vice Chancellor Meyer, he subsequently “had a phone call with the Leadership
Team” reporting that the early Friday morning operation was not possible and that Chief
Spicuzza was proposing an early Saturday morning operation instead. (This call appears to
have taken place before the 10 p.m. Leadership Team call, but Kroll has not determined the
exact time or participants for this call).

On the 10 p.m. call, Chancellor Katehi expressed her concern that Friday night was a “party
night” and the bars would be closing just prior to the time of the operation, according to Vice
Chancellor Meyer.236 According to Chancellor Katehi, she had observed that “there are a lot
of kids who go out to private parties very late … as you go to Saturday. And we thought … we
did not want this to become a place where people come for fun. We worried about the use of
alcohol and drugs and everything.” 237 Chancellor Katehi “was adamant that she didn’t want
them to stay one more night” and “was worried, since it was a Friday night that it would
become a party and impossible for us to do what was asked of us…remove the tents,”
according to a document attached to an email sent by Chief Spicuzza. 238

According to Vice Chancellor Meyer, Chancellor Katehi suggested that they “move it up to 3
p.m. and … the group didn’t object.”239 According to Chancellor Katehi, she was “not sure that
I rejected that [3 a.m.] time,” but was concerned, along with Vice Chancellor Wood, “about
that weekend.”240 According to Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro, a “variety of people” on the
Leadership Team calls voiced concerns that taking down tents “in the dark” was not safe.241

234 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 8, line 4 through page 9, line 14. [Exhibit 40]
235 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 9, lines 5-14. [Exhibit 40]
236 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012,, page 9, lines 14-21. [Exhibit 40]
237 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 23, lines 1-9. [Exhibit 1]
238 Untitled Microsoft Word document attached to an email from Spicuzza to ascy88@sbcglobal.net, November 20,
2011 at 7:12 p.m. This email address appears to belong to a friend or family member of Chief Spicuzza. [Exhibit 92]
239 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 37, lines 1-2. [Exhibit 40]
240 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 29, lines 3-5. [Exhibit 1]
241 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, page 48, lines 9-14. [Exhibit 5]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

52

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Castro did not identify who specifically voiced these concerns, but said that the concerns did
not come from Chief Spicuzza.

According to Wood, he understood that an early morning operation on either Friday or
Saturday was not possible because Chief Spicuzza did not have sufficient officers available
for those times.242 This additional rationale for the 3 p.m. time was also voiced by UCDPD
officers who were not present on the Leadership Team calls. According to

Officer F

“another … I’ll use the word excuse, because that’s what I felt it was, [regarding
the 3:00 p.m. time was] that they wouldn’t be able to get the allied agencies to supply people
at two o’clock in the morning, which I find is a very weak excuse.” 243

According to Meyer, Chief Spicuzza did not raise any strategic or tactical objections to the
3:00 p.m. operation, and stated, “well, that would be better than making us, having us do it
tonight [3:00 a.m. Friday], if we could get that much time.” 244 Meyer stated that there was no
“push back” regarding the 3:00 p.m. Friday afternoon time from Chief Spicuzza or anyone
else on the conference call.245

By the end of day Thursday, however, the timeframe for the operation was still not clear to
every Leadership Team member. In the draft letter to the activists that Communications
Director Barbera wrote late that night, she called for tents to be removed by the end of the
day.246 Vice Chancellor Wood said that he understood that the decision to move at 3 p.m. on
Friday afternoon was made Friday morning, but that he was not involved in the relevant
phone call.247 At 6:31 a.m. on Friday morning, Vice Chancellor Meyer edited the letter drafted
by Barbera to include a 3:00 p.m. deadline for the tents to be removed, based on his
understanding of the consensus from the 10 p.m. Leadership Team conference call the night
before. 248 At 9:04 AM, the Chancellor responded to the group noting that she likes “the
document very much with the exception I would address the readers as ‘Dear UC Davis
students’ and not as ‘friends’.”249

242 Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 16, lines 20-21. [Exhibit 69]
243 Transcribed interview of

Officer F

January 20, 2012, page 13, lines 16-20. [Exhibit 92]

244 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 10, lines 12-18. [Exhibit 2]
245 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 25, lines 12-16. [Exhibit 2]
246 Attachment to email from Barbera to Engelbach, Katehi, Wood, Drown, Meyer, Benson, November 18, 2011 at
2:22 a.m. [Exhibit 93]
247 Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 15, line 23 through page 16, line 7. [Exhibit 69]
248 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 36, line 15-17. [Exhibit 40]
249 Email from Katehi to Benson, Meyer, Barbera, Engelbach, Wood, Drown, November 18, 2011 at 9:04 a.m.
[Exhibit 94]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

53

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

5.6.3

Chief Spicuzza and Her Lieutenants Plan Operation

Note: Due to legal constraints, Kroll investigators were unable to interview Chief Spicuzza,
Lieutenant Pike or

Officer P

Kroll was provided with reports prepared by Pike

Officer P concerning the events on November 18th. Pike submitted his report on
December 13 and Officer P on November 30. Both reports were submitted an extended

and

time after the event in question and certainly the authors were aware of the controversy
surrounding this event and their respective roles at the time that these documents were
written.

Indeed, Lieutenant Pike had been relieved of duty several weeks before he

submitted his report.

On the evening of Thursday, November 17, before the 10 p.m. Leadership Team conference
call, Chief Spicuzza, Lieutenants Pike and

Officer P and Dispatch Supervisor Garcia-

Hernandez met in the main conference room of the UCDPD.

250

According to Lieutenant Pike’s

Supplemental Narrative Report, they “discussed our departmental staffing, tactics legal
matters and logistics for the operation.”251

According to Garcia-Hernandez, Chief Spicuzza informed Lieutenant Pike and
don’t want what happened at Berkeley. Oh my God.”

252

Officer P “I

The Lieutenant replied that “we don’t

know the full story of what happened in Berkeley. Of course the images that you see on TV
will always be one-sided.” They also said, “we don’t want anyone to get hurt [and] that
includes the officers.”253

Chief Spicuzza and the Lieutenants discussed the use of batons and pepper spray, with
Spicuzza saying that she didn’t want them to be used. 254 According to Garcia-Hernandez,
“Both the Lieutenants echoed back to her, “nobody wants to do that. But we can’t predict if
we’re gonna have to use them.” 255 Although she cautioned that she couldn’t speak for Chief
Spicuzza, Garcia-Hernandez believed that the Lieutenants made Chief Spicuzza aware that
250 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011 and transcribed interview of Leticia GarciaHernandez, January 20, 2012. [Exhibits 54, 95]
251 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
252 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 16, line 24 through page 17, line 1.
[Exhibit 95]
253 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 17, lines 5-12. [Exhibit 95]
254 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 5, line 2 through page 6, line 2.
[Exhibit 95]
255 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 6, lines 7-9. [Exhibit 95]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

54

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

both pepper ball guns and pepper spray were among the less-lethal weapons that they would
have at their disposal.256 In response, Chief Spicuzza “lifted her hand up off the table, waved
to them, like, ‘No, no. We don’t wanna use that kinda thing.’”257 The Lieutenants replied “we
know we’re not supposed to use it, but … it’s the less lethal tool that we have.”258 Spicuzza
replied “Yeah, yeah, I understand” and the conversation moved on to the mutual aid
response.259

Garcia-Hernandez was familiar with the small canisters of pepper spray that the officers
carried on their waist, but had never seen the larger MK-9 canister “until the day of the
video.” 260 Garcia-Hernandez was not aware that the Lieutenants specified which pepper
spray they were referring to during the conversation; she stated “I just assumed that pepper
spray meant whatever kind of spray that they had.” 261

Also that night, Chief Spicuzza told the Lieutenants that she didn’t want them wearing
helmets and face shields, or “riot gear, as she called it,” according to Garcia-Hernandez. 262
The Lieutenants replied, “you cannot tell somebody to walk into a situation like that without
their safety gear” and called her suggestion “ridiculous.” 263
At 9:45 p.m., Pike emailed Spicuzza and Officer P a “skeleton ops plan, more to follow in
the morning.” Although the document included an “operational timeline” with a police action
against the encampment beginning at 3:45 p.m., Pike believed that they were still planning
an early morning operation when he came to work on Friday morning, but stated that he may
have “misunderstood.”264 Additionally, it does not appear that Spicuzza and the Lieutenants
had resolved their differences regarding the use of equipment such as helmets, face shields,
batons, pepper ball and pepper spray on Thursday night, since these issues continued to be

256 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 7, lines 5-7. [Exhibit 95]
257 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 7, lines 7-8 and page 9, lines 1113. [Exhibit 95]
258 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 8-10 and page 9, lines 13-15.
[Exhibit 95]
259 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 7, lines 11-12. [Exhibit 95]
260 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 7, line 22 through page 8, line 10.
[Exhibit 95]
261 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 8, lines 11-16. [Exhibit 95]
262 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 10, lines 9-12. [Exhibit 95]
263 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 10, lines 12-15. [Exhibit 95]
264 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

55

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

debated through Friday afternoon according to Garcia-Hernandez and as documented by
Pike in his supplemental report.265

5.6.4

Non-Affiliates Discussed on 10:00 p.m. Leadership Conference Call

After having spent several hours with the activists on the Quad, Assistant Vice Chancellor
Castro called in to the 10:00 p.m. Leadership Team conference call. According to Castro,
Chief Spicuzza “reported that her officers had told her that 80 percent of the people out there
weren’t students, that we had non-affiliates here. And so I said no … that’s not what I saw …
I was out there … the only non-affiliates I saw were people from the interfaith communities
providing food … and they were not spending the night.” Chancellor Katehi then asked
Castro if she could “prove” that the activists were mostly students and Castro responded that
she could not, saying, “I didn’t ask for IDs. It’s just from my sense of what I know.” Chief
Spicuzza then remarked that she believed Castro’s assessment was more accurate than that
of her own officers.266 According to Vice Chancellor Wood, “students for us range all the way
from eighteen … through the graduate post doc, they could be 30 and be a student…. I want
to be fair that someone might see a pretty scruffy older person [and] presume them not a
student.”267

Castro then proceeded to speak for about 40 minutes and the response “was dead
silence.”268 According to Castro, “what I said to them was that this had to be very careful.
That we were in this moment in time where there was this massive cultural shift. There is a
lot of support for this movement. And that we had to land on the right side of history on this
one. And so, I said, you know, I've talked with them … I offered alternatives. They said ‘yes,
interesting, come talk to us, but [you should understand that] Occupy is the strategy. If you
take the tents down, we will be back with more the next day. And if you take those down,
we'll be back the next day with more. And we'll merge with the Davis.’ They [also] told me
[that Davis and UC Davis are] separate encampments because they wanted that student
space and they had different issues than the city … they didn't want the anarchists here.
They said … ‘we voted the black block anarchists out.’ … I asked about non-affiliates. They

265 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December13, 2011 and Transcribed interview of Leticia GarciaHernandez, January 31, 2012. [Exhibits 54, 95]
266 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 32, line 24 through page 34, line 4. [Exhibit
5]
267 Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 14, line 21 through page 15, line 6. [Exhibit 69]
268 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 34, lines 6-11. [Exhibit 5]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

56

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

said [they were] students, you know, there might be a couple of alumni, but then again I saw
religious groups out there supporting them.” 269

According to Castro, “I didn’t say ‘don’t do anything’ [on the Leadership Team call] because
I’m not the risk management … I have to be respectful of the people on the call who have the
risk management on their shoulders if something goes wrong.” According to Castro, “but
when people said ‘but it’s costing the University,’ I said … that it’d be cheaper to put two porta-potties and have the police patrol, than if something goes wrong, the months of litigation
that could follow … it’s going to be Thanksgiving, it’s going to rain, the finals are coming. It’ll
blow over. Following these comments, the Leadership Team call “was very, very silent,”
according to Castro.270

According to Vice Chancellor Meyer, while he did not believe that the ratio put forward by
Chief Spicuzza’s officers was accurate, he did believe that non-affiliates had been involved in
the recent demonstration.

271

Furthermore, he was concerned that an established

encampment would serve to attract additional non-affiliates. According to a document
emailed by Chief Spicuzza, “the concern was that those involved were not all UC Davis
student, faculty or staff, but individuals from the outside to cause problems or commit
crimes.”272

According to Chief of Staff Engelbach, “there was a lot of concern about the safety of
students, particularly from non-campus affiliated folks coming on to the campus,” such as
people from Occupy Davis. 273 Some on the Leadership Calls, including Student Affairs
people, said that “all of them are students” while “others said no, I went over and I saw, I
think some of them don’t look like students,” according to Engelbach. “Nobody really knew
exactly how many were or were not,” according to Engelbach. 274

According to Vice Chancellor Wood, “there was a lengthy conversation on Thursday night” in
which Student Affairs staff explained that while some activists might take down their tents,

269 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 34, line 21 through page 35, line 4. [Exhibit
5]
270 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 36, line 15 through page 37, line 3. [Exhibit
5]
271 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 40, lines 7-14. [Exhibit 40]
272 Untitled Microsoft Word document attached to an email from Spicuzza to ascy88@sbcglobal.net, November 20,
2011 at 7:12 p.m. This email address appears to belong to a friend or family member of Chief Spicuzza. [Exhibit 92]
273 Transcribed interview of Karl Engelbach, December 8, 2011, page 18, lines 20-22. [Exhibit 4]
274 Transcribed interview of Karl Engelbach, December 8, 2011, page 19, lines 16-24. [Exhibit 4]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

57

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

“there were also some that would probably not.” 275 According to Chancellor Katehi, “it
became clear … from Griselda [Castro] that [the activists] did not want to talk, at least there
was a big group … that was not interested in being engaged. Then we said, ‘All right, well,
how can we remove the tents?’ That was the discussion.” 276

According to Chancellor Katehi, “in all of these phone calls [leading up to November 18], I
never felt that I made an executive decision where people disagreed. I felt that we were
coming to a decision as a group.” 277 Katehi was not sure when the final decision was made to
remove the encampment from the Quad.278

Based on the accounts of several officers, including Lieutenant Pike, Chief Spicuzza informed
her officers that key and controversial decisions, including the 3 p.m. time for the operation,
had been made by Chancellor Katehi herself.279

5.6.5

Drafting of Letter from Chancellor Katehi to Activists

Communications Director Barbera worked late into the night on Thursday writing a first draft
of a letter from Chancellor Katehi to the activists and several members of the Leadership
Team provided edits the next morning. The letter was distributed to activists on the Quad at
approximately 11 a.m. on Friday.

Chancellor Katehi told Kroll investigators that Student Affairs wrote the letter and that she did
not review it before it went out. 280 The record contradicts both of these statements, as
detailed below. Katehi did review the letter, provided an editorial change and approved it.281
Student Affairs did not write the letter; Vice Chancellor Wood did not have time to review the
letter and Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro’s edits to the letter were not incorporated into the

275 Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 14, lines 9-13. [Exhibit 69]
276 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 23, lines 11-16. [Exhibit 1]
277 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 20, lines 6-16. [Exhibit 1]
278 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 20, lines 6-16. [Exhibit 1]
279 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December13, 2011; Transcribed interview of Officer F
January 20, 2012, page 11, lines 23-25; Supplemental Narrative Report, by Officer Q
November 29, 2011.
[Exhibits 54, 92, 96]
280 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 32, lines 10-14. [Exhibit 1]
281 Email from Katehi to Benson, Meyer, Barbera, Engelbach, Wood and Drown, November 18, 2011 at 9:04 a.m.
[Exhibit 94]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

58

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

final draft. According to Wood, the media staffers who wrote and edited the letter “report now
directly to the Chancellor.”282

At 2:22 a.m., Communications Director Barbera emailed members of the Leadership Team a
first draft of the letter, stating that she “tried to hit all the major points [that we discussed on
the previous night’s conference call] and find a soft but firm tone.”283 Barbera’s draft called for
the tents to be removed by “the end of today.”

At 6:31 a.m., Vice Chancellor Meyer emailed the Leadership Team a substantively edited
version of the letter. He changed the deadline for the tents to be removed from the “end of
today” to “by 3:00 p.m.” and changed the language quantifying the presence of non-affiliates
(“we are aware that a number of those involved in the recent demonstrations are not UC
Davis students” was changed to “we are aware that many of those involved …”)284

At 8:42 a.m., a more polished version of the letter was emailed by a member of University
Communications staff.

At 9:04 a.m., Chancellor Katehi wrote “I like the document very much with the exception that I
would address the readers as: ‘Dear UC Davis Students’ and not as ‘Friends’” and signed
“Best, Linda”285

At 9:05 a.m., Vice Chancellor Meyer forwarded the draft letter to Assistant Vice Chancellor
Castro. At 9:15 a.m., Vice Chancellor Wood emailed Castro, saying “Okay? This is moving
quickly and I can’t read it right now.” 286

At 9:36 a.m., Associate Vice Chancellor Castro emailed a draft of the letter in which she
“adjusted the sentence about non-affiliates based on my observations last night” and
“entered a sentence that referred [sic] to the global economy because their concern extends
beyond the impact to UC Davis.” 287 The language proposed by Castro regarding non-affiliates
is not clearly presented in the “track changes” document she attached; the proposed

282 Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 27, lines 2-5. [Exhibit 69]
283 Email from Barbera to Engelbach, Katehi, Wood, Drown, Meyer, November 18, 2011 at 2:22 a.m. [Exhibit 93]
284 Email from Meyer to Barbera, Engelbach, Katehi, Wood, Drown, Benson, November 18, 2011 at 6:31 a.m.
[Exhibit 97]
285 Email from Katehi to Benson, Meyer, Barbera, Engelbach, Wood and Drown, November 18, 2011 at 9:04 a.m.
[Exhibit 94]
286 Email from Wood to Castro, November 18, 2011 at 9:15 a.m. [Exhibit 98]
287 Email from Castro to Barbera, Benson, Meyer, Wood, November 18, 2011 at 9:36 a.m. [Exhibit 99]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

59

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

language appears to include the statement, “We recognize that an unsanctioned
encampment of this type may include individuals who are not members of the UC Davis
community.”

Associate Vice Chancellor Castro’s suggestions were not incorporated into the letter,
however, and Castro was tasked with coordinating the distribution of the letter starting at
approximately 11:30 a.m.288
The letter continued to be fine-tuned until 1 p.m., when a spelling error was corrected. 289

5.6.6

UCDPD Officers Raise Questions about the Legal Basis for a Daytime Operation

According to Lieutenant Pike’s Supplemental Narrative Report, both he and

Officer P

were “not in agreement” with Chief Spicuzza regarding the feasibility of removing
the tents during the day, especially in light of an email chain provided by

Officer P

“discussing the legal issues and opinions surrounding the enforcement of the
identified laws and codes as presented by the Office of Campus Counsel.” 290

On Friday morning, November 18, Lieutenant Pike and

Officer P

contacted

Campus Counsel Sweeney and discussed their concerns with him. Sweeney told them he
would get back to them, and at around 1:00 p.m., a conference call was conducted in Chief
Spicuzza’s office with Pike,

Officer P Sweeney and Steven Drown. Both Officer P and

Pike “had several questions about the legality of conducting a planned operation during the
middle of the afternoon versus the early morning hours.” 291 Pike’s description of the
subsequent discussion on the conference call was redacted, apparently due to attorney-client
privilege.292

When asked by Kroll investigators if there was any discussion about how the administration
could enforce a policy regarding “overnight camping” during the daytime, Vice Chancellor

288 Email from Barbera to Engelbach, Castro, Meyer, Wood, Katehi, Spicuzza, November 18, 2011 at 10:16 a.m.
[Exhibit 93]
289 Email from Hubbard to Benson, Engelbach, Barbera, Castro, Meyer, Wood, Spicuzza, November 18, 2011 at
1:00 p.m. [Exhibit 100]
290 This email chain was marked as a confidential attorney client communication, according to Pike, and has not
been provided to Kroll. Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
291 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
292 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. See also January 13, 2012, letter from
Sweeney to Berkow. [Exhibits 54, 44]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

60

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Meyer said “I think by definition it would have been violated already, because they were there
the night before.” 293 When asked how the administration planned to determine who was there
the night before, Meyer stated that “the argument was … anyone can assemble, but we’re
going to … remove the implements of the encampment.”
According to all three Operations Plans that Pike and/or Officer P created in response to
Occupy-related activism, the use of a dispersal order and 409 PC notification was anticipated
for “open air events” and the removal of tent structures.294

The need for a dispersal order was apparently not understood by several key decisionmakers: Vice Chancellor Wood stated that on Friday, the “decision is made the tents need to
come down, we are not going to disperse the crowd … they are free to still demonstrate.” 295
According to Vice Chancellor Meyer, “What we were after was the encampment, read the
tents. The implements that allow you to really put stakes down literally, and have that growing
community. That was the target of the action.” 296

5.6.7

Spicuzza Tells Leadership Team about Her Lieutenant’s Views

A Leadership Team conference call was held at 1 p.m. on Friday, November 18, according to
Chancellor Katehi’s calendar.297

Chief Spicuzza joined the call from the DOC that had been set up in the conference room of
at the UCDPD. 298 Chief Spicuzza usually joined Leadership Team calls from her office;
because she joined this call from the DOC, however, Dispatch Supervisor Garcia-Hernandez
and Lieutenant Pike were present during the call.299

293 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 10, line 19 through page 11, line 13.
[Exhibit 2]
294 November 18, 2011 Protest, Operation Plan; November 15, 2011 Protest, Operation Plan; and October 27,
2011 Protest, Operation Plan. [Exhibits 101, 55, 47]
295 Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 19, lines 12-15. [Exhibit 69]
296 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 11, line 12 through page 12, line 2.
[Exhibit 2]
297 Chief of Staff Engelbach allowed Kroll investigators to view Chancellor Katehi’s calendar on December 20,
2011. The calendar showed Leadership Team calls scheduled for 8:30 a.m., 1 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Thursday,
November 17 and 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. on Friday, November 18.
298 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 7, line 21 through page 8, line 2.
[Exhibit 148]
299 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 7, line 21 through page 8, line 2.
[Exhibit 148]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

61

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

According to Garcia-Hernandez:

Chief Spicuzza told the Leadership Team, “My Lieutenants are telling me that this is a bad
idea, that this timeframe [of 3 p.m.] is not good, we should go in at night.”

300

Vice

Chancellor Wood responded, “No, no. We shouldn’t … do this. This is a peaceful situation.
We should try talking to them.” Next, a man that Garcia-Hernandez believed to be Vice
Chancellor Meyer said, “This is an operational situation for police at this point. We
shouldn’t be telling police how to do their jobs.” Chancellor Katehi then stated, “I agree. I
can’t tell police how to do their jobs. This is something for them to work out, but … I
absolutely do not want those students staying overnight on a Friday where there could be
a party or something could happen to them.”

Lieutenant Pike was sitting across the table from Chief Spicuzza, who had the conference
call phone directly in front of her. After Vice Chancellor Wood suggested “talking” to the
students, Pike suddenly spoke up, saying “Student Affairs should talk to them rather than
bringing in the PD at this point” and Chief Spicuzza “waved him off, like ‘no, no,’ with her
hand.”

301

Pike’s statement may have overlapped with the statement from Chancellor

Katehi that “she didn’t want it to be an overnight party,” and may not have been heard by
the participants on the conference call.

302

In response to Spicuzza’s rejection, Pike

“looked like he almost got disgusted with the conversation” and left the room for a brief
period of time.

303

None of the UC Davis administrators interviewed by Kroll said that Chief Spicuzza relayed
her officers’ concerns about the timing of the operation to the Leadership Team or anyone
else. Vice Chancellor Wood told a Kroll investigator that he did not recall Chief Spicuzza
voicing her Lieutenant’s concerns on the Friday afternoon conference call, or any other
Leadership Team call, but that he understood that she viewed an early morning operation as
the better option, but had encountered problems with securing enough officers for that
time.304

300 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 9, line 17 through page 10, line 6.
[Exhibit 148]
301 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 7, lines 9-10. [Exhibit 148]
302 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 7, lines 15-18. [Exhibit 148]
303 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 4, line 25 through page 5, line 1.
[Exhibit 148]
304 Telephone Re-Interview of Wood, February 7, 2012. [Exhibit 102]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

62

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

5.6.8

Pike and

Officer P

Reject Tactical Direction from Chief

According to Dispatch Supervisor Garcia-Hernandez, after the 1 p.m. Leadership Team call
ended, there was a “heated” discussion between Chief Spicuzza and Lieutenants Pike and

Officer P with Spicuzza again saying that “she didn’t want sticks, she didn’t want them
going in with helmets, and both the Lieutenants chimed in at her at the same time basically
saying … ‘We can’t tell another Mutual Aid agency not to protect themselves. These are the
tools of the trade, they’re designed to protect us.’” At this time, Pike also “mentioned
something about … pepper ball,” Spicuzza answered, “We don’t want to use any of that,” and
the Lieutenants replied, “Of course, we don’t want to use any of it. They’re tools of the trade.
They’re less lethal.”

305

Lieutenant Pike’s Supplemental Narrative Report also states that Chief Spicuzza discussed
tactical issues with Pike and Officer P around this time, but does not mention a Leadership
Team conference call. 306 According to Pike’s account, the discussion followed a 1:00 p.m.
call with Chief Campus Counsel Drown and Campus Counsel Sweeney in Chief Spicuzza’s
office. 307 Garcia-Hernandez said that the call with Campus Counsel was “a separate call”
from the Leadership Call that she described.” 308

According to Pike’s Supplemental Narrative Report:

UCDPD was monitoring Facebook and Twitter and had “assertively identified that the
occupiers on the Quad were preparing for a police action in response to the Chancellor’s
letter.” Both he and

Officer P emphasized to Chief Spicuzza that a night time/early

morning operation was “in the best interest of the university, our agency, and the safety of
our officers.”

309

Pike reminded Chief Spicuzza of the email that she had forwarded to him

that described the success of a nighttime/early morning operation at UCLA the night
before.

310

Chief Spicuzza agreed that the success of that operation was a good example

but said that the order for a 3:00 p.m. operation was “from the Chancellor directly” and
that the Chancellor “did not want a party atmosphere to occur on the Quad.”

311

305 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 16, line 25 through page 17, line 9.
[Exhibit 148]
306 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
307 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
308 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 5, line 20. [Exhibit 148]
309 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
310 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
311 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

63

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

According to Garcia-Hernandez, there was a “collaborative effort” both within the UCDPD and
with the media people in the administration to monitor Facebook, Twitter and other Internetbased sources for information about the activists’ plans.312 According to Garcia-Hernandez, it
was clear from this research that the activists would not agree to take down the tents and
were planning to put up resistance.313 Additionally, “There was [sic] a lot of discussions being
had in and out of the [UCDPD DOC] in regards to the time, that the Chancellor did not want
this to be a party … on the Quad.”314 According to

Officer F

when he questioned

the timing of the operation at the UCDPD briefing, he was informed that the Chancellor and
Chief of Police were “concerned about students going out and partying and coming back and
conflict between the Occupy people and the students.” 315

According to Pike’s Supplemental Narrative Report:

“During our meeting with the Chief of Police, the Chief stated that she did not want the
officers carrying their wood batons or wearing their ballistic/protective helmets. The Chief
referenced the incidents from the previous week at UC Berkeley wherein the UCBPD
officers were videod taped [sic] using their batons against the resisting student
activists/occupiers. The Chief of Police opined that the sight of riot gear could increase the
potential of the use of force or resistance from the protesters.”

316

According to Pike’s Supplemental Narrative Report, he responded by suggesting that “maybe
Student Affairs should be handling this and not us.” 317

312 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 26, line 21. [Exhibit 148]
313 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 27, line 15 through page 28, line
15. [Exhibit 148]
314 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2011, Volume I, page 11, lines 13-16. [Exhibit
95]
315 Transcribed interview of

Officer F

page 11, lines 19-2. [Exhibit 92]

316 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
317 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

64

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

According to Pike’s Supplemental Narrative Report:
“The Chief of Police adamantly stated that she did not want excessive force to be used to
remove the tents and she ordered that

Officer P

and I handle the removal of

the tents personally. The Chief directed us not to get into a ‘tugging match’ with the
protesters/occupiers and that if the protesters began to tussle with us over the tents to let
the protesters just have the tents.”

According to Pike, he and

318

Officer P

persuaded Chief Spicuzza to allow the

officers to carry their batons in their belts and to wear their ballistic/protective helmets,
arguing that “the potential for our officers to encounter resistance passive and physical was
already heightened by the deadline imposed by the Chancellor in her letter as well as the
networking of the Occupiers and their use of social media.” 319 Pike told Chief Spicuzza that
he “did not believe this operation would be carried out without some level of resistance or
agitation on the part of the student activists/occupiers” and stated that Spicuzza “agreed and
dismissed us to further our preparations.”320

According to Garcia-Hernandez, the discussion ended with Chief Spicuzza stating, “All right, I
get it … I just don’t want another Berkeley,” and she walking out of the room. 321 The two
Lieutenants looked at each other and then looked at Garcia-Hernandez, who said to them,
“was that a bad thing?” What Garcia-Hernandez meant by that comment was that Spicuzza
had “dismissed” the Lieutenant’s concerns without having resolved the issues being
discussed; it was as if Spicuzza had said “I don’t really care what you say” and walked out. 322

The Lieutenants also left and then Chief Spicuzza came back and told Garcia-Hernandez, “I
can’t make them understand. They just don’t get it,” and Garcia-Hernandez replied “who are
you talking about?” and Spicuzza said, “the administration.” 323 Garcia-Hernandez said that
she believed that Spicuzza “didn’t try hard enough” and “didn’t articulate” her concerns when
communicating with members of the administration on the Leadership Team.

318 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
319 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
320 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
321 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 17, lines 23-25. [Exhibit 148]
322 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 18, lines 2-10. [Exhibit 148]
323 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 7, lines 9-10. [Exhibit 148]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

65

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

According to Garcia-Hernandez, Chief Spicuzza seemed “upset” and “frustrated” before she
left to go to the Quad.324 Before he left for the Quad, Lieutenant Pike seemed nervous and
stated “this is a bad idea.”325 Garcia-Hernandez was left alone at the DOC, “which is kind of
weird because that normally shouldn’t happen … usually my incident commander … or the
top dog stays with me.” 326

According to Dispatch Supervisor Garcia-Hernandez, the need for the police action to occur
at a nightly or early morning hour “was the hot topic” for “most” of the discussions between
Chief Spicuzza and Lieutenant Pike and
operation.

327

Officer P leading up to the November 18

Garcia-Hernandez recalled another conversation in which Pike and/or

Officer P said that the afternoon was “a bad time” and “recommended that they go in at
night or early morning [and] over the weekend when there’s less people to get involved and
they could plan their resources better.” 328 Regarding the afternoon time, “the Lieutenants
were adamant that this was a bad idea.” 329 Chief Spicuzza replied “Too bad, the decision’s
been made … we don’t have a choice in the matter now. We need to remove these
people.”330

5.6.9

UCDPD Gathers Intelligence Regarding Encampment

On Friday morning, Chief Spicuzza received emails from officers reporting on the Occupy UC
Davis encampment. At 6:53 a.m., Spicuzza was informed that there were 30 to 35 tents with
an unknown number of occupants. Spicuzza was also informed that the activists had gained
access to electricity from an adjacent light pole and defeated the locks to “the 24-hour
reading room” to access to bathrooms. 331

At 7:49 a.m.,

Officer M

reported that he had “walked through the

encampment” and found that “the group is VERY organized with a sentry schedule posted for
324 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 20, line 14-15. [Exhibit 148]
325 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 21, line 4-5. [Exhibit 148]
326 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 21, lines13-18. [Exhibit 148]
327 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2011, page 4, line 18 through page 5, line 15.
[Exhibit 95]
328 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2011, page 6, lines 20-22. [Exhibit 95]
329 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2011, page 12, lines 3-6. [Exhibit 95]
330 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2011, page 12, lines 10-12. This is also
documented in Pike’s Supplemental Narrative Report of December 13, 2011. (The Chief of Police stated she “the
order she had received was from the Chancellor directly and that the Chancellor did not want the encampment on
the Quad on Friday night.” [Exhibits 95, 54]
331 Email from Officer M to Spicuzza,

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Officer P Officer S

Pike, November 18, 2011 at 6:53 a.m. [Exhibit 103]

66

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

night time guard duty and contact information for resources posted on a chalk board” and that
“they have already begun to receive food and beverage from various people dropping items
off for breakfast.”332

5.6.10

Operations Plan for Eviction

The Operation Plan, named “Eco-Friendly,” was prepared by Lieutenants Pike and

Officer P according to the typed document. 333 Officer P

was named the

Incident Commander and Lieutenant Pike’s role is undefined in the document. 334 According
to the Operation Plan:

“Mission:
The mission of the operation is to cease the occupation of the quad:
1.

Remove the tent structures erected by the protestors.

2.

Provide security for facility workers doing clean up.

3.

Restore order to the campus.

Execution:

The UC Davis Police Department has requested mutual aid from … UC campuses for the removal
of the protestors and the occupying encampment located on the UC Davis quad.”

335

The Operations Plan provides a timeline of how the operation would proceed, with an
admonishment given by Lieutenant Pike at 3:50 p.m., “detail moves in on encampment” at
3:53 p.m., and then, from 3:53 p.m. till 5:30 p.m., “detail secures Quad ending Occupation
Encampment.”336

332 Email from Officer M to Spicuzza,

Officer P Officer S

Pike, November 18, 2011 at 7:49 a.m. [Exhibit 104]

333 There are no signature blocks that depict either the author or any reviewing/approval authority.
334 November 18, 2011 Protest, Operation Plan “Eco-Friendly,” prepared by Officer
John Pike, UC Davis Police Department Operations, November 18, 2011. [Exhibit 101]

P

and

335 November 18, 2011 Protest, Operation Plan “Eco-Friendly,” prepared by Officer
John Pike, UC Davis Police Department Operations, November 18, 2011. [Exhibit 101]

P

and

336 November 18, 2011 Protest, Operation Plan “Eco-Friendly,” prepared by Officer
John Pike, UC Davis Police Department Operations, November 18, 2011. [Exhibit 101]

P

and

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

67

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Tactical considerations included “pepper ball available” and “helmets with face shields,” but
made no mention of pepper spray or batons. An additional tactical consideration mentioned
was to “control entire perimeter around the encampment.” 337

According to the plan, “for open air events … utilize the dispersal order and 409 PC
notifications” and “allow those inside the encampment opportunity to leave and tell them
where the exit is.” Subjects who remained after the dispersal order would be arrested for
violation of 409 PC or “for trespass if subjects refuse to leave … 602q PC.” Additionally,
“Arrest Team Sergeants will monitor crowd activity to identify those inciting the crowd. If
appropriate, these subjects will be immediately arrested for violation 404.6 PC.”

338

Under the heading “Tactical Considerations / Custody”, there were subheadings titled, “No
Resistance,” “Passive Resistance,” and “Aggressive Resistance.”

Pepper spray was not

mentioned as an option under the subheadings in the operations plan. The operations plan
indicated that “No Resistance” meant the arrestee would be escorted and cuffed with flex
cuffs. “Passive Resistance” meant pain compliance would be administered and as a “last
resort, [the arrestee would be] placed in a wheel chair and cuffed with flex cuffs.”
“Aggressive Resistance” meant cuffed with flex cuffs, pain compliance and administering the
W.R.A.P.

The operations plan provided no further information related to force options

available other than the officers understanding of the use of force policy. 339

According to officers involved in the operation, the Operations Plan was discussed but not
distributed to the officers.340 Sergeants were provided with a copy of the Operations Plan.

337 November 18, 2011 Protest, Operation Plan “Eco-Friendly,” prepared by Officer
John Pike, UC Davis Police Department Operations, November 18, 2011. [Exhibit 101]

P

and

338 November 18, 2011 Protest, Operation Plan “Eco-Friendly,” prepared by Officer
John Pike, UC Davis Police Department Operations, November 18, 2011. [Exhibit 101]

P

and

339 November 18, 2011 Protest, Operation Plan “Eco-Friendly,” prepared by Officer
John Pike, UC Davis Police Department Operations, November 18, 2011. [Exhibit 101]

P

and

340 Transcribed interview of Officer I
January 19, 2012, Volume 1, page 4, lines 12-15; transcribed
interview of Officer G January 20, 2012, Volume II, page 12, lines 12-16. [Exhibits 105, 106]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

68

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

6
POLICE OPERATION ON THE QUAD
At approximately 2:00 p.m. on Friday, Assistant Vice Chancellor Griselda Castro became
concerned that there were too many students in the area of the Quad for the removal of the
encampment to be conducted successfully. The tent removal operation was only an hour
away and Castro noticed that there was a lot of activity at the Memorial Union. Because of
her concern, she called Vice Chancellor Wood and asked him if the tent removal operation
could be delayed. Wood informed her that the operation could not be delayed because it
would be too risky in the dark, according to Castro. 341

According to UCDPD officers, the start time of the operation was in fact moved forward “at
the direction of the Chancellor.”342

6.1

Preparing for the Police Action

Among the officers preparing to participate in the removal of tents from the Quad at 3 p.m.,
the view that it was a “bad idea” to attempt to remove the tents during the day weighed
heavily. 343 According to

Officer F

“Sometimes there’s an elephant sitting in the

room. And the elephant for that day was—and it was verbalized—why are we doing it at this
time of the day?”344

6.1.1

Dispatch Supervisor Garcia-Hernandez at DOC

On Friday, November 18, Garcia-Hernandez “was asking ‘who’s gonna stay with me [at the
DOC] and make incident command decisions?’ and the Chief says, ‘Well … I’m gonna go out
to the Quad and scope it out myself.’ And she disappeared. And then … the Lieutenants are

341 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 43, line 2 through page 48, line 19. [Exhibit
5]
342 Supplemental Narrative Report,

Officer Q

November 29, 2011. [Exhibit 96]

343 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 20122011, page 12, lines 3-6. [Exhibit 95]
344 Transcribed interview of

Officer F

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 20, 2012, page 48, lines 16-18. [Exhibit 92]

69

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

kind of scrambling in the room with me, to figure out who went where and who’s making
notification. And the next thing I know, the Lieutenants are now out of the room.” 345

As the police operation commenced on the Quad, Chief Spicuzza proceeded to call GarciaHernandez on multiple occasions from her cell phone, asking her to relay messages to

Officer P

and Garcia-Hernandez relayed the messages “as best I could …

given that they’re in the field doing their operations, I would come up on either the radio or
call him on his cell phone.” 346

6.1.2

UCDPD Conduct Briefing and Prepare for Operations

On November 18, 2011, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Lieutenant Pike held the operational
briefing at the DOC. Present for the briefing were approximately 17 officers from UCDPD,
and approximately 18 additional officers from other UC campuses: UC Santa Cruz (UCSC),
UC Berkley (UCB) and UC San Francisco (UCSF).347

Also in attendance was Ben McNulty,

a non-sworn UCDPD employee who video recorded the operation, members from the UC
Davis Fire Department (UCDFD), and two UC Davis Aggie Hosts to watch the police vehicles
and equipment. 348 The Yolo County Sheriff’s Department, Animal Services Section, was
requested but not present for the briefing.
Chief Spicuzza was not present at the briefing. 349

According to

Officer F

the briefing lasted approximately 20 minutes and “the plan

was … we were going to … go to the park and request … the Occupy people to leave. And
then we were to stand by and basically be security so that facilities could take the tents down
in an orderly manner and package them so that they could be booked as evidence or
retained so that they could be returned to the owner of the tents if they can be determined.” 350
( Officer F was the only officer interviewed by Kroll who said that facilities had a role in the
operation, as stated in the Operation Plan. During the operation,

Officer P

345 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 13, lines 8-16. [Exhibit 95]
346 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 13, line 21 through page 14, line 1.
[Exhibit 95]
347 The number of officers from other UC campuses was taken from the November 18 Operations Plan and has not
been independently confirmed. [Exhibit 101]
348 The presence of these additional individuals was identified in the November 18 Operations Plan and has not
been independently confirmed. [Exhibit 101]
349 Transcribed interview of
350 Transcribed interview of

Officer F
Officer F

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 20, 2012, page 22, line 9-12. [Exhibit 92]
January 20, 2012, page 6, lines 2-10. [Exhibit 92]

70

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

requested that facilities come to the Quad only after the initial arrests were made, and then
seconds later cancelled the request when activists began taking down the tents.)

UCDPD officers provided Kroll investigators with a wide range of explanations regarding the
mission of the operation. At one extreme was the explanation provided by

Officer H

who said “what I got out of that briefing was … our mission was to remove the occupants
from the Quad, that set up tents and were camping out”351 and

Officer D

who said that

“our mission was to eliminate the Quad area of the tents and the occupiers that were
there.”352 At the other extreme was

Officer L

who stated, “We weren’t to disperse the

students. We weren’t to limit or prohibit the amount of protesting that was happening. We
were just there to take down the tents.” 353

Officer K

Officer C

Officer G

Officer D

and

Officer I also understood that the operation’s goal was to remove just the tents.
According to

Officer E

he was told at the briefing to use only reasonable force

according to department guidelines. 354 According to
use of force would be determined at the scene.”

355

Officer L

the message was that “the

Other officers, including

Officer D

said that no

guidance was offered about what sort of force was acceptable.
Pike and Officer P also held a second briefing for sergeants in a separate room where
specific assignments were discussed. 356 According to

Officer F

there was

supposed to be another, “more complete briefing” at 3 p.m., which would include him “giving
a brief description of what type of crowd control we were going to use,” but it was never
held.357

At the briefing, there was no discussion of the transportation of arrestees or the exit strategy
for the operation, according to
Narrative Report by

Officer Q

Officer F

358

According to the Supplemental

he asked about prisoner transport and “was told that

patrol would handle the transport of any arrestees to the holding facility at the PD.” 359

351 Transcribed interview of
352 Transcribed interview of
353 Transcribed interview of
354 Transcribed interview of
355 Transcribed interview of
356 Transcribed interview of
[Exhibit 92]

Officer H
Officer D
Officer L
Officer E
Officer L
Officer F

January 19, 2011, page 3, lines 23-24. [Exhibit 107]
January 19, 2011, page 7, lines 3-4. [Exhibit 108]
January 19, 2011, page 3, lines 20-22. [Exhibit 109]
January 20, 2012, Volume I, page 3, lines 18-20. [Exhibit 110]
January 19, 2011, page 8, lines 19-20. [Exhibit 109]
January 20, 2012, page 10, line 12 through page 11, line 10-19.

Officer F January 20, 2012, page 14, lines 4-20. [Exhibit 92]
358 Transcribed interview of Officer F
January 20, 2012, page 24, line 23 through page 25, line 4. [Exhibit 92]
359 Supplemental Narrative Report, by Officer Q
November 29, 2011. [Exhibit 96]
357 Transcribed interview of

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

71

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

The officers were then divided into teams and given their assignments. According to the
Operation Plan, the four officers assigned to the pepper ball detail were under the direct

Officer M

supervision of

Officer A

and

The two arrest teams were supervised by

Officer Q The officers were directed to the station parking lot

to prepare for the operation and then dismissed. Once there, the officers entered police
vehicles and drove single file to Hart Hall.

The officers were directed to bring and holster their batons and advised not to remove them
unless ordered to do so. In addition, helmets were to be carried until they were advised to put
them on.

6.1.3

Chief Spicuzza Requests the Tents be Removed

At 2:23 p.m. on Friday, November 18, Chief Spicuzza,

Officer P

Senior Public

Information Representative Andy Fell, and UCDPD Analyst II Ben McNulty, approached the
Occupy activists in the campus Quad.360 According to McNulty, there were approximately 2025 tents and approximately 70-75 activists present.361

Chief Spicuzza spoke to the group and asked them to remove the tents by 3:00 p.m. She
was met by an Occupy facilitator who informed her that on behalf of the general assembly,
police presence was not welcome and asked her to leave. Chief Spicuzza then read the
following letter to the Occupy activists ordering them to remove their tents:

“It is now 2:30, and in accordance with that letter, I am ordering you to remove
these items, tents, by 3:00 p.m. If you do not remove these tents, we will have to
remove them, and we cannot guarantee that your property will be returned.
Please ensure that you collect all your personal items prior to leaving the
immediate area by 3:00 p.m. If you do not remove your tents, you must leave the
immediate area while we do so. You may remain on another area of the Quad. If
you do not comply with police instructions, you may be subject to arrest. It is our
hope that there will be no arrests. You should understand the consequences of
such an action. You are all adults, and an arrest can stay with you throughout
360 Ben McNulty is a non-sworn member of the police department. He was present to video the police action.
361 Transcribed interview of Ben McNulty, December 8, 2011, page 25, line 24 through page 26, line 4. [Exhibit
111]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

72

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

your career. We do not want to have to arrest you. We are hopeful that you will
be respectful of both the Chancellor's request and the Police Department's order
to remove these tents by 3pm. Thank you for your time.” 362

Chief Spicuzza provided the activists with a copy of the order and then monitored the group
to see if they would comply.

After addressing the activists, Chief Spicuzza telephoned Vice Chancellors Meyer and Wood
and advised them of the situation on the Quad, according to Meyer and Wood.363 According
to Wood, Chief Spicuzza informed him that there were still tents on the Quad and that the
police were getting ready to take them down.364

Wood then directed Chief Spicuzza to go

back to the activists and ask them to take the remaining tents down again. Chief Spicuzza
responded that she would and then terminated the call, according to Wood. 365

Within a few minutes, Chief Spicuzza telephoned Vice Chancellors Meyer and Wood and told
them that it had worked because quite a few of the tents came down. 366 Wood then told
Spicuzza, “Annette, go again, try again and this time order them to take down the tents.”
Wood told Spicuzza that it had worked in the past and he wanted her to give it one more
try.367 After only a few minutes, Spicuzza telephoned Wood and Meyer and told them that her
requests appeared to have worked because the tents were coming down, according to Wood.

In fact, the activists were only moving the tents to the center of the Quad and, by linking
arms, created a human chain around the tents. Chief Spicuzza then informed Wood and
Meyer of this and told them she had to go. 368

362 Video footage by Ben McNulty for UCDPD, starting at 0:00. [Exhibit 112]
363 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 15, lines 8-11; Transcribed interview
of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 19, lines 11-22. [Exhibits 2, 69]
364 Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 19, lines 20-22 through page 23, line 7. [Exhibit
69]
365 Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 19, line 22 through page 20, line 2. [Exhibit 69]
366 Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 20, lines 2-5. [Exhibit 69]
367 Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 20, lines 6-17. [Exhibit 69]
368 Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011 attachment, page 23, lines 8-12. Chief Spicuzza did
not provide a statement for this report. [Exhibit 69]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

73

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

6.1.4

Communication between Chief Spicuzza and the Lieutenants
Kroll did not have the opportunity to interview Chief Spicuzza, Lieutenant Pike or Officer P
furthermore, all or most of the communications by these individuals were made
via cell phone instead of police radio; therefore, the details of what occurred are based on
interviews of other parties to the events, emails and phone records.

According to Deborah Hammond, the executive assistant to Chief Spicuzza, she was sitting
with the chief in her car on the edge of the Quad before the police action. Hammond
overheard a conversation between Chief Spicuzza and

Officer P

in which he

told her, “’we’ll be in formation, we’ll be wearing shields’ … and she was very upset. She
asked, ‘why do we need to be in formation?’ He responded with something about ‘regulation
or procedure.’”

369

According to Karen Nikos, a senior public information representative for UC Davis who was
assigned to stay with Chief Spicuzza on November 18, while the officers were staged on
Shields Avenue West, the Chief called them on her cell phone and said, “that looks really
bad, I don’t want to come in here like an army. Could you change that?” 370 And they
apparently told her, “no.” Then Chief Spicuzza said “this looks bad. I don’t want to come in
here forcefully. I want this to be very”—Nikos was unsure if she used the word “gentle” but
she was kind of indicating that.371 Then Chief Spicuzza turned to Nikos and said, “you know,
there’s a limit to what I can do, because they have training that tells them to do things a
certain way.”372

According to Nikos, Chief Spicuzza called the officers a second time, saying “could you
spread out a little at least please?” 373 As the students circled the tents, they were saying to
each other “we’re keeping the police out.” Chief Spicuzza said “oh dear.” 374

In his Supplemental Narrative Report, Pike did not report on these alleged conversations,
other than to say that Chief Spicuzza instructed the officers to “slow down” as they moved

369 Transcribed interview of Deborah Hammond, December 8, 2011, page 10, lines 24-25. [Exhibit 113]
370 Transcribed interview of Karen Nikos, December 8, 2011, page 26, lines 8-9. [Exhibit 114]
371 Transcribed interview of Karen Nikos, December 8, 2011, page 26, lines 11-16. [Exhibit 114]
372 Transcribed interview of Karen Nikos, December 8, 2011, page 26, lines 19-20. [Exhibit 114]
373 Transcribed interview of Karen Nikos, December 8, 2011, page 27, line 3. [Exhibit 114]
374 Transcribed interview of Karen Nikos, December 8, 2011, page 30, lines 16-22. [Exhibit 114]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

74

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

onto the Quad. 375

Officer P

Supplemental Narrative Report.

also did not report on these alleged conversations in his
376

According to Garcia-Hernandez, Chief Spicuzza called her at the UCDPD command
numerous times during the police operation, asking her to “relay” messages “to the
Lieutenants.” 377 Garcia-Hernandez recalled relaying the following messages to Officer P
from Spicuzza, presented in chronological order:

“Stand back, I’m making contact [with the activists],”

“The tents are coming down,”

“Move in, but slow it down … Give these people time to take the tents down,”

“Go ahead and have them move in. The tents aren’t coming down, they’re just …
toying.”378

A review of Chief Spicuzza’s cell phone records on November 18 shows that she called
Garcia-Hernandez at the UCDPD command post four times in the half hour before the police
engaged with activists surrounding the encampment at 3:15 p.m. (at 2:47 p.m., 2:49 p.m.,
3:09 p.m. and 3:14 p.m.). [See Appendix A]

According to

Officer F

as the officers approached Hart Hall, information was

“given out over the radio that … the protestors agree that when we get into the park, that they
will … disband and not be confrontive [sic].” 379 According to

Officer I

“the word was

that just our presence was going to be enough … they were just going to pack up and
leave.”380 No radio broadcasts of this nature were identified in Kroll’s review of police radio
broadcasts. Both Garcia-Hernandez and Vice Chancellor Wood speculated that it was

375 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
376 Supplemental Narrative Report, by

Officer P

November 30, 2011. [Exhibit 115]

377 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 23, lines 14-16. [Exhibit 95]
378 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 24, lines 4-23. [Exhibit 95]
379 Transcribed interview of
380 Transcribed interview of

Officer F
Officer I

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 20, 2012, page 18, lines 6-9. [Exhibit 92]
January 19, 2012, Volume I, page 5, lines 4-8. [Exhibit 105]

75

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

possible that the source of this information was Chief Spicuzza, since she was optimistic that
the tents were coming down in one or two of her phone calls to them. 381

This information made the officers “confident” that their presence would cause the activists to
disperse and a confrontation would be avoided.382 According to

Officer F

when

the activists did not disperse, “quite frankly it surprised me and I’ve got 30 plus years of
experience.” According to

Officer H

“It was discussed that we were going to give …

dispersal orders ... we would set up skirmish lines, and … hopefully that they would depart
when we gave out those orders.”383

Officer F said that the information had provided the officers with “a little bit of false security”
and he believed that it was “one of those things that … in my mind would have been better
kept at the command staff level. And then if it occurred great, if it didn’t there was no
expectation.”

6.1.5

Discussion of Legal Framework and Tactical Ground Rules

As detailed above, both activists and UCDPD officers raised questions regarding the legal
basis for the police action. The activists believed that police officers had not answered their
question about what crime they committing, and asserted that their actions were legally
protected by the First Amendment. Kroll was not provided access to the conversation
between UCDPD officers and UC Davis legal counsel regarding the legal basis for the
operation.

Video footage provided by UCDPD to Kroll shows an activist (who was subsequently
Student 3

interviewed by Kroll and who identified himself only as “

”) asking Lieutenant Pike, as the

officers prepared to enter the Quad, “what actual law are the students breaking?” Lieutenant
Pike replied “a series of policies … with regards to … occupying public property … with
regards to camping, disorderly conduct, [California Penal Code] 647(e).”

384 Student 3

interjected

“What’s the disorderly conduct charge?” and Lieutenant Pike replied “647(e) ... it covers …

381 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 31, 2012, page 24, lines 10-16; Telephone reinterview of Fred Wood, February 7, 2012. [Exhibits 95, 102]
382 Transcribed interview of

Officer F January 20, 2012, page 25, lines 6-25. [Exhibit 92]
Officer H page 4 and 5. [Exhibit 107]

383 See transcribed interview of

384 California Penal Code Section 647: Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly
conduct, a misdemeanor: … (e) Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private,
without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it.”

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

76

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

occupying … camping … on public or private property without the permission of the person
responsible [inaudible].”

Student 3

again interjected, “So 647?” and Pike confirmed and stated,

“there are also University policies and procedures in regards to that.”
sprinted away towards the encampment on the Quad.
Student 3

Student 3

then nodded and

385

declined to provide his full name to Kroll investigators or be recorded, but agreed to be

interviewed.

Student 3

lawyers’ guild.

386

said that he is a graduate student at UC Davis and a representative for the
According to

Student 3

he asked Lieutenant Pike if he was planning to use

chemical agents on the students and Lieutenant Pike answered, “Not unless force is used
against us.” While the video footage does not include this conversation, Kroll notes that a
break in the video indicates that it may not have captured the entire conversation between
Lieutenant Pike and

Student 3 387

Video footage also shows

Student 3

speaking with Pike a second time

after the officers had walked onto the Quad and were assembled in an inverted wedge
formation. The video does not capture the contents of the conversation.
Student 3

later led the activists in a statement that included that the police “consider linking arms

as passive resistance” and “they will only use chemical weapons if you use force against
them.”388

As noted above, the question of whether “linking arms” constitutes passive or active
resistance, or can constitute a violent act in some situations, was being actively discussed by
UC Berkeley administrators and police, due to the events on November 9. To date, Kroll has
not identified any additional information on what, if anything, Pike said to

Student 3

on this subject.

Video footage shows that the questions regarding the legal basis for the police action
contributed, to some extent, to the decision of the activists to stand their ground on the Quad.
As the officers approached the activists at the center of the Quad and Lieutenant Pike
announced an unlawful assembly, at least one activist is heard shouting loudly and
repeatedly, “How is this unlawful?” and “This is not an unlawful protest!”

389

385 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 6:00. [Exhibit 112]
386 Student was interviewed by Kroll investigators on December 9, 2011 at 2:10 p.m. He declined to provide his full
name or be recorded.
387 While the video footage reviewed by Kroll does not include the discussion of chemical agents, there does
appear to be a break in the video footage and it may not have captured the entire conversation between Lieutenant
Pike and Student
388 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3A0d9fHWag&feature=related from 0:00 to 3:00. [Exhibit 116]
389 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wetiOOK9AaA&feature=youtu.be [Exhibit 117]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

77

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

On January 13, 2012, Senior Campus Counsel Sweeney provided Kroll with a letter in which
he states that “the law that most clearly applies is California Code of Regulations, title 5,
section 100005 … which prohibits non-affiliates from camping on University property.”
According to Sweeney, “this provision applies 24 hours a day, and is not limited to sleeping
hours. Of course, if more than 2 individuals are violating this provision, it is an unlawful
assembly and the police may lawfully issue a dispersal order.” 390

6.1.6

Pepper Spray

In addition to “pepper ball” rifles and batons, the police on the Quad also carried canisters of
Defense Technology MK-9 pepper spray (“MK-9”). This product is not listed in the UCDPD
Authorized Weapons and Tools policy 391 and was not named in the operation plan for
November 18 (although it was named in the operation plan for November 15).

Kroll identified a reference to this product in an email sent to
December 15, 2010,
emailed

Officer T

Officer S

Officer S

on

of the UC San Francisco Police Department
the product information in an email related to a planned

Regents meeting in January 2011. He also sent the product information to

Officer U

of the UC San Diego Police Department, saying “here are the spec’s for the OC
we use.”

According to

Officer M

who is a UCDPD trainer regarding the use of chemical

agents, he has never trained anyone in the use of the MK-9 pepper spray.392 When asked if
there were different requirements with the MK-9 as opposed to the MK-4 that the officers
carry on their utility belts, Officer M answered “the MK-9 is just a slight increase” in minimum
deployment distance and “it’s a five gallon gas can versus a one gallon gas can.”393 Officer M
said that he had “reviewed the video” of the November 18 incident and determined that the
“distance for deployment appeared appropriate.” 394

390 Letter from Sweeney to Berkow, dated January 13, 2012. [Exhibit 44]
391 As described in General Order 559, dated April 1, 2009.
392 Transcribed interview of
393 Transcribed interview of
394 Transcribed interview of
118]

Officer M
Officer M
Officer M

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 20, 2012, page 6, lines 21-23. [Exhibit 118]
January 20, 2012, page 6, line 24 through p.7, line 13. [Exhibit 118]
January 20, 2012, page 7, line 17 through page p.8, line 3. [Exhibit

78

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

According to Product Specifications issued by Defense Technology, the manufacturer of the
MK-9, the minimum recommended distance is six feet.395

Video footage suggests that Lieutenant Pike deployed the MK-9 at less than the
minimum recommended distance of six feet from his targets.396
When asked if the situation on the November 18 was one in which an officer would typically
deploy pepper spray,

Officer M

replied “Absolutely. It … falls well within our policy to

my understanding and like I said, I'm the department trainer for chemical agents and part of
that training is a review of our use of force policy in where [sic] this tool fits in that policy.” 397

According to

Officer C

who is one of UCDPD’s less-lethal instructors, he was not

provided with “any training on the MK-9 … they're still kind of a new thing that we have at the
department, and we're still in the process … of working out what kind of training we need to
do, 'cause it's essentially the same as the little pepper spray can, it's just in lot higher volume
form. So we're still working out the kinks in that.” 398

According to
to use it.

Officer J

he has carried it in past protests but had never had cause

399

395 http://www.defense-technology.com/pdfs/specs/MK-9_Aerosol%20Projector%20Rev%2012_10.pdf [Exhibit
119]
396 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuWEx6Cfn-I starting at 2:26. [Exhibit 120]
397 Transcribed interview of
118]

Officer M

398 Transcribed interview of

Officer C
Officer J

399 Transcribed interview of

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 20, 2012, page 8, line 23 through page 9, line 5. [Exhibit
January 20, 2012, page 6, lines 11-18. [Exhibit 121]
January 20, 2012, page 12, lines 17-19. [Exhibit 122]

79

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

6.2

Police Action Commences

At approximately 3:06 p.m., officers entered their police vehicles and drove to Hart Hall in
single file arriving at approximately 3:09 p.m. The UC police officers assembled adjacent to
Hart Hall with their helmets in their hands. According to

Officer F

the officers

held their helmets in their hands for “about four or five minutes” before they were given a
verbal command (not over the radio), “we’re getting ready to go, go ahead and helmet up.” 400

The officers were divided into two skirmish lines along with a rear guard and four officers
were equipped with pepper ball guns.

Hart Hall is southwest of the Quad.

The police

vehicles were parked on Shields Avenue and were watched by Aggie Host security officers.

6.2.1

Chief Spicuzza Authorizes Operation to Begin
At approximately 3:15 p.m., Chief Spicuzza directed the officers to begin the operation. 401
The officers walked onto the quad in squad formation and assembled with two skirmish lines
in reverse wedge formation. As the officers approached the encampment at the center of the
Quad, activists chanted and shouted messages including:

“Tell me what democracy looks like -- This is what democracy looks like”

“You’re sexy, you’re cute, take off your riot suit.”

“We have no weapons, let us assemble”

“We are fighting for your children’s education”

“Shame on you, we are not afraid”

“Ain’t no [sic] power like the power of the people because the power of the people don’t
stop.”

402

400 Transcribed interview of

Officer F

January 20, 2012, page 19, lines 4-11. [Exhibit 92]

401 Incident Report – Narrative, UC Davis Police Dept., OCA # C11-1258, November 29, 2011. [Exhibit 123]
402 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3A0d9fHWag&feature=related from 0:00 to 3:00. [Exhibit 116]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

80

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

At 3:29 p.m., the officers stopped their movement within approximately 40 yards of the
activists and Lieutenant Pike gave the first dispersal order without amplification, because the
bullhorn was not working. 403

As Lieutenant Pike read the dispersal order from a card, with the non-working bullhorn at his
side, an activist with a working bullhorn stated the following to the officers and the gathering
crowd:

“We are not in violation of University policy. We have a right to be here right now. We are
not in violation of University policy. At this moment, we are assembling peacefully, and
have a right to be here….”

Next,

Student 3

employed the “human microphone” to announce the following, with widespread

participation from the crowd:

“The police will not use violence – once they march – if you are not violent – they
consider linking arms – as passive resistance – they will only – use chemical
weapons – if you use force – against them – I would encourage – a position of
non-violence.”

404

The activists continued to stand with locked arms in a circle around the tents in the center of
the Quad.

A portion of the second dispersal order given at 15:30:23 was captured on the police radio:

“ … Section 409 of the Penal Code, I hereby … as an unlawful assembly. If you remain in
the area, which was just described, regardless of your purpose or … you will be in
violation of Section 409 of the Penal Code. A full route of dispersal is available directly
northeast. You now have two minutes to disperse.”

405

403 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
404 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3A0d9fHWag&feature=related from 0:00 to 3:00. [Exhibit 116]
405 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

81

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Several members of the crowd replied:
“What law have we broken?”406

According to UCDPD communications logs, a total of six dispersal orders were given by
Lieutenant Pike, at 15:29:51, 15:30:23, 15:31:23, 15:33:30, 15:34:20 and 15:35:29 hours.

Starting at 3:31 p.m., Lieutenant Pike gave dispersal orders with a working bullhorn,
declaring an unlawful assembly and warning them that if they failed to leave the area, they
would be subject to arrest.

6.2.2

407

UCDPD Engage with Activists and Make Arrests

As Pike gave these admonishments, he observed that “the numbers of the crowd had
significantly risen” and he “could not readily discern between spectator and activist/occupier,”
according to his Supplemental Narrative Report.408

As the officers advanced towards the center of the Quad, a crowd of approximately 150
student onlookers had accumulated to the rear of the advancing officers, according to

Officer F
officers’ skirmish line.

who was tasked with keeping a buffer between this crowd and the
409

The activists began to chant “Cops off campus” and “Weapons off campus.”410

The activists were standing with linked arms in a single-file line around the tents at the center
of the Quad.

Video footage captured one of the final dispersal orders made by Pike:

“I am Lieutenant Pike of the UC Davis Police Department. You have been advised
that your actions constitute a violation of the law. You have been given several

406 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 18:00. [Exhibit 112]
407 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
408 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
409 Transcribed interview of

Officer F

page 24, lines 17-22. [Exhibit 92]

410 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3A0d9fHWag&feature=related starting at 7:30. [Exhibit 116]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

82

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

opportunities to voluntarily cease your actions and leave this area. This is your
last warning. Should you use to remain, you do so understanding that a peace
officer shall place you under arrest for a violation of the law. Any resistance,
either passive or physical, shall result in additional charges. You shall be
arrested, handcuffed and may be transported to and incarcerated at the Yolo
County Jail. Will you leave at this time?”

“I say for the third time. Section 409 of the Penal Code, prohibits remaining
present at an unlawful assembly. If you remain in the area which was just
described, regardless of your purpose in remaining, you will be in violation of
Section 409. The following routes of dispersal are available. You have been given
three minutes to leave.

411

Lieutenant Pike then stated “Skirmish lines, move forward.”412

Following this statement, the crowd chanted “Shame on you” and “Books not batons.”

Members of the crowd continued to yell, “How is this unlawful?”

As the officers approached the activists, Lieutenant Pike stopped the officers and gave
another warning to the activists, informing them they would be arrested if they did not
disperse. The group remained.

While the number of bystanders and spectators had grown, the group of activists largely
consisted of a single line of people with linked arms encircling the tents at the center of the
Quad. As the skirmish line advanced forward, the crowd of students behind the skirmish line
moved forward as well and became “more dense.”

413

According to Pike, “no order from the Chief of Police came in to me to stand down or pull out”
at that time.414

411 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3A0d9fHWag&feature=related starting at 8:30. [Exhibit 116]
412 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3A0d9fHWag&feature=related starting at 10:00. [Exhibit 116]
413 Transcribed interview of

Officer F

January 20, 2012, page 29, lines 10-13. [Exhibit 92]

414 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

83

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

At approximately 3:35 p.m., Lieutenant Pike directed his officers to advance on the tents and
several of the students were arrested as they resisted the officers’ attempts to breach their
circle to get to the tents.415

At around this time, the crowd of students behind the skirmish line “surged forward … almost
like an ocean surge … into the buffer area that we had tried to keep” behind the arrest
teams. 416 It was at this point, according to
starting to become encircled.”

Officer F

“I really felt that we were

417

Kroll has not interviewed or reviewed statements by the UC officers from sister campuses
who participated in the operation, and it was primarily these officers who were stationed on
the skirmish line that breached the circle of protesters to get to the tents. As a result, Kroll
has not obtained first-hand accounts of this action.

Officer Q

who was stationed directly behind the skirmish line, provided the following

description of an altercation he had with a man who was subsequently arrested:
I observed a WMA [sic] wearing a back pack come out from the crowd of on-lookers, go
around the far left skirmish line and attempt to come up behind the officer whose attention
was directed on the demonstrators in front of him. At that point, I felt this suspect might be
attacking the officer because his attention was directed to the resisting demonstrators in front
of him. I went forward and confronted this individual and attempted to push him back into the
crowd but he came back and attacked me, attempting to shove me away. At this point I
grabbed him, but he then attempted to flee by violently pulling from my grasp to run into the
crowd. I still had hold of him and felt my right shoulder seem to give way resulting in a burning
sensation in my right shoulder and down my right arm. There were several people in the crowd
that had almost encircled me, but

Officer R

came to my assistance and we both wrestled

this individual to the ground. I could feel being pulled upon from behind by unseen persons
and had to release my grasp on the suspect to maintain positive control of my firearm and
other weapons on my belt.

At this point, I was very concerned for my safety because my back was to the hostile crowd.
This suspect … kept violently resisting until

Officer R

was able to get flex cuffs applied….

This individual suddenly went limp, jerking my already painful right shoulder and arm. We

415 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
416 Transcribed interview of
417 Transcribed interview of

Officer F
Officer F

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 20, 2012, page 29, lines 21-24. [Exhibit 92]
January 20, 2012, page 30, lines 6- 7. [Exhibit 92]

84

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

dragged/carried this individual to an area where we were collecting prisoners awaiting
transportation.

418

While Kroll was unable to interview

Officer Q

video footage was identified of the

incident in question. Video footage shows a man with a backpack (“Backpack Man”) being
pushed behind the scrimmage line by the officers on the scrimmage line towards the arrest
teams, along with several other activists that had been standing around the tents with linked
arms. Several of these activists were taken into custody, including Backpack Man, while other
activists were allowed to escape into the crowd.419 Video footage shows Backpack Man being
directed toward the ground by two officers, one of them apparently
a third officer quickly joining in to pin the man against the ground.

Officer Q

420

and then

As he lay on the ground,

Backpack Man’s arms and legs were sometimes situated between his torso and the officers
taking him into custody, but no “violent resistance” was identified in the available video
footage.421 Although there was a second activist being taken into custody beside Backpack
Man, available video footage does not show any non-officers in the area directly behind

Officer Q

as Backpack Man was handcuffed. 422

As the arrestees were taken into custody, activists continued to chant and individuals shouted
comments such as:
“You are violating his rights.” 423
“What law is that?” 424
“You gonna beat the same people that put food on your table?”425
“We pay your fucking salary.” 426
“This is not what school is about.”427

418 Supplemental Narrative Report, by

Officer Q

November 29, 2011. [Exhibit 96]

419 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 23:19. [Exhibit 112]
420 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 23:24. [Exhibit 112]
421 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 23:24. [Exhibit 112]
422 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 23:24. [Exhibit 112]
423 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3A0d9fHWag&feature=related starting at 11:20. [Exhibit 116]
424 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 25:24. [Exhibit 112]
425 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 26:00. [Exhibit 112]
426 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3A0d9fHWag&feature=related starting at 11:20. [Exhibit 116]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

85

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

When an arrestee was flipped onto the ground by an officer as he was taken into custody, the
screaming and yelling from the crowd surged to a roar for several seconds. 428
Around this time,

Officer F

began escorting arrestees off the Quad “as fast as

possible … [to] try to diffuse the situation.” 429

6.2.3

Tents are Taken Down

According to Pike’s Supplemental Narrative Report, as the officers on the skirmish line
engaged with the activists, he and

Officer P

walked past the activists and into

the encampment and began pulling the tents down without incident.430

At 3:38 p.m.,

Officer P

requested assistance from the Davis Police Department

Officer P

requested via radio, “call facilities to come this way and

(DPD).431

At 3:39 p.m.,

standby at the end of the Quad” and police dispatch acknowledged the request. Seconds
later, Officer P radioed “You can [cancel] that, they are removing the tents.”432
As activists began to pull tents down as well, Pike did not prevent them from doing so. 433 As
Lieutenant Pike and

Officer P

were breaking down tents, video footage shows

an activist, holding a bull horn at his side, asking the surrounding crowd “hey, can anyone
help out and pull some tents, just start pulling tents” and several members of the crowd
rushed into the encampment and begin breaking down tents. 434

The police did not take custody of any tents or camping gear during the operation.

According to a UC Davis student who claimed to have been present at the demonstration and
who emailed Chief Spicuzza after the police action, he spoke to Chief Spicuzza after the

427 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3A0d9fHWag&feature=related starting at 11:20. [Exhibit 116]
428 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3A0d9fHWag&feature=related starting at 11:40. [Exhibit 116]
429 Transcribed interview of

Officer F

January 20, 2012, page 36, lines 5-line 6. [Exhibit 92]

430 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
431 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
432 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
433 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
434 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCxmH-hTyO4&feature=channel_video_title at 2:05. [Exhibit 125]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

86

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

tents were “broken down” and was told that the police would leave after the tents were gone.
In an email to Chief Spicuzza after the event, the student stated that “me and a group of two
others loaded up the tents in the bed of flatbed cart and drove them away” but that the police
did not leave as promised, and the pepper spray was subsequently used. 435

At approximately 3:39 p.m., Lieutenant Pike walked away from the tents toward the crowd of
spectators that had assembled, made a statement that started, “Ladies and Gentleman, my
officers …” and made arm movements indicating that he wanted to create an exit route
through the crowd to the southwest. 436 No exit of officers in this direction at this time was
observed on available video footage and Pike then walked back to the area where the tents
had now been cleared.

6.2.4

Officers on Police Skirmish Lines Pull Back to Surround Arrestees

At approximately 3:39 p.m., the tents were completely cleared from the center of the Quad.
The crowd chanted “Books not batons,” “We’ll be back” and then “We’re here to stay.” 437
Several arrestees seated on the walkway just south of the center of the Quad, but the left
flank remained facing the activists who had now sat down in the area where the tents were
previously situated.

Members of the crowd continued to question the legal basis for the police action. At
approximately 3:41 p.m., Lieutenant Pike spoke to a man in the crowd and then walked
away.438 The man called after him “How is it unlawful? How is it unlawful?” and “Officer, could
you repeat that law?” and “This is a peaceful protest on public university grounds.”439
At 3:41 p.m., Pike called for two patrol cars on Centennial Walkway for pickup.440 No cars
appear to have responded immediately to this request; UCDPD radio logs show that after the
first three arrestees were transported from the Quad at 3:46 p.m., it was not until 3:48 p.m.
that

Officer I

arrived at the walkway in his police vehicle and broadcast that he was

435 Email from Student 4 to Spicuzza, November 19, 2011 at 11:32 p.m. [Exhibit 126]
436 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 26:20. [Exhibit 112]
437 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXk9wYWIE8 starting at 0:00. [Exhibit 127]
438 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 28:45. [Exhibit 112]
439 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 28:45. [Exhibit 112]
440 Incident Report – Narrative, UC Davis Police Dept., OCA # C11-1258, November 29, 2011. [Exhibit 123]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

87

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

“ready for one.”441 As detailed below, the officers and their arrestees were encircled by the
crowd by this time.

At approximately 3:42 p.m., the crowd began to chant “Let us stay” and Lieutenant Pike
directed the officers on the left flank to move toward the right flank at the southern
walkway. 442 The crowd responded by cheering and urging the crowd on the other side of
where the left flank had been standing to “Come join us.”

The ranks of the activists began to double and triple. As the officers stood expressionless on
the Quad, many with hands in their pockets, activists began to chant “Set them free,”
referring to the arrestees. 443

The officers formed a circle that provided a barrier between the arrestees and the activists,
where they “awaited for transportation units/marked police units to assist with the removal of
the arrestees,” according to Pike 444

6.2.5

Karl Engelbach Leaves Quad to Update Chancellor Katehi

Chief of Staff Engelbach walked over to the Quad at approximately 3 p.m. and stayed there
until approximately 3:45 p.m. Engelbach was standing with Communications Director Barbera
when Chief Spicuzza approached and said, “You guys probably don’t want to be on the
Quad. You might move to the side or get out of the way ‘cause the police are going to be
coming in soon.” Engelbach moved to the edge of the Quad, where he saw the tents come
down and at one point saw someone being led away with plastic handcuffs, but he did not
see any of the arrests take place first hand,. After seeing that all the tents were down,
Engelbach assumed that the operation was complete and left the Quad at approximately 3:45
p.m.445

Engelbach left the Quad to report to Chancellor Katehi, who was meeting with the executive
committee of the Academic Senate, to report that the tents were down. Katehi stepped out of

441 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
442 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXk9wYWIE8 from 2:20 to 3:00. [Exhibit 127]
443 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EscJpEsOR3I&feature=youtu.be [Exhibit 128]
444 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
445 Transcribed interview with Karl Engelbach, December 8, 2011, page 26, line 15 through page 27, line 10.
[Exhibit 4]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

88

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

the meeting and Engelbach told her that the tents were down, that there may have been
arrests and that “seeing the cops walk across the Quad, that was … what word did I use? I
don’t want to say startling image, but it was quite an image or something like that.” 446
According to Engelbach, Katehi did not ask for more specifics regarding the incident and
Katehi returned to the meeting.447

According to Chancellor Katehi, before Engelbach arrived, she had told the executive
committee that the administration had decided to “remove the tents” and had “advised the
police to do it peacefully.” 448 When Engelbach arrived at the meeting location, Katehi met him
outside the meeting room and he told her that the tents had been removed but that they had
arrested “three to five students.” The news of arrests “worried” Katehi because she had told
Chief Spicuzza “that we did not want students to be arrested. But I did not know the
circumstances.” 449 Katehi then returned to the executive committee and told them, “we
removed the tents. I understand we removed them peacefully. Katehi added, “I need to find
out what happened,” according to Katehi.450

According to both Engelbach and Katehi, they both only learned about the use of pepper
spray after their conversation. 451

6.2.6

Activists Encircle Officers on Quad

At approximately 3:43 p.m., as officers stood south of the activists waiting for a patrol vehicle
to transport the remaining arrestees, the activists began to chant “Set them free.” 452 At
approximately 3:46, the activists were led in a chant by a seated activist 453 as follows:

“We are going - to support our friends - who were unjustly arrested - for
participating in their rights - let’s march peacefully - as one - towards where they
are being held.”454

446 Transcribed interview with Karl Engelbach, December 8, 2011, page 35, line 23 through page 36, line 4.
[Exhibit 4]
447 Transcribed interview with Karl Engelbach, December 8, 2011, page 36, lines 8-25. [Exhibit 4]
448 Transcribed interview with Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 34, lines 14-22. [Exhibit 1]
449 Transcribed interview with Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 35, lines 5-22. [Exhibit 1]
450 Transcribed interview with Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 35, lines 5-22. [Exhibit 1]
451 Transcribed interview with Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 36, lines 3-6. [Exhibit 1]
452 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkoEbrUp0-Q&feature=related at 7:40. [Exhibit 129]
453 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 33:36. [Exhibit 112]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

89

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Video footage shows that the activists, now accompanied by many of the spectators, then
stood with locked arms and walked forward together. The crowd initially walked southwest,
but gradually turned south; video footage shows the leader of the chant pointing west and
asking “are they still over there?” and the woman next to him nodding south toward the
walkway and replying, “no, they are over there now.”455 The crowd eventually surrounded the
officers who were standing on the southern part of the walkway. The activists continued to
chant “Set them free” and “This is what democracy looks like.”456
As the crowd closed in around the officers, Pike announced, “Officers, draw batons.”457 The
officers withdrew their batons and held them in a diagonal across their chests. According to
Pike, he ordered the officers to draw their batons after he “received information that a couple
of male subject [sic] in the crowd were seen holding and passing out rocks.” 458
At 3:47 p.m., Officer P placed an urgent call for DPD to arrive on the police radio, saying
“we need Davis officers now.” Dispatch replied, “copy, requesting Davis officers expedite.” 459

At some point during the police operation, Chief Spicuzza called Garcia-Hernandez and said,
“Tell them not to use their sticks.” 460 When she relayed this message to

Officer P

he said, “We have a whole ‘nother problem here that … she’s not aware of.” 461
Garcia-Hernandez replied, “Well, she’s there” and he said “I don’t see her.” GarciaHernandez remembered “the urgency” in

Officer P

didn’t know what was going on. It was really bad out there.”

voice “when he told me I
462

The activists continued to shout “Set them free.” Although the crowd had now completely
surrounded the officers, there were still many gaps between the activists that would allow the

454 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXk9wYWIE8 at 5:30. [Exhibit 127]
455 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 34:00. [Exhibit 112]
456 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXk9wYWIE8 at 5:30. [Exhibit 127]
457 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNxER57VnlY&feature=related at 0:00. [Exhibit 130]
458 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
459 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
460 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 14, line 3. [Exhibit 95]
461 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 14, lines 5-6. [Exhibit 95]
462 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 14, line 7 through page 15, line 20.
[Exhibit 95]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

90

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

officers to leave at that time, according to video footage. 463

The officers continued to stand

in a circle around the arrestees as the crowd encircling the officers began to fill in the gaps.

According to Pike, one of the arrestees “refused to walk and stated that we would have to
carrying [sic] him out.” Pike did not believe that he had enough officers to support walking the
arrestees out of the area as well as carrying one arrestee and providing ample protection for
his officers.464

6.2.7

Lieutenant Pike Warns Seated Activists about Potential Use of Force

Officer C

a member of the Pepper Ball Team supervised by

Officer M

was

standing with Lieutenant Pike when the activists encircled the officers and sat down.
According to

Officer C

Lieutenant Pike told him and another “pepper baller,” “if we have

to … use force against them to get out, just be prepared … on my command … to shoot the
protestors with the pepper balls." 465

Video footage shows Pike warning the seated activists on the walkway, one at a time, with
statements including “you are subject to force, pepper ball guns will be deployed” and “you
understand that if you stay here … you are going to be subject to the use of force.” 466 At the
time, a single line of seated activists blocked the pathway.467 In his Supplemental Narrative
Report, Pike stated that he advised the activists sitting on the walkway south of the officers
that they would be “subject to use of force if they remained and blocked the officers” from
leaving the Quad.468

Following these warnings, activists stated via the human microphone, “If you let them go - we
will let you leave – if you let them go – we will continue to protest peacefully.”469 As he heard
this message, Pike “became more concerned that the mob mentality of the group would lend

463 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD97TZ2fdYg&feature=related starting at 0:00. [Exhibit 131]
464 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
465 Transcribed interview of

Officer C

January 20, 2012, page 13, lines 5-10. [Exhibit 121]

466 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZsLQGIcczA&feature=related and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGagKL_tvS8&feature=related [Exhibits 132, 133]
467 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGagKL_tvS8&feature=related [Exhibit 133]
468 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
469 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related at 11:25 and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXk9wYWIE8 at 8:50. [Exhibits 134, 127]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

91

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

way to hostile acts that would force our hands,” according to his Supplemental Narrative
Report.470

In Supplemental Narrative Reports written after the incident – most were written more than a
week after the incident – several officers expressed their concern about the events that were
transpiring.

Officer B

wrote: “the entire crowd then suddenly encircled and trapped us

officers inside a locked-arm ring, their repeated chants very clear now … I became very
concerned about who was leading the crowd and what was to come. They had been
instructed somehow to immediately surround the police officers and had done so in a very
fast manner. I was concerned by their chants and actions that they may suddenly attempt to
lynch

471

our prisoners or attack officers.” 472

According to

Officer G

“I was in shock. This was my first time dealing with an incident

[involving] this many people.

I think I was just kind of wondering what next … I started

thinking if I do use force what kind of force am I going to use … I was … really nervous,
wondering what to do, how was I going to do it. I was afraid the officers [or] people were
going to get hurt.”473

According to

Officer L

the encircled officers “were looking towards the greater

command staff to start making decisions. I mean from where I was standing…15 to 20 yards
from me was the Chief of Police staring at me with her camera, videotaping me with her
iPhone.” 474 Other officers said that they observed Chief Spicuzza outside of the encircled
crowd observing the events.

As the activists shouted the “If you let them go” chant, Pike yelled commands to the officers
and pointed to the walkway where he would later deploy pepper spray. According to Pike, “a
couple of the [activists] moved from the sidewalk only to be replaced by others.” 475 After
Pike’s commands, several activists who had been seated on the walkway stood up and left

470 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
471 California Penal Code Section 405a, Lynching - the taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful
custody of any peace officer, a felony crime.

Officer B November 29, 2011. [Exhibit 135]
Officer G January 20, 2012, Volume II, attachment, page 8, lines 18-25. [Exhibit

472 Supplemental Narrative Report, by
473 Transcribed interview of
106]
474 Transcribed interview of
109]

Officer L

January 19, 2012, page 18, line 25 through page 19, line 3. [Exhibit

475 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

92

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

an opening on either sides of the walkway, with approximately three students remaining in the
center of the walkway.
Video footage shows that, for the one minute and 45 seconds476 that followed, the southern
walkway was not completely blocked by a single line of activists, and that the crowd behind
the seated activists mostly lined the walkway:477

During this time, the crowd began chanting “Don’t shoot them” and the activists turned to face
away from the officers.478 The picture below shows the pathway 68 seconds after the picture
above:479

476 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD97TZ2fdYg&feature=related from 2:12 – 3:57. [Exhibit 131]
477 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXk9wYWIE8 at 9:42. [Exhibit 127]
478 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXk9wYWIE8 at 10:42. [Exhibit 127]
479 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXk9wYWIE8 at 10:50. [Exhibit 127]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

93

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

As the activists resumed their chant of “Let them go!” two UCDPD officers with pepper ball
guns stepped forward on either side of Lieutenant Pike and raised their guns to ready
position.480
Onlookers began commenting on the possibility that the officers would fire on the crowd.481 At
approximately 3:51 p.m., the activists began chanting “Don’t shoot them” and the three
people sitting on the walkway then each pulled a hood onto their head, apparently in case the
pepper ball was deployed.482 The seated arrestees were brought to a standing position by
officers and were positioned behind the pepper ball gunners, apparently in anticipation of an
exit on the southern walkway.483

Several activists then moved to sit on the walkway and complete the line of seated, linkedarm activists sitting on the walkway. The activists began chanting “cops off campus.”484

Video footage at this time shows that while the crowd had completely encircled the officers,
there were visible breaks, for instance in the northeast corner: 485

At approximately 3:53, activists began chanting “From Davis to Greece, fuck the police.”486
This chant immediately drew a response from the gathered crowd, with several people saying

480 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related from 11:00 to 13:00. [Exhibit 134]
481 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related from 11:00 to 13:00. [Exhibit 134]
482 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related at 13:00. [Exhibit 134]
483 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 38:40. [Exhibit 112]
484 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related at 13:40. [Exhibit 134]
485 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_AC2w9b6-A&feature=channel_video_title at 2:07. [Exhibit 125]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

94

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

“no, no” and urging the activists to “keep it non-violent” and “peaceful.” 487 After three
repetitions, or about 15 seconds, the chant faded.

The activists then began to chant “You use weapons, we use our voice.”

6.2.8

Arrestees are Led through Encircled Activists and Onlookers without Incident

Pike was apparently unaware that

Officer F

had continued escorting arrestees

through the encircled crowd without incident throughout this period of time.

At approximately 3:49 p.m.,

Officer F

spoke to a seated arrestee, a male wearing

a black jacket, and helped him to stand. Officer F surveyed the encircled crowd and then
pointed to the northwest.488 As the crowd chanted, “If you let them go, we will let you leave”

Officer F led the arrestee out of the northwest side of the encircled crowd without
incident.489 According to Officer F he directed the arrestee “with my right hand under the
crutch of his elbow and we started going through the crowd, him tailing behind me, slightly to
my right and me spreading the crowd with my hand and saying let me through, let me
through, in a very loud … yelling voice, trying to get people to comply and generally they
did.”490 Officer F escorted the arrestee to the police car that

Officer I

had parked

south of where the officers were encircled by protesters and loaded him into the car without
incident. The police car, which now held two arrestees, left the Quad at 3:52 p.m. 491

Officer F

returned to the officers within the encircled protesters, entering from the

northeast side of the circle.492 First he spoke with the male arrestee who was lying on the
sidewalk, and then, at approximately 3:53 p.m., he escorted a female arrestee out of the
same northwest side of the encircled crowd, this time accompanied by a second officer. 493
This time, the crowd reacted by saying “Boo” and “Shame on you.”494 The second arrestee

486 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related at 15:05. [Exhibit 134]
487 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ at 0:00. [Exhibit 136]
488 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 37:06.[Exhibit 112]
489 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD97TZ2fdYg&feature=related starting at 2:05. [Exhibit 131]
490 Transcribed interview of

Officer F

January 20, 2012, page 37, lines 20-25. [Exhibit 92]

491 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNxER57VnlY&feature=related at 2:15 and UCDPD Call Number 11-063695.
[Exhibits 130, 124]
492 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZHimnbvqOU&feature=related at 0:27. [Exhibit 137]
493 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZHimnbvqOU&feature=related at 1:30. [Exhibit 137]
494 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZHimnbvqOU&feature=related at 1:30. [Exhibit 137]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

95

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

was led out of the encircled crowd approximately 30 seconds after the “Davis to Greece”
chant.495

Officer F then “trotted back to our line of cars and got a car, because I realized we needed
more transportation cars.”496 The next arrestees would not be transported from the Quad until
4:04 p.m., after the pepper spray was applied and the walkway was cleared, when Officer F
and Officer I each transported two additional arrestees to the station.497
According to Officer F “during that time when I was taking these prisoners out, you know I
really felt very claustrophobic because you have the line of officers in confrontation with the
demonstrators and all the screaming and yelling … it was frightening because there was
really no control … I felt we were surrounded … The only reason I was able to get in and out
with prisoners is because I believe my persistence and the fact that I didn’t hesitate to go
through the crowd. It was either get out of the way or I’m going to mow you down.” 498
According to Officer F “when I went in the second time to get my second prisoner, it was a
little bit, more congested with the accumulation of people to the southwest of us … I felt
uncomfortable. I felt a little bit scared. I was concerned for, not so much myself, but for the
other officers. I don’t know whether that’s my training [or] my personal confidence, but I felt
they were in more danger than I was…. The reason I went in the second time was because I
… felt the need to get the prisoners out so we could start to break this situation down.” 499

None of the Supplement Reports written by officers involved in the action mention these exits
by Officer F Several officers mentioned

crowd in

interviews with Kroll investigators.

Officer F

Officer F exits through the encircled
According to Officer B
“I remember

going in and out through the crowd with one or two prisoners and … I thought
‘Holy moley! Why is he going in through the crowd like that?’ I would be too scared that
people are going to grab my equipment or … push me down and start attacking me or grab
the prisoner away from me.”

500

495 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD97TZ2fdYg&feature=related starting at 6:15. [Exhibit 131]
496 Transcribed interview of

Officer F

January 20, 2012, page 38, lines 89-10. [Exhibit 92]

497 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
498 Transcribed interview of
499 Transcribed interview of
500 Transcribed interview of

Officer F
Officer F
Officer B

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 20, 2012, page 38, lines 12-21. [Exhibit 92]
January 20, 2012,, page 50, lines 2-12. [Exhibit 92]
January 19, 2012, Page 20, lines 17-23. [Exhibit 135]

96

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

6.2.9

Pike Again Warns Seated Activists about Potential Use of Force

About a minute after the “Davis to Greece” chant appeared, Lieutenant Pike approached the
activists seated on the walkway, put his hand on the shoulder of one of the seated activist
and said something to him.501 The man responded, “Well, we’re sitting here,” several other
seated activists laughed, and Pike walked back to the pepper ball gunners.502 Pike turned
away and walked back to the officers grouped at the center of the circle.

The crowd then began to chant “Whose university? Our university.”

Several “mic checks” followed as the officers remained inside the encircled crowd. First,
someone announced that “If someone has lost a beanie [phonetic], I have it,” several in the
crowd laughed and a woman answered, “It’s Enosh’s, he was arrested,” and the crowd
cheered.503 Lieutenant Pike is seen holding his radio and looking over the crowd toward the
south end of the Quad.504

The crowd then proceeded to engage in impromptu consensus-based decision-making: at
approximately 3:56 p.m., an activist stated, “I propose – that we pass a resolution –to
demand the cops – off the Quad” and the proposal was met by cheers.505 The proposal was
then announced to have “passed.” A female seated activist yelled, “Proposal passed, you
gotta go!”506 A subsequent (and inaudible) proposal was rejected by the crowd. The crowd
assembled on the southern walkway joked with each other and laughed. 507
At 3:57 p.m., DPD arrived at the Quad, according to UCDPD radio transmissions.508

As the activists engaged in this discussion,

Officer P

was speaking on his cell

phone and then, with the phone still to his ear, spoke briefly with Lieutenant Pike. 509

501 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXk9wYWIE86u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related at 13:45. [Exhibit 127]
502 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ at 1:02. [Exhibit 136]
503 Enosh Meir Baker was arrested on the Quad on November 18;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ at 2:15. [Exhibit 136]
504 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_AC2w9b6-A&feature=channel_video_title at 6:00. [Exhibit 125]
505 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related at 18:24. [Exhibit 134]
506 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 44:20. [Exhibit 112]
507 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ at 3:40. [Exhibit 136]
508 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
509 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ at 3:35. [Exhibit 136]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

97

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Officer P

then took his cell phone from his ear and walked through the encircled

activists to the southeast.

According to

Officer P he stepped out of the encircled activists to speak with the DPD

commander who had arrived to assist the UCDPD. Officer P described his exit as follows:
“in order to conceal my intentions of going through or over the occupiers, I walked to the
south east side of the walkway then went quickly to the line of sitting occupiers and stepped
over them to get to the other side.”

510

Meanwhile, a woman made a “mic check” announcement proposing an amendment to the
accepted “Cops off the Quad” proposal, saying “I think we should ask politely – because
demands – only inspire fear.”511

In the lull of crowd noise that followed this announcement, Pike spoke to an activist seated in
the middle of the pathway, again touching the activist’s shoulder.512 The man responded, “You
are going to shoot me? You are going to shoot me for sitting here? Is that what you said
officer?” Someone in the crowd called out, “He said yes, he just said yes!” Lieutenant Pike,
who had then turned and walked away, returned to the seated activist and spoke to him
again. The seated activist said, “I’m just making sure, you’re shooting us for sitting here?
No…that’s fine, that’s fine.”513 The man’s response was audible to the crowd and the crowd
began chanting “Don’t shoot students.” Pike walked back to where the pepper ball gunners
were standing.

Pike spoke shortly with the pepper ball gunners and then formed the officers on the southern
end of the circle into a wedge shape and obtained a canister of MK-9 pepper spray from the
belt of another officer.514 The southern walkway was now fully lined with seated activists and
a crowd of spectators standing behind them were on the walkway as well: 515

510 Supplemental Narrative Report, by

Officer P

November 30, 2011. [Exhibit 115]

511 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related at 19:00. [Exhibit 134]
512 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related at 19:25. [Exhibit 134]
513 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ at 4:01. [Exhibit 136]
514 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related at 20:15. [Exhibit 134]
515 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFa5Kq4Rfo at 2:23. [Exhibit 138]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

98

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

6.2.10

The Decision to Use Pepper Spray

According to Lieutenant Pike’s Supplemental Narrative Report, he discussed the use of
pepper spray with

Officer P

and “considered other force options.” Pike felt that

“the use of batons, pepper ball guns and ECD’s [tasers] were in my opinion on a higher level
of the continuum and were not feasible options at the time under the set of circumstances we
were facing.” Pike felt that “the use of control holds, the physical movement of the suspects
and active grappling with the suspects was also not an entirely feasible consideration as we
had several arrestees to escort away from the scene and the actual physical confrontation
with the suspects could lead to injuries to officers and suspects.” 516

In the Supplement Narrative Report written by

Officer P

he does not say that

he discussed the use of pepper spray or any other less-than-lethal force with Pike.517 Video
footage shows that approximately one minute before Pike obtained the pepper spray from
another officer’s belt, Officer P stepped through the encircled activists to the southeast
without incident. 518 The first mention of pepper spray by

Officer P in his Supplemental

Narrative Report is when “Lieutenant Pike displayed a can of police pepper spray” to the
crowd while Officer P was outside of the circle.519

516 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
517 Supplemental Narrative Report, by

Officer P

November 30, 2011. [Exhibit 115]

518 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related [Exhibit 134]
519 Supplemental Narrative Report, by

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Officer P

November 30, 2011. [Exhibit 115]

99

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

According to Pike, “the pepper spray was the tool at the time I believed to be most
appropriate for conducting the necessary action needed to secure the arrestees and remove
us from the confines of the mob.” 520

Meanwhile, DPD officers had arrived at the south portion of the Quad.
through the activists encircling the UCDPD officers,

Officer P

Having stepped
approached the

DPD officers and informed them of his plan to bring the arrestees down the south walkway to
patrol vehicles.521

Officer P

asked the DPD officers to line the south walkway, so

that the UCDPD officers could exit the Quad. 522 DPD officers then began to clear and line the
walkway, ordering the activists to “Move to the side” and “Off the sidewalk please.”523

Video footage shows

Officer P

leading several DPD officers up the walkway to

the seated activists, with Lieutenant Pike facing him on the other side of the seated
activists. 524 Officer P leans forward to pull a female activist with his hands, is motioned
away by Pike, and then turns to walk away with his arms raised at the elbow. The following
video stills illustrate this sequence of events:

Officer P

pulls the arm of a seated activist with DPD officers on either side of him.

525

520 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
521 Supplemental Narrative Report, by
522 Supplemental Narrative Report, by

Officer P
Officer P

November 30, 2011. [Exhibit 115]
November 30, 2011. [Exhibit 115]

523 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ at 6:19. [Exhibit 136]
524 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ePH-1B2-gc at 0:05. [Exhibit 139]
525 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuWEx6Cfn-I at 2:10. For additional footage of this episode, see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFa5Kq4Rfo at 4:05 and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related at 21:40. [Exhibits 120, 138, 134]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

100

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Shown from a different angle, Officer P helmet and back are visible, behind two DPD
officers, as he pulls the arm of the seated activist. Pike faces him from within the circle, holding
526
a canister of MK-9 pepper spray.

As Officer P continues to bend forward to pull the seated activist, Pike lifts the pepper spray
527
canister, visible as a red shape between the officers’ helmets in the above picture.

Officer P

releases the arm of the seated activist and turns away after Pike lifts the pepper

spray.

526 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ at 6:19. [Exhibit 136]
527 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ at 6:19. [Exhibit 136]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

101

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

6.2.11

Officer P

begins to walk away from the seated activists. 529

Officer P

lifts his hands as he walks away.

530

Application of Pepper Spray

During this time, the crowd chanted “Don’t shoot your children” and individuals yelled for the
seated activists to “protect yourself,” to “stand your ground” and to “remove your contacts.”531
As Pike shook the canister of pepper spray visibly, the crowd stopped chanting and reacted in
different ways, including helping the seated activists to cover their head and face. The seated
activists pulled their hoods over their heads, pulled scarves up to cover their faces or bent
their faces toward their chests.

528 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ at 6:19. [Exhibit 136]
529 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ at 6:19. [Exhibit 136]
530 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ at 6:19. [Exhibit 136]
531 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFa5Kq4Rfo at 3:20. [Exhibit 138]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

102

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

The crowd then erupted in the chant “The whole world is watching.”532 Seconds later, Pike
stepped over the seated activists and began applying the pepper spray as he walked from
the east to the west and then west to east. He continued to shake the spray intermittently
during the application.

Lieutenant Pike appeared to have exhausted the contents of the

canister and Officer O began to spray some of the students seated on the west portion of
the group.

According to

Officer O “Lt. Pike issued an order to me to use police pepper spray on the

crowd. I sprayed the crowd directly in front of the police skirmish line using a department
issued pepper spray fogger Defense Tech MK-9.”

533

The crowd responded with screams and then began chanting “Shame on you” as officers
from both inside and outside the encircled crowd were able to breach the line of activists by
physically separating them from each other. The officers cleared the walkway of the seated
activists and took additional activists into custody. 534 The officers facilitated the removal of the
arrestees and placed them into the patrol vehicles.

6.2.12

Transportation of Arrestees

As described on the following table, it took 40 minutes to transport all ten arrestees from the
Quad, according to UCDPD radio broadcasts.535 In the planning discussions for November
18, according to Garcia-Hernandez, there was talk about getting a “paddy wagon kinda thing”
but it was not followed through on.536

Time

Action

3:35 p.m.

Officers advance on encampment and begin making arrests

3:46

Three arrestees transported from the Quad by

3:52
4:04
4:15

Officer N
Two arrestees transported from the Quad by Officer I
Four arrestees transported from the Quad, two by Officer I
and two by Officer F
One arrestee transported from Quad by Officer I

532 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related at 21:45. [Exhibit 134]
Officer O November 18, 2011. [Exhibit 140]
531 Supplemental Narrative Report,
534 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU&feature=related at 22:15. [Exhibit 134]
535 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
536 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 22, lines 3-8. [Exhibit 95]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

103

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

At 3:41 p.m., Pike called for two patrol cars on Centennial Walkway for pickup. 537 At 3:44
p.m., DPD communicated that it was responding with four units plus a Sergeant. At 3:46 p.m.

Officer N

transported three arrestees from the Quad to the station. Moments later at 3:48

p.m., Officer P “advised we need Davis officers now.”
At 3:48 p.m.

Officer I

arrived at the walkway in his police vehicle and broadcast that

he was “ready for one.” At 3:52 p.m.

Officer I

took two arrestees in custody and

advised dispatch he was en-route to the station. A minute later,
broadcast, “whoever was at the patio, come back.”
want a car with two prisoners?”

At 3:56 p.m.

539

538

Officer I

Officer P
broadcast “do you

There was no response.
broadcast “need two cars up center sidewalk ASAP.”540

Officer P

This request was followed up 26 seconds later by Lieutenant Pike requesting a marked unit

Officer N notified units that they had five
arrestees in the UCDPD holding tank. At 4:02 p.m. Officer B broadcast that he was at
the sidewalk with two arrestees in custody. At 4:04 p.m., Officer F
picked up the two
arrestees from Officer B and returned with them to the station. Also at 4:04 p.m., Officer I
to Centennial Walkway ASAP. At 3:57 p.m.

picked up two arrestees and returned with them to the station.

At 4:06 p.m.

Officer B

made an additional request to expedite the cars, saying “we’re

sitting them down on the sidewalk.”

At 4:15 p.m.,

6.2.13

Officer I

541

picked up a single arrestee and returned to the station.

Officers Leave the Quad

The officers began to leave the area but were followed by the activists and student
spectators. A “mic check” was performed and the following was said and then repeated:

537 Incident Report – Narrative, UC Davis Police Dept., OCA # C11-1258, November 29, 2011. [Exhibit 123]
538 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
539 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
540 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
541 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

104

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

We are willing to give you a brief moment of peace.

So you may take your

weapons and our friends and go. Please do not return. We are giving you a
moment of peace. You can go, we will not follow you.”542

Students cheered as the officers exited the Quad. Meanwhile, the activists that were pepper
sprayed received treatment from onlookers, fellow activists and campus fire fighters.
According to the fire department, there were ten to fifteen individuals who approached fire
department personnel for medical assistance after being sprayed. 543 Two individuals were
transported to Sutter Davis Hospital; all other individuals were treated and released.544 Many
individuals declined to provide personal information. 545

At 4:21 p.m., UCDPD radio transmissions stated “we are done here” and “all cars on the
Quad can clear.”

One officer,

Officer Q

was injured while taking a subject into custody during the

incident. The officer sustained an injury to his shoulder. 546

Ten activists were cited and released for 409 PC (present at an unlawful assembly after being
ordered to disperse) and 647(e) PC (lodging in a place without permission of the person in
control of it). Of the ten activists who were arrested, two were identified as non-affiliates,
Jordon Wilheim,547 age 24, and Enosh Baker,548 age 27. Baker is a UC Davis graduate; he
was awarded a Bachelor of Science degree in June 2009.

Other than the arrests, in which several officers reported violent resistance, few or no
allegations of violence by activists were identified in media reports, interviews, video footage
or statements by officers.

542 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jC_ZknN8lc&feature=related [Exhibit 141]
543 Incident Report, City of Davis Fire Department, 2011-1118136-000, November 18, 2011. [Exhibit 141]
544 Incident Report, City of Davis Fire Department, 2011-1118136-000, November 18, 2011. [Exhibit 141]
545 Incident Report, City of Davis Fire Department, 2011-1118136-000, November 18, 2011. [Exhibit 141]
546 Supplemental Narrative Report,

Officer Q

November 29, 2011. [Exhibit 96]

547 Notice of Withdraw of Consent to Remain on the University of California, Davis. Case No. CII-1258, Citation
No. 28070. [Exhibit 143]
548 Notice of Withdraw of Consent to Remain on the University of California, Davis. Case No. CII-1258, Citation
No. 28067. [Exhibit 143]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

105

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Several officers and one UC Davis staff member (whose son was one of the UCDPD officers
involved in the operation) stated that they saw protesters holding and/or passing out stones,
but did not see them thrown or used against police.549

According to Dispatch Supervisor Garcia-Hernandez, when Lieutenant Pike came back to the
DOC, she said “Are you okay?” Lieutenant Pike responded, “Oh my god.”550 Pike scratched
his head and said “I hope I’m not the scapegoat for this one.” 551 Then the pepper spray video
came up on the TV at the DOC. Garcia-Hernandez said, “John, that looked really bad.” Pike
responded, “I know, it was really bad out there.”552

Twenty minutes after the officers had left the Quad, Chief Spicuzza “recalled officers to the
Quad as another set of tents were erected,” according to Pike’s Supplemental Narrative
Report. Lieutenant Pike returned to the Quad with

Officer N

made contact with one

individual and two tents were subsequently taken down. 553
A debriefing was subsequently held in the DOC at the police station. According to Officer A
Chief Spicuzza told the officers present that they “did an outstanding job.” 554
According to
situation.”

555

according to

Officer K

Chief Spicuzza said that she was “proud of how we handled the

Several officers were not informed of the debriefing and did not attend,

Officer B

549 Transcribed interview of Bob Brewer, December 8, 2011; Transcribed interview of Officer K
January 19,
2012, page 20, lines 1-9; Transcribed interview of Officer M
January 20, 2012, page 5, lines 1-17. [Exhibits
144, 145, 118]
550 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 23, line 17. [Exhibit 95]
551 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 23, lines17-19. [Exhibit 95]
552 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 20122011, page 23, line 19 through page 24,
line 4. [Exhibit 95]
553 Supplemental Narrative Report, John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
554 Supplemental Narrative Report,
555 Supplemental Narrative Report,

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Officer A
Officer K

November 29, 2011. [Exhibit 146]
November 28, 2011. [Exhibit 147]

106

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

7
ANALYSIS
The few minutes when Lieutenant Pike and Officer O pepper sprayed the seated protesters
on the UC Davis Quad may have drawn international attention and condemnation, but to
understand those actions properly, it is critical to review the entire sequence of events which
led to that singular decision. Doing so reveals a cascading series of errors which set the
stage for the use of pepper spray.

Kroll identified three types of failures that set the stage for the use of pepper spray: failures of
leadership, failures of communication and failures of documentation. The three critical
decisions that will be subjected to analysis in this section—the decision to mount the police
operation while questions of legal authority remained unanswered; the decision to commence
the operation in mid-afternoon on a crowded campus; and the decision to use pepper spray
on a line of seated protesters—were impacted by these three types of failures.

7.1

The Leadership Team

In order to respond to the increasing number of demonstrations against funding cuts and
tuition increases on University of California campuses that began in 2009, the UC Davis
administration formed a “Leadership Team.” The Leadership Team did not have a formal
name or roster of members. There was no agreed upon method to communicate or record a
decision made by the team. While members of the Leadership Team described the decisionmaking process as consensus-based, there were several key decision-makers with the
group, including Chancellor Katehi, Provost Hexter and Vice Chancellors Wood and Meyer.

556

The Leadership Team received advice from and issued directives to campus legal counsel,
campus police, Student Affairs and media relations.

556 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 4, line 9 through page 5, line 1.
[Exhibit 2]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

107

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

In sum, the actions of the Leadership Team provide a case study in how not to make
important institutional decisions.

The “meetings” for the team were ad hoc; there do not appear to have been any rules
regarding mandatory attendance. The meetings were held with whichever members were
available. In addition, there were no rules or agreements about minutes or note-taking. The
meetings were conducted almost exclusively via conference call, and participants in the calls,
many of whom have offices in the same building, would sometime gather in each other’s
offices to join the calls or would simply “call in.”

As a result, Kroll has been unable to determine precisely what decisions were made by the
Leadership Team, as well as on what basis they were made, when they were made, and by
whom they were made. In fact, Kroll’s investigation identified several instances in which key
decision-makers held conflicting views of what decisions had been made and when such
decisions had been made by the Leadership Team, as well as conflicting views regarding the
basis for those decisions.

For instance, Vice Chancellor Meyer believed that the decision to remove the tents at 3 p.m.
on Friday, November 18, was made on the 10 p.m. Leadership Team call on Thursday night,
while Vice Chancellor Wood believed that the decision was not made until Friday morning.
Vice Chancellor Meyer believed that the basis for the decision was Chancellor Katehi’s desire
to remove the encampment before the “party night” on Friday, while Vice Chancellor Wood
believed that 3 p.m. was selected because UCDPD did not have sufficient officers available
for an early morning operation.557

When decisions were made, they were not sufficiently articulated. As a result, the decisions
were not fully understood, or the decisions were understood to mean different things to
different people. For example, when the Leadership Team decided that the police operation
should not be “like Berkeley,” Chancellor Katehi understood this to mean “no violence,” while
Vice Chancellor Meyer understood it to mean no batons and believed that “hands-on” use of
force by police was acceptable.558 The challenges of achieving a different result than that of
Berkeley were never addressed by the Leadership Team nor raised explicitly by Chief
Spicuzza. When Chief Spicuzza, apparently applying her own interpretation of the decision of

557 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 9, lines 14-21; page 37, lines 1-2. [Exhibit 40]
Transcribed interview of Fred Wood, December 8, 2011, page 16, lines 20-21; page 15, line 23 through page 16,
line 5. [Exhibit 69]
558 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 16, lines 14-21. [Exhibit 2]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

108

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

the Leadership Team, directed her officers that batons, helmets and pepper spray were not to
be utilized, she was flatly rejected. She opted not to follow up with a direct order to her
subordinates to comply (an option within her power as Chief of Police).

Chief Spicuzza also opted not to inform the Leadership Team of this rejection. When the
decision to remove tents in the afternoon was made, Chief Spicuzza failed to inform the
Leadership Team that her Lieutenants believed that the removal of the tents at 3 p.m. was a
“bad idea,” would be met with “resistance or agitation” on the part of the activists, and that
her officers had aggressively resisted her requests that they not wear helmets and carry
batons and informed her that they would be carrying chemical agents including pepper spray
and pepper ball guns.

559

Since Chief Spicuzza declined to speak with Kroll investigators, it is difficult to determine the
extent to which certain communication failures resulted from deficiencies in Chief Spicuzza’s
professional conduct as opposed to the manner in which the Leadership Team conducted its
business and the conduct of its other members.

It is clear, however, that the decision to remove the tents on Friday afternoon was challenged
in several different ways in the hours before the operation was commenced, and that none of
these challenges succeeded in altering the Leadership Team’s decision to remove the tents.
At approximately 1 p.m. on Friday, Lieutenants Pike and Officer P questioned the legal
basis for the operation with campus counsel. Also around this time, Chief Spicuzza informed
the Leadership Team that her Lieutenants thought the timing presented tactical problems, but
it then appears that Chief Spicuzza allowed her statement to be disregarded.

560

At

approximately 2 p.m., Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro informed her boss, Vice Chancellor
Wood, that there was significant activity on the Quad and that she thought it was a good idea
to suspend the operation, but her suggestion was not acted upon.561

There was a significant gap between the instructions that Chancellor Katehi believed the
Leadership Team had provided to campus police (“no violence”) and the police operation that
was planned, mounted and finally carried out by the campus police under her authority. In the
24 hours before the police operation commenced, both Student Affairs staffers and campus

559 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2012, page 7, lines 5-7. [Exhibit 95]
560 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 4, line 25 through page 5, line 1.
[Exhibit 148]
561 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 49, line 23 through 25; page 50, line 1 and
2. [Exhibit 5]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

109

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

police provided warnings to members of the Leadership Team that a confrontation might
occur between activists and police on the Quad. These warnings do not appear to have
impacted the decision-making of the Leadership Team, however, and the gap in
understanding of core issues by members of the Leadership Team was not successfully
expressed or exposed on the conference calls until after the police operation had gone awry.

The following table identifies the actual vs. optimal decision-making practices of the
Leadership Team:

Actual

Optimal

The composition of the Leadership Team

Clear statement of who is on the team and

changed by the call/email

process to update non-attendees

The purposes of the calls were not clearly

Clear scheduling of calls, agenda, leader on

stated, most often for situational updates,

the call, purpose of the call

sometimes for decisions

No clear communication of final decisions

Summary at end of call/meeting; postmeeting email

No documentation kept of the decision,

Some form of minutes; in critical situations

the alternatives, the basis for the final

the appointment of a scribe

decision

7.2

The Legal Basis for Removing the Tents

In a democratic society, police are controlled by the law. It is the law, primarily Constitutional
and criminal law, which gives police the authority and power to take action. Here, there is a
fundamental question as to which law gave police the authority to take down the tents and
arrest those who opposed them. Without the legal authority to demand that the tents be
removed, the police lose the legal authority for much of what subsequently transpired on
November 18, including the issuance of an order to disperse and the declaration of an
unlawful assembly.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

110

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

The question of legal authority to take police action is a thread that runs throughout the
discussions, interviews, reports and emails that relate to this event. Indeed, even before the
Occupy movement came to UC Davis, the question of police authority to prevent an
encampment – the tents – was raised.

Vice Chancellor Meyer raised the question in a Leadership Team email on October 25
wherein he discussed two possible protest scenarios, including camping on the Quad:
“Camping is not allowed on the quad, however removal of occupants may create a scene with
Police removing individuals and property that could be troublesome.

We do worry that if

camping persists it could attract individuals that have no affiliation with the campus which
raises other security issues. We are assessing our legal options and are not inclined to allow
tents or structures.”

562

In subsequent emails, the question of whether tents would be allowed was discussed further,
and references to a university policy against camping on campus were made, but no clear
answer as to what criminal statute erecting tents on the campus ran afoul of was ever stated.
Chief Spicuzza raised the questions again in an email on November 2 to her boss Vice
Chancellor Meyer.563 This email from the Chief sparked an exchange of emails between Vice
Chancellors Meyer and Wood about tents and the issue of camping on university grounds,
and a single-page-form summarizing the administrative policy was attached to some of the
email traffic.564 The Chief of Police closed out this apparent thread of conversation with her
November 7 email to the Leadership Team and members of her staff (including Pike and

Officer P in which she stated:
“No setting up of tents or ‘camping’ will be allowed on campus. The act of ‘camping’ was
discussed and it will include sleeping on campus without a tent. We have had a report of a
hammock being hung between trees near Mrak.”

565

The Chief cited no legal authority for this position.

562 Email from Meyer to Katehi, Hexter, Wood, Spicuzza, Officer S Barbera, Benson, Officer P Castro,
Loessberg-Zahl, Raycraft, Carter-Dubois, Dickinson, Engelbach, Parker, October 25, 2011 at 12:09 p.m. [Exhibit
38]
563 Email from Meyer to Wood, November 2, 2011 at 12:13 p.m. and email from Wood to Meyer, November 2,
2011 at 12:21 p.m. [Exhibit 49]
564 Use of University Properties, University of California, Davis. This pamphlet was compiled from information from
the following source: http://manuals.ucdavis.edu/ppm/270/270-20.pdf [Exhibit 50]
565 Email from Spicuzza to Wood, Drown, Sweeney, Engelbach, Meyer, Officer P Officer
Parker, Myler, Crossley, Ealy, Hull, Green, November 7, 2011 at 6:58 p.m. [Exhibit 59]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

S

Pike, Yahnke,

111

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Despite the lack of clarity of the legal basis to remove the tents, the UCDPD operation plans
for both November 15 and November 18 stated that camping was not allowed on campus and
that tents would not be permitted and would be removed.566

The legal discussion continued until the moment at which the police operation on November
18 commenced. A few hours before the operation commenced, Chief Spicuzza, Lieutenant
Pike and

Officer P

sought legal advice “regarding the laws that apply to

camping on the UC Davis campus” from Campus Counsel Drown and Senior Campus
Counsel Sweeney.567 This call was apparently placed because of the Lieutenants’ continued
concern over the legal basis for removing the tents, and the police operation was
commenced only after this last-minute call.568

It is unknown what specific legal advice was given in that call; it has been redacted from
Pike’s Supplemental Narrative Report and was not provided to Kroll investigators in
correspondence from Campus Counsel.569 (Kroll investigators believe that during this same
time-frame, Campus Counsel contacted the Yolo County District Attorney’s office. Campus
Counsel has declined to advise Kroll what was discussed during this call, citing attorneyclient privilege).

There have been various legal statutes offered relative to tent removal. These include:

1.

California Penal Code Section 647 (e). The arrestees were charged with violating
this section, which provides: “Every person who commits any of the following acts is
guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (e) Who lodges in any building,
structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the
owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it.” The arrests on the UC
Davis Quad were made at 3:00 p.m. and it is not clear that the arrestees were, in fact,
connected to any of the tents or had in fact “lodged” on University property. This likely

566 November 15, 2011 Protest, Operations Plan, prepared by Officer P
UC Davis Police
Department, Operations, November 15, 2011. [Exhibit 55] and November 18, 2011 Protest, Operations Plan,
prepared by Officer P
and Lieutenant John Pike, UC Davis Police Department, Operations,
November 18, 2011. [Exhibit 101]
567 Letter from Sweeney to Berkow, January 13, 2012. [Exhibit 44]
568 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
569 Letter from Sweeney to Berkow, January 13, 2012. [Exhibit 44]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

112

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

explains why the Yolo County District Attorney’s office opted not to proceed with the
prosecutions.570

2. Use of University property for overnight camping is prohibited by the UC Davis
administrative code (PPM 270-20.II.A.5).

While this administrative code was

frequently cited by campus police, it appears to be simply a campus administrative
rule. Enforcement of such a rule by the police, by way of arrest and criminal process,
would seem legally suspect, as opposed to enforcement by way of campus
administrative procedures.

3. California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 100005, which forbids non-affiliates
from camping on university property. This regulation has been cited in a letter by
Campus Counsel to Kroll.

571

In the letter, Campus Counsel asserts that if non-

affiliates refuse to comply (e.g., vacate the tent) they are guilty of a misdemeanor.
The problem remains that none of the arrestees was tied to any specific tent, and of
the ten persons arrested, eight were current UC Davis students.
It is clear that the UCDPD leadership was concerned about its legal authority to remove the
tents, at least during the daytime. It is equally clear that the UC Davis Administration was
adamant that it did not want tents on campus and that the tents were considered a threat to
health and safety. Just as the Leadership Team ultimately failed to arrive at a policy that
appropriately constrained the conduct of campus police, so too did it fail to press for a
definitive legal assessment of the scope of its authority to order the removal of the tents.

In the course of its investigation, Kroll has been unable to identify the legal basis for the
decision of the Leadership Team to act against the protesters and for the operation mounted
by the UCDPD. It appears that the UCDPD mounted its operation absent the clarity of legal
authority under pressure from the Administration to do something to get rid of the tents. The
interviews conducted by Kroll indicate that Chief Spicuzza failed to challenge or question this
administrative policy directive at crucial decision points. Indeed, according to Pike’s
Supplemental Narrative Report, it was Lieutenants Pike and Officer P who demanded the
last-minute call to Campus Counsel to obtain legal guidance.

570 “Occupy UC Davis Protesters won’t be Charged,” CBS Local, January 20, 2012. Also note Clark vs. Community
for Creative Non-Violence, (1984) 468 U.S. 288 relative to tents/sleeping in public spaces as forms of protest.
571 Letter from Sweeney to Berkow, January 13, 2012. [Exhibit 44]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

113

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

It appears that the Leadership Team did not consider the use of the campus administrative
rules and regulations with regard to student protesters, or consider the need to calibrate
precisely the use of misdemeanor authority against those few protesters who happened to be
non-affiliates.

The campus culture of UC Davis, as described in the interviews and background discussions,
is keen on fostering diverse viewpoints, open debate and discussion on controversial issues.
The culture favors a “light” touch of policing. Thus, it is striking that the Leadership Team did
not seriously consider the use of Student Affairs and other administrative policies and options
in dealing with a public protest in a public space.

One possible explanation for the Leadership Team’s failure to consider employing
administrative rules and discipline in response to the encampment lies in the perceived
presence of non-affiliates among the Occupy activists. The decision to remove the tents—
indeed, the administration’s visceral aversion for the tents—appears to stem from the belief
that tents equal non-affiliates; that the presence of tents and overnight “camping” was
partially or mostly being carried out by non-students and would only serve to attract
additional non-students.

The idea of non-students being on the campus in tents led the Leadership Team to fears of
criminal activity in general and potential sexual assault specifically. 572 Leaving aside the
question of whether this is a valid view of non-affiliates and the threat they pose, there is first
the factual question of the extent to which non-affiliates were involved in the encampment.
Leading up to the eviction, Chancellor Katehi and Vice Chancellor Meyer were not swayed by
the reports from Student Affairs staff that the Occupy activists were overwhelmingly
comprised of students; 573 even after nine of the ten individuals arrested on November 18
were found to be students (or recent alumni), the perception that there was a significant
presence of non-affiliates persisted.574

572 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 18, lines 6-17 [Exhibit 1] and
transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume I, page 26, lines 4-15. [Exhibit 2]
573 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 32, line 24 through page 34, line 4. [Exhibit
5]
574 Transcribed interview of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 17, lines 15-17 [Exhibit 1] and
Transcribed interview of Anne Myler, January 19, 2012.page 33, lines 16-17. [Exhibit 41]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

114

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

7.3

The Decision to Remove the Tents in the Afternoon

The decision to remove the tents during the afternoon was made despite questions being
raised regarding the legal basis for such an operation and assertions of the tactical
challenges that such an operation would pose. As the events played out, the timing of the
police operation was a key factor in the growth of the crowd which resulted in the
encirclement of the police and the decision to use pepper spray.

Therefore, Kroll has closely examined the communications that contributed to this decision.

From the moment the tents went up – at approximately 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 17
– the Leadership Team began planning to take them down.575 While there are no records that
clearly depict what was planned or approved, Kroll investigators were able to re-assemble
some of the discussion/decision-making process from interviews and email records.

According to Leadership Team members, there were three “Leadership Team” calls
scheduled for November 17: at 8:30 a.m., 1:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.576 The tents went up in
between the calls and prompted a series of calls between sub-groups of the Leadership
Team. These calls played a key role in the decision-making process at 10:00 p.m. On one of
these sub-group calls, held at approximately 6 p.m., Chief Spicuzza informed Vice Chancellor
Meyer that she did not have enough officers for an early morning operation on Friday, and
proposed pushing the operation back 24 hours to 3:00 a.m. on Saturday.577

On a subsequent Leadership Team call, the Chief informed the group that she wanted to
mount the operation at 3:00 a.m. on Friday, November 18, but that she was unable to get the
necessary police assistance from the other UC campuses, and proposed that the operation
be pushed back 24 hours.578 This suggestion, according to the interviews of various members
of the Leadership Team on the call, was resisted by the Chancellor, who stated that she was

575 Email from Spicuzza to Galindo, November 17, 2011 at 4:06 p.m. [Exhibit 86]
576 Transcribed interview of Ralph Hexter, December 8, 2011, page 18, lines 3-15. [Exhibit 3]
577 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 8, line 4 through page 9, line 14. [Exhibit 40]
578 Several of the sources interviewed by Kroll were not sure of the exact time when statements were made; in the
case of determining when the 3 p.m. time for the operation was decided upon, Kroll has identified the 10 p.m.
Leadership Team call as the most likely time, since no other Leadership Team was scheduled for Thursday
evening. Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 8, line 4 through page 9, line 14. [Exhibit 40]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

115

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

concerned about the tents being up on a “party night,” and instead suggested that the
operation be moved to 3 p.m. on Friday afternoon. 579

While in her interview the Chancellor repeatedly stressed that decision-making was done by
“consensus” on the Leadership Team conference calls, it is clear from the interviews that two
things occurred on this call: first, the Chancellor suggested the afternoon operation and
stressed that she wanted the tents down before Friday evening; second, that the Chief of
Police did not succeed in communicating to the Leadership Team the gravity of the potential
problems associated with conducting the operation in the afternoon.

580

According to Chancellor Katehi, the Leadership Team would have “paused really seriously” if
Chief Spicuzza had objected to the timing of the operation and that she (the Chancellor) did
not make “tactical” decisions.581 While there is no direct evidence of the statements made
during this conference call other than the varied recollections of the parties to the call, it
appears that if Chief Spicuzza did raise an objection, the gravity of that objection was not
understood by the other parties on the call. At the same time and on the same call, while the
Chancellor viewed herself as chairing a consensus-driven discussion, her subordinates
instead heard her issue an executive order. By insisting that the tents not be allowed to stay
up on Friday night, Chancellor Katehi did in fact make a tactical decision: that the tents would
be removed during the day.

The timing of any police operation is a key tactical consideration and Chief Spicuzza should
have affirmatively resisted this direction—that is, assuming she did not agree with it. Chief
Spicuzza’s position is unclear: she clearly considered 3:00 a.m. on Friday morning as a first
choice and 3:00 a.m. on Saturday morning as a second choice. Kroll has not determined
whether Chief Spicuzza viewed 3:00 p.m. as simply the third choice or whether she strongly
objected to this timing on tactical/operational grounds.

Chief Spicuzza did receive a clear objection to a daytime operation from her subordinates.
According to Dispatch Supervisor Garcia-Hernandez, Lieutenants Pike and Officer P began
registering their objections to the timing of the operation with the Chief on Thursday evening,

579 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, January 20, 2012, page 9, lines 14-21; [Exhibit 40] Transcribed interview
of Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 23, lines 1-9; [Exhibit 1] Untitled Microsoft Word document
attached to an email from Spicuzza to ascy88@sbcglobal.net, November 20, 2011 at 7:12 p.m. [Exhibit 92]
580 Transcribed interview of John Meyer, December 7, 2011, Volume II, page 10, lines 12-18. [Exhibit 2] Chief
Spicuzza declined to be interviewed by Kroll.
581 Transcribed interview with Chancellor Linda Katehi, December 20, 2011, page 58, line 17. [Exhibit 1]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

116

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

ahead of the 10:00 p.m. Leadership Team conference call, and continued to register their
objections through the commencement of the operation on Friday afternoon. 582

The only account of Chief Spicuzza communicating the objections from her officers to the
Leadership Team comes from Garcia-Hernandez, who was in the room with Spicuzza during
the Leadership Team call on Friday at approximately 1 p.m. Even during this eleventh-hour
call, while the UCDPD appears to have had strong objections to beginning the operation at
3:00 p.m. on Friday, it appears that these objections were not clearly expressed to the rest of
the Leadership Team. At the same time that the police department was failing to clearly
communicate its opposition, the Chancellor was clearly communicating her desire that the
tents be removed by Friday night.583 An hour later, when Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro
expressed her concerns to Vice Chancellor Wood about the number of people on the Quad,
again the gravity of this message was lost.584

These communication breakdowns resulted in the launching of the operation to clear the
tents in the afternoon, when there were numerous students, staff and faculty in and around
the Quad. This fact resulted in the large crowd that assembled as the police operation
progressed. It is relevant to note that in November 2011, there were multiple police
operations in different jurisdictions, including universities and cities, where “Occupy” tents
were removed and occupations displaced. The vast majority of these operations occurred
during darkness, in the early morning hours, and several were accomplished with little or no
use of force by police.

7.4

585

The Use of Force and Decision to Use Pepper Spray

The video that went viral and sparked the international concern about this event was the
pepper spraying of the seated line of protesters by Lieutenant Pike and then of a smaller
portion of them by Officer O acting at Lieutenant Pike’s direction. This leads to the obvious
question: Why did Lieutenant Pike deploy pepper spray?

582 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, January 20, 2011, page 4, line 18 through page 5, line 15.
[Exhibit 95]
583 Transcribed interview of Leticia Garcia-Hernandez, February 1, 2012, page 4, line 25 through page 5, line 1.
[Exhibit 148]
584 Transcribed interview of Griselda Castro, December 8, 2011, page 49, line 23 through 25; page 50, line 1 and
2. [Exhibit 5]
585 “14 arrested Occupy UCLA members to referred to first amendment rights program,” Daily Bruin, January 6,
2012 [Exhibit 28] and “Police clear Sproul Plaza encampment in quiet raid,” The San Francisco Chronicle,
November 18, 2011. [Exhibit 25]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

117

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

The interviews with involved officers, a review of the videos of the incident, and the
Supplemental Narrative Reports written by UCDPD officers provide their basis for the action:
the police generally, and Lieutenant Pike specifically, believed that they and their prisoners
were surrounded by a hostile “mob,” and that the pepper spraying was necessary to clear the
pathway so that the officers and their prisoners could leave the Quad safely. 586 While a
detailed review of the event provides some support for their position, the facts finally
undermine the conclusion that the officers were trapped by the crowd of protesters.

The apparent reason for the police remaining on the Quad after the tents were removed was
the lack of transport for their prisoners. In the movement to deconstruct the tents, the police
took several activists into custody. About eleven minutes after the police began making
arrests, three prisoners were initially transported from the Quad in a single police car587 and
the rest of the prisoners were moved to an area on the walkway and the police positioned
themselves around the prisoners. At least one of the arrestees stated that he would not walk
and was going to remain “limp,” thereby requiring that he be carried or moved in some other
fashion.588

A key flaw of the police operations plan prepared by

Officer P

and Pike589 is

that the plan failed to address prisoner transport. The operations plan stated that a jail bus
from the County would be used at the UCDPD headquarters, but was silent with regards to
transporting arrestees from the Quad, as well as dealing with non-compliant arrestees and
transporting them from the Quad. 590 As a result, the officers stood idle on the Quad, on
Centennial Walkway, encircling a small number of prisoners. The lack of timely decisionmaking by Lieutenants Pike and

Officer P to respond to this unplanned situation

exacerbated an already volatile and escalating situation.

As the officers stood with the prisoners, a member of the crowd, using the “mic check”
method of communicating favored by the activists, led the crowd in a chant that they will
“march peacefully – as one – to where they are being held.”

591

The crowd responded by

586 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011 [Exhibit 54] and Appendix B.
587 Three prisoners were transported from the Quad by

Officer N

at 3:46 p.m.

588 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
589 The typed operation plan lists both their names as preparing it and Pike in his summary report relates that they
both prepared it. But there is no signature block on the report form and no markings to support the typed notation.
590 The jail bus was never, in fact, deployed. November 18, 2011 Protest, Operations Plan, prepared by Officer P
and Lieutenant John Pike, UC Davis Police Department, Operations, November 18, 2011. [Exhibit
101]
591 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXk9wYWIE8 at 5:30. [Exhibit 127]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

118

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

standing up and walking, often with linked arms, in the direction of the officers and the
prisoners.592 The result of the chant and the crowd movement was that the crowd pivoted
around and ultimately did, in part, encircle the police officers and their prisoners. The circle,
as seen in various videos and photos, was by no means a solid line or uniform; the circle
appeared to have some gaps and was largely comprised of one person seated with one or
more members of the crowd standing between them. This crowd and their chants were what
the officers cited as posing a threat to them and the security of their prisoners. Lieutenant
Pike then used the pepper spray in order to clear a path on the walkway.

In their reports and in some of their statements, the officers describe their subjective belief
that the crowd was hostile, that they were surrounded, and that they were in risk of losing
their prisoners. The following facts are not consistent with that expressed sentiment:

1.

On two occasions,

Officer F

was able to walk prisoners out of the

crowd, once by himself and once accompanied by a second officer.

Officer F

593

While

noted in his interview his concern about the crowd and his

sense that the crowd had grown “denser” when he led the second prisoner out,

592 Video footage taken by Ben McNulty of UCDPD, starting at 34:00. [Exhibit 112]
593 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD97TZ2fdYg&feature=related starting at 2:05 and 6:15. [Exhibit 131]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

119

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

video footage shows him simply leading the arrestee out of the crowd without any
other use of force or apparent opposition. 594

Officer P

2.

was able to step over the line of seated protesters and

walk through the crowd to meet the newly arrived DPD officers, and then lead
them back through the crowd to link up at the line of seated protesters.595 Again, it
appears that neither

Officer P nor the DPD officers used any force to

accomplish these movements through the crowd.

3. Lieutenant Pike’s actions and body language are clearly depicted on the
videos/photos. He appears calm and collected in his movements and actions. He
is seen repeatedly warning the protestors and talking to various officers inside the
circle. Then, before applying the pepper spray, Lieutenant Pike may be seen
stepping over the seated protesters to get to their faces (the protesters, after
being warned, had turned their backs to Pike), a move that a police officer would
generally not perform with a hostile crowd as the ‘stepping over’ movement
leaves the officer vulnerable to attack.
One contemporaneous fact supports the officers’ stated concerns—

Officer P

radio request at 3:47 p.m. to speed up the response of the DPD to the scene.

596

DPD was

not part of the briefing and they were not on scene at the start of this police operation, but at
3:38, only minutes after police had begun making arrests, they were requested to respond.597
After this original request, and after the crowd had encircled the officers,

Officer P

told the police dispatcher “we need Davis officers now” and the dispatcher
acknowledged his request, saying “copy, requesting Davis officers expedite.”598 This is just
short of a “help” call—an officer outright stating his need for immediate assistance. The
language and the tone used by Officer P suggest that he was calling in connection with a
non-routine situation, if not making an outright call for help.

With respect to the pepper spray, the weapon used was a MK-9, First Defense Aerosol
Projector. 599

This item is different than the MK-4 product that is generally carried by

594 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZHimnbvqOU&feature=related at 1:30. [Exhibit 137]
595 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ at 3:35. [Exhibit 136]
596 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
597 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
598 UCDPD Call Number 11-063695. [Exhibit 124]
599 Defense Technology, Product Specifications, MK-9 Aerosol Projector. [Exhibit 119]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

120

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

individual officers. It has a higher pressure, is nitrogen driven, and is intended for crowd
dispersal rather than field applications. The recommended minimum distance for the
application of the MK-9 is six feet, versus three feet for the more commonly personally
carried MK-4 Aerosol Projector.600

The UCDPD, as part of the UC policing system, are obligated to follow what is commonly
called the “Gold Book.”601 The Gold Book merely states that the UC police departments shall
follow the law (Chapter 2, Statutory Authority, Section 201.1 thru 201.3) and delegates to the
chief of each individual department the authority to create a policy regarding the use of force
(Chapter 8, Section 801). Accordingly, the UCDPD has developed its own policies that guide
their use of force.

In fact, UCDPD has two policies that overlap in the area of setting

standards around police use of force. Policy No. 559 sets out what are authorized weapons,
and when and how force can be used.

Policy No. 111 is the use of force policy.

The

following points in these two policies are critical:

1.

No. 559 does not mention or authorize the use of the MK-9. It does authorize pepper
spray, specifically the MK-4, but it contains no discussion of the MK-9. Kroll found no
indication that any member of the UC Davis Police Department has ever been trained
on the MK-9.

2. No. 111 was published in 2004 and basically restates the legal guidance provided by
the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor. It does not discuss the use of pepper
spray.
3. Pepper spray has been carefully tested602 and is broadly used in American policing:
over 99% of American police forces have indicated in a recent survey that their
officers carry pepper spray. 603
A key issue in evaluating whether the use of pepper spray was appropriate is the
determination of what type of resistance the protesters seated on the ground with linked arms
were presenting: was it passive resistance or active resistance? The UCDPD use of force
policies do not provide any guidance. In contrast, for example, the UCLA Police Department’s

600 Defense Technology, Product Specifications, MK-4 Aerosols Projector. [Exhibit 119]
601 The University of California, University-wide Police Policies and Administrative Procedures is referred to as the
“Gold Book”
602 Granfield, Onmen & Petty, 1994; Petty, 2004.
603 “A Multi-Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes: Final Report to the National Institute of Justice”
Michael R. Smith, et al., July 2010.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

121

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

use of force policy (General Order 11-06) specifically defines the linking of arms by protesters
as active resistance (Section 6.2.3 Definitions, Actively Resisting). The California
Commission on Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) also defines the linking of
arms as active resistance (2102 DRAFT, POST Guidelines, Crowd Management, Intervention
and Control, Appendix A, Terms and Definitions, Active Resistance).

Most police departments across the United States use a training device commonly referred to
as a “use of force continuum” as a means of training their officers on when and what type of
force to use.

604

Most of these continuums—there is no standard national continuum—allow

the use of pepper spray when confronted with “active resistance.”605 Thus, the use of pepper
spray against seated protesters linking arms may be technically permissible as a general
matter.

While the interviews with the witness officers describe the crowd predominately as “hostile” or
mob-like [See Appendix B], and a few instances of adversarial chants were identified (e.g.
“from Davis to Greece, fuck the police”), the videos show a different reality. They show

Officer F
case does

Officer P

leaving the encircled group twice, each time with a prisoner. In neither

Officer F use any force or encounter any resistance. The videos depict
moving through the crowd—immediately behind the seated activists

that are within minutes of being pepper sprayed—without using force and without being
confronted by any violent reaction, and then returning with the four Davis PD officers and
their supervisors who, again, part the crowd without using force. In none of the hours of
video reviewed by Kroll is a single violent act on the part of the activists captured.

606

Approximately twenty minutes after the pepper spray, when tents were erected on the Quad
for a second time, Lieutenant Pike and one other officer returned to the Quad without riot
equipment and without support from other officers. Simply by talking to the activists, the
officers were able to get the activists to take the tents down.607 No perception of threats was
reported.608

604 http://www.nij.gov/nij/journals/267/use-of-force-what-is.htm and http://www.nij.gov/journals/267/use-offorce.htm
605 “A Multi-Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes: Final Report to the National Institute of Justice”
Michael R. Smith, et al., July 2010.
606 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3A0d9fHWag&feature=related starting at 11:40. [Exhibit 116]
607 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]
608 Supplemental Narrative Report, by John Pike, December 13, 2011. [Exhibit 54]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

122

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

One witness (whose son was a UCDPD officer involved in the operation) reported taking a
rock from a protester, 609 and a few officers stated they saw rocks in the hands of
protesters.610 There are no reports of anything being thrown.

On balance, there does not seem to be an objective, factual basis for Lieutenant Pike to have
believed that he was trapped or that his officers were prevented from leaving by the seated
protesters. Furthermore, there is no objective evidence available to Kroll that depicts any
attempt by the protesters to use violence.

Considering all the available evidence—while recognizing that Kroll investigators were not
able to interview Lieutenant Pike to learn and report on his state of mind at the moment he
used the pepper spray—the deployment of pepper spray does not appear to have been an
objectively reasonable use of force. This conclusion is buttressed by the facts that the MK-9
was not an authorized weapon under UCDPD guidelines and that UCDPD officers were not
trained in its use.

609 Transcribed interview of Bob Brewer, December 8, 2011. [Exhibit 144]
610 Transcribed interview of Officer K
January 19, 2012, page 20, lines 1-9; [Exhibit 145] Transcribed
interview of Officer M
January 20, 2012, page 5, lines 1-17. [Exhibit 118]

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

123

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

At the same time, Lieutenant Pike appears to have been the most vocal in questioning the
legal basis to mount the operation and in questioning of the timing of the event. He was
hampered by repeated failed leadership of Chief Spicuzza, his supervisor, who did not attend
the briefing for the operation, did not raise objections to the flawed plans suggested by the
administration, and played an unusual, disengaged role at the scene. Throughout the series
of events that led to the pepper spraying, the Chief’s actions were deficient: she failed to say
“no” to the Chancellor when suboptimal tactical decisions were being promoted; when she
saw things during the police operation not occurring to her satisfaction, she did not to step in
and assume command. Rather, the Chief chose to call repeatedly the Department Operations
Command post and relay instructions.

7.5

Additional Police-Related Issues

Other police-specific issues and operational failures impacted this event. Kroll identified the
following additional issues:
1. In responding to planned demonstrations, there was a trend to obtain officers from
other UC campuses despite the distance, response time and small size of the other
UC police departments. In this case, before turning to the Davis Police Department or
the local Sheriff’s Department, the UCDPD turned to sister UC police agencies, the
closest of which was UC Berkeley, almost two hours away. While there are certainly
unique aspects to campus policing, there are problems with relying on only the other
UC agencies. For example, on some of the days of public order challenges at UC
Davis, there were statewide protests that should have reasonably been expected to
demand the police at their home campuses.

2. It may be preferable to follow a process that maximizes the use of other campus
departments—especially Student Affairs—and relying on administrative sanctions,
rather than police and the criminal law, to gain compliance during protests. Such an
approach would reserve the UC Davis Police Department for what are truly the most
serious incidents, ones where there can be no question of the need for professionally
trained and equipped peace officers. Kroll suggests a strategy that minimizes the use
of the police in the student protest context and reserves them for major conflicts and
real threats to the campus community.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

124

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

3. Even with the desire to rely on other UC police departments, it is clear that each UC
campus police agency is operating independently: they do not have common policies,
training, tools or tactics. This was clear in this event, where the UCDPD officers were
not carrying riot batons but other UC officers at the same event, carrying out the
same mission, were. This is especially problematic when it comes to use of force.
Each agency has a different policy and different tools. This is a result of the basic
operating structure of UC campus police departments whereby the Chancellor of
each university campus has a unique police department answerable to him/her. In
short: each Chancellor has his/her own chief, own rules, and own policies.

4. The UC System mandates a “Coordinator” of the Council of Police Chiefs, but this
person has no direct line authority over the other chiefs; rather, this is simply one of
the chiefs who coordinates their discussions about policing issues. It is similar to the
role of a president of a municipal police chiefs association at the county level.

3. UC Davis police do not appear to be following State-mandated rules regarding
incident/event planning (Standardized Emergency Management Systems SEMS).
There are specific law enforcement rules and regulations about mutual aid and joint
response to emergencies.

a. The operations plans that were created by the UCDPD do not follow
appropriate ICS/SEMS format. They lacked signature blocks for creation,
review and approval.

Large portions of the operations plans were left

blank. There were operational elements described that were not executed
(e.g., the jail bus).

b. The plan failed to account for prisoner transport from the scene of the
event/operation to the site of prisoner processing.

c.

The Department Operations Center (which is referred to in the plan) was
not set up in an appropriate fashion.

d. The failure to pre-brief the Davis Police Department, the closest quick
reaction force in the event of a problem, was a significant oversight.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

125

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

e. The roles of the supervisors were either unclear or inappropriate. For
example, Lieutenant Pike was not given a role in the Operations Plan for
November 18. Moreover, the assignment of the two lieutenants to the
actual dismantling of the tents by the Chief of Police was an inappropriate
role for supervisors, especially for the Incident Commander.

4. The actions of the Chief of Police caused confusion during this operation. She was
not present at the pre-event briefing and is not listed in any form on the operations
plan. Her role in the field, where she was present on the Quad but not with the
police, and was calling in directions via the command post, was problematic and
added to the confusion already present in the operation. Indeed, at least one officer
stated in his interview that during the most turbulent minutes of this operation, he
observed the chief standing opposite him in the crowd filming the police actions with
her cell phone.

611

5. The actual crowd control formations used by the UC Davis Police did not comport
with contemporary policing practices. The initial movement onto the Quad, the
inverse wedge that ultimately became a skirmish line with a left flank, was unorthodox
at best. The fact that a supervisor was removing arrestees from the circle without
communicating with the incident commander was problematic. While

Officer F

was successful, it is possible that had he alerted the incident commander
to his successful removal of prisoners,

Officer P

and Pike may have

opted to take a different tactical approach to the situation.

611 Transcribed interview of Officer

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Officer L

January 19, 2012, page 18, line 25 through page 19, line 3.

126

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

8
RECOMMENDATIONS
Kroll has identified recommendations for both the UC Davis Administration and for policing at
the University of California system-wide. On the civilian side, improved institutional decisionmaking processes and culture are critical. On the law enforcement side, systemic policing
improvement are also called for.

8.1

UC Davis Leadership Team

The creation of the Leadership Team, an inter-disciplinary team to address developing
campus issues and potential crises, was an excellent idea, but the Leadership Team must
include a clearly defined structure and set of operating rules. While the UC Davis
Administrative Code makes clear that the Chancellor “is the person ultimately responsible for
all functions of the campus community,” 612 the Chancellor told Kroll investigators that she
favors a participatory style of leadership involving consensus-building rather than an
authoritative style of leadership.

For the Leadership Team, we recommend:

1. A clear statement of membership with a defined chairperson to guide the meetings.

2. Scheduled meeting times that are communicated to all members and, when
communicated, identify whether meetings are mandatory or can be attended by a
substitute if necessary.

3. Decisions that are clearly summarized at the conclusion of the call/meeting, and that
the various decision-makers are given the opportunity to state their positions.

612 “The Gold Book,” Universitywide Police Policies and Administrative Procedures, page 61.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

127

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

4. A simple “listserv” be created to insure that each member of the team receives all
team-wide communications.

5. Training in the incident command system, as well as the California Standardized
Emergency Management concepts and guiding principles, should be provided to the
members of the Leadership Team. The training needs to be tailored to the type of
situations the Leadership Team is likely to encounter, in other words, especially
including public protest.

6. A review of available legal options, including the difference between “administrative
violations” and “criminal violations.” Put another way, the Leadership Team should rethink how best to use their various ‘tools,’ including Student Affairs or the Police
Department, in addressing problems, with input and direction from Counsel.

7. Recognizing that the University is a unique environment with a special culture, the
University of California should provide clear policy guidance as to what is acceptable
protest behavior and what is not. At what point does protesters’ behavior become
serious enough to warrant police response and the application of the criminal law,
instead of administrative sanctions and referral to internal campus enforcement
mechanisms?

8.2

System-wide Policing at the University of California

Kroll recommends that changes in policing at the University of California be instituted systemwide, and not merely on the UC Davis campus.

Kroll recommends that the University of California immediately begin the transition from ten
separate university police departments operating pursuant to their various administrative
leaders to a unified, standardized police force that is uniformly deployed at different locations
around the state. A similar such institution is the California Department of Corrections, a
statewide sworn law enforcement agency that has one set of core policies (e.g. one use of
force policy, one training curriculum for crowd management, etc.), while allowing the local
administrator in charge (the warden) flexibility to address unique local realities differently.
(Another example is the United States Park Police; while the majority of their operations are
in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, they are also responsible for national parks in

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

128

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

New York City and San Francisco. They provide some flexibility to their local police
leadership working with the local park management, but their core rules, regulations, policies,
training and equipment are standardized across all the locales that they police).

The first step in this direction should be the creation of a Chief Public Safety Administrator
(“Chief PSA”) position operating out of the Office of the President of the University of
California. This individual should be an experienced law enforcement professional. The Chief
PSA should have functional authority over the ten different UC campus police chiefs; at a
minimum, he/she must be able to require adherence to certain core equipment standards,
training minimums/curriculums, and policies.

As a first step, the new Chief PSA should work with the various police chiefs to create,
implement, review and establish standardized “public safety” policies throughout the UC
System. All UC police officers, regardless of campus assignment, should be operating under
the same core policies and performing their duties using the same training. 613 The UC
policing apparatus should strive to become a leader and a source of expertise in the
constitutional policing of public protest.

While the UC campus police chiefs should remain in a direct reporting line to a high-level
campus administrator (this administrator should be standardized as well), the Chief PSA
should have the authority to audit core functions of the campus police departments at any
time. Annual reviews in areas such as use of force, training, critical incidents, internal affairs
investigations and discipline-imposed would be appropriate.

In a similar vein, the Chief PSA should develop an annual statewide training plan on critical
policing issues/skills for the UC campus police. This training plan will ensure that coordinated
inter-campus training is being conducted. The idea of a “north” policing culture that differs
from a “south” policing culture should be addressed and eliminated, at least as to core skills,
functions and policies, as part of this training plan.

613 Without belaboring the point, we believe it is completely unacceptable to have police forces that wear the same
badge and work for the same ultimate employer, but use different tools, training and tactics and follow different
policies. This is more serious when one looks at the various use of force policies that are employed on different UC
campuses, and should be a top priority for repair. The UC reality is compounded in that each campus police
department does its own hiring and most of their hires appear to be either self-sponsored at the various academies
around the state or hired after initial training and service with a different law enforcement agency. Thus, while their
training will have a common basis—the learning domains established by California POST—officers will have
attended academies of different lengths, with different training emphasis, with different policing cultures. The UC
system should develop training methods to foster one agreed upon set of competencies across the system, with
emphasis on the necessary tactics for policing a college campus.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

129

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

8.3

Additional Recommendations for UC Policing

A detailed review of the UC system’s approach to policing should be conducted. This is not
the first major incident to go awry on UC campuses in recent years. The expectations of the
individual UC campuses and the UC system leadership for their police should be defined and
measured against the current capabilities of the UC police force. In short, a gap analysis
should be conducted.

The operational tempo of UC police departments is radically different from that of standard
municipal police agencies; the normal measures of reported crime, calls for service, and
response time remain elements of evaluating the police departments but must be
supplemented by the other regular demands placed on these forces—and public protests and
public order must be at the top of this list. With increasingly coordinated protests occurring
across the state and the UC system, it is highly questionable whether the current system of
inter-agency assistance remains viable. This needs further study.

There are a number of very specific policing-centric tasks that need to be addressed; these
recommendations certainly apply to the UCDPD but may also apply to other departments in
the UC system. These are:

1. Standardized and recurring training should be provided for UCDPD officers involving
21st Century Crowd Management strategies (20 hours). Additionally, enhanced
supervisory and executive level crowd management training should be developed (10
hours). Training must comport with the California POST, 2102 updated, Crowd
Management and Civil Disobedience Guidelines.
2. Incident Command System (ICS) training should be provided for individual campus
Student Activities, Public Information, EH&S, Care and Shelter, Food Services,
Financial, Office of Technology, Risk Management, Human Resources and
Emergency Management personnel.
3. UC Davis campus emergency personnel must comply with state mandated standards
for ICS and SEMS. This is especially true in the area of documentation where the
operations plans for virtually of the police events discussed in this report were
deficient in key areas (e.g. no signatures, no approval sign-off signature, numerous
blank sections of the report, failing to provide for key tactical elements of operations,

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

130

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

etc.). Put another way, Incident and Event Action plans must be detailed, informative,
accurate and have “accountability for review” measures built in.
4. While we understand that some emergency operations discussions have occurred in
the past, our understanding is that they involved sub-sets of the various campus
entities but were neither comprehensive in their involvement nor realistic in defining
their subject matter. Periodic Emergency Operations Center (EOC) exercises must
be conducted and evaluated. Exercises must include both sworn and civilian EOC
stakeholder personnel and these exercises should comport with both SEMS and the
National Incident Management System (NIMS) standards.
5. Training should be provided to all UC police officers addressing alternative force
applications (Passive Arrest Team Tactics) involving arrests of both active- and
passive-resistant protesters. Command approval authority should be included
regarding use of specialized munitions and OC dispersal methods during crowd
control situations.
6. There needs to be a wholesale review of the UC Davis use of force reporting and
investigation protocols. The use force by police against a member of the public is
almost inevitably controversial. The policies, training, and investigative procedures
must be current, comprehensive and transparent. They must include supervisory
review of use of force reports, and the process needs to include command and
executive review.

Recordation should include threshold triggers to identify

employees prone to multiple use of force applications and recommendations for
training and/or remediation. These systems are generally termed Early Identification
and Intervention systems (EIIS) and there is an existing United States Department of
Justice approved training program to aid in the development of these necessary
systems.

Finally, Kroll recommends that the University of California monitor its progress in meeting all
of the above-stated objectives, and report its progress to the public on a regular basis.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

131

An Altegrity Company
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 610
Los Angeles, CA 90071
T 213.443.6090
F 213.443.6050

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

132

February 22, 2012
Office of the President, University of California
Appendices to Report Concerning the Events at UC Davis on
November 18, 2011
Confidential – Do Not Distribute

An Altegrity Company

RESTRICTED USE WARNING

This report was prepared by Kroll at the request of the client to whom it is furnished. The
client agrees that reports and information received from Kroll, including this report, are strictly
confidential and are intended solely for the private and exclusive use of the client. Any other
use and any communication, publication, disclosure, dissemination or reproduction of this
report or any portion of its contents without the written consent of Kroll is strictly forbidden.
Kroll assumes no direct, indirect or consequential liability to any third party or any other
person who is not the intended addressee of this report for the information contained herein,
its interpretation or applications, or for omissions, or for reliance by any such third party or
other person thereon. To the extent information provided in this report is based on a review of
publicly-available records, such information, as presented, relies upon the accuracy and
completeness of those records, which have not been corroborated by Kroll. Statements
herein concerning financial, regulatory or legal matters should be understood to be general
observations based solely on Kroll’s experience as risk consultants and may not be relied
upon as financial, regulatory or legal advice, which Kroll is not authorized to provide. All such
matters should be reviewed with appropriately qualified advisors in these areas. THIS
REPORT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A RECOMMENDATION, ENDORSEMENT, OPINION OR
APPROVAL OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO ANY TRANSACTION, DECISION OR
EVALUATION, AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON

AS SUCH UNDER ANY

CIRCUMSTANCES.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

2

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Appendix A
Chief Spicuzza Cell Phone Log on November 18, 2011 from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.

Time

Incoming/Outgoing

Telephone Number

Length

8:46 a.m.

Incoming

Mitch Benson

1 minute

9:47 a.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Emergency Line

1 minute

9:58 a.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Emergency Line

1 minute

11:12

Incoming

Fred Wood Cell Phone

4 minutes

Incoming

Griselda Castro Cell Phone

1 minute

Incoming

Griselda Castro Cell Phone

4 minutes

Incoming

Susanne Rockwell, UC Davis News

4 minutes

a.m.
11:42
a.m.
12:25
p.m.
1:52 p.m.

Service
2:07 p.m.

Outgoing

Steve Drown Cell Phone

2 minutes

2:12 p.m.

Outgoing

Steve Drown Office Phone

3 minutes

2:47 p.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Conference

1 minute

Room/Command Post
2:49 p.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Conference

3 minutes

Room/Command Post
2:53 p.m.

Blocked

Blocked

3 minutes

3:02 p.m.

Outgoing

Fred Wood Cell Phone

6 minutes

3:09 p.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Conference

2 minutes

Room/Command Post
3:11 p.m.

Blocked

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Blocked

1 minute

3

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

3:14 p.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Conference

1 minute

Room/Command Post
3:17 p.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Conference

1 minute

Room/Command Post
3:18 p.m.

Outgoing

John Meyer Cell Phone

2 minutes

3:20 p.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Conference

1 minute

Room/Command Post
3:22 p.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Conference

1 minute

Room/Command Post
3:28 p.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Conference

1 minute

Room/Command Post
3:37 p.m.

Outgoing

John Meyer Cell Phone

2 minutes

3:41 p.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Conference

1 minute

Room/Command Post
3:53 p.m.

Outgoing

John Meyer Cell Phone

2 minutes

3:57 p.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Conference

1 minute

Room/Command Post
4:01 p.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Conference

1 minute

Room/Command Post
4:02 p.m.

Outgoing

John Meyer Cell Phone

1 minute

4:04 p.m.

Outgoing

John Meyer Cell Phone

1 minute

4:05 p.m.

Outgoing

John Meyer Cell Phone

1 minute

4:08 p.m.

Incoming

UCDPD Conference

2 minutes

Room/Command Post
4:15 p.m.

Blocked

Blocked

1 minute

4:16 p.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Emergency Line

2 minutes

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

4

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

4:28 p.m.

Incoming

UCDPD Conference

2 minutes

Room/Command Post
4:36 p.m.

Outgoing

UCDPD Conference

1 minute

Room/Command Post

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

5

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Appendix B

UCDPD Officers’ Understanding of the Mission for the Operation
Officer

Comment

Officer A

“What we were going to do was to remove the tents from the
Quad.”1

Officer B

“It’s started to escape me at this point. The gist of it was we were
going to be getting the … protestor’s tents off the Quad.” 2 ( Officer B
was not present for the UCDPD briefing).

Officer C

“The idea was to move in and, if there were still tents up, to
remove the tents, and come back out.”3

Officer D

“Eliminate the Quad area of the tents and the occupiers that were
there.”4

Officer E

“The briefing was to do an in-and-out kind of a process, to get into
the quad, get the tents removed and get back out.”5

Officer F

“We were going to go to the park and request the ... Occupy
people to leave. And then we were to stand by and basically be
security so that facilities could take the tents down in an orderly
manner and package them so that they could be booked as
evidence or retained so that they could be returned to the owners
of the tents if they can be determined.”6

1

Transcribed interview of

2

Transcribed interview of

3

Transcribed interview of

4

Transcribed interview of

5

Transcribed interview of

6

Transcribed interview of

Officer A
Officer B
Officer C
Officer D
Officer E
Officer F

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 20, 2012.
January 19, 2012.
January 20, 2012.
January 19, 2012.
January 20, 2012.
January 20, 2012.

6

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Officer G

“Lieutenant Pike said that we were going to go into the quad and
remove tents.... The protestors could stay, but we were just there
to take the tents out.” 7

Officer H

“Our mission was to remove the occupants from the Quad, that set
[up] tents, [who] were camping out.” When asked if the discussion
was to remove the tents or the occupants or both: “Both.... It was
discussed was that we were going to give several ... dispersal
orders. We would set up skirmish lines, and that hopefully ... they
would depart when we gave out those orders.”8

Officer I

“The chancellor wanted the tents that were on the quad to be
removed and that was going to be our mission.” 9
“I don't recall anything specifically said about ... arresting anybody
... just that our mission was to go and remove the tents.... The
word was that just our presence was going to be enough and that
once ... our presence was there the scuttlebutt among the
students was that they were just going to pack up and leave.” 10

Officer J

“The mission was to take down the tents of the Occupy campers in
the UC Davis Quad. Basically, that briefing detailed how we were
going to enter the area, contain the occupiers and push them out
to take the tents down.” 11

Officer K

“The plan that was to go to the Quad area on campus and remove
some tents that had been set up overnight by protestors, because
they were violating university policy.” 12

Officer L

“We were going to advise the protestors of their unlawful assembly
and that we were there to take down the tents. Our only course at
that time was to take down the tents. We weren't to disperse the

7

Transcribed interview of

8

Transcribed interview of

9

Transcribed interview of

10

Transcribed interview of

11

Transcribed interview of

12

Transcribed interview of

Officer G January 20, 2012.
Officer H January 19, 2012.
January 19, 2012.
Officer I
January 19, 2012.
Officer I
January 20, 2012.
Officer J
January 19, 2012.
Officer K

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

7

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

students. We weren't to limit or prohibit the amount of protesting
that was happening.We were just there to take down the tents.” 13
“Officers in attendance were advised that a large group of
protestors had erected tents in the center of the campus core in
violation of University code. The campers have been notified over
the course of approximately 24 hours that their camping was in
violation of the law and they needed to remove the tents. The
lieutenants advised that the mission of the officers was to enter
the campus core and disassemble the campground. We would
meet any resistance with an arrest.”14

Officer M

No comments.

Officer N

No comments.
“The objective was the removal of the tents from the quad.”15

Lieutenant Pike

Officer O

“At approximately 1530 hours Lt. Pike (#1008) issued an
admonishment to the crowd ordering them to disperse. The crowd
did not disperse. The crowd refused to leave and I was given the
order to arrest any persons who remained.” 16

Officer P

“Chief Spicuzza gave Lt. Pike and I (Incident Commander) the
assignment of removing tents from the quad on 11-18-11, in
violation of university policy (Overnight Camping Prohibited,
PPM270-20.II.A.5) and Penal Code 602 (M) Entering/Occupying
Real Property Without the Permission of the Owner.”17

13

Transcribed interview of

14

Supplemental Narrative Report,

15

Supplemental Narrative Report, John Pike, December 13, 2011.
Supplemental Narrative Report, Officer O November 18, 2011.

16
17

Officer L January 19, 2012.
Officer L November 24, 2011.

Supplemental Narrative Report,

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Officer P

November 30, 2011.

8

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

UCDPD Officers’ State of Mind While Encircled by Crowd
Officer

Comment

Officer B

“It was very frustrating and scary to be put in a situation where
you're surrounded by essentially what's becoming, more and
more, an angry mob, rather than a group of protestors.” 18
“With lots of [people] standing around and closing in on us,
essentially ... you've got a situation where a crowd can suddenly
change in an instant, the way they circled on us in an instant, and
... we've got a brawl.”19
“Based on my experience, I would have been very afraid to walk a
prisoner through the crowd.”20

Officer C

“I was in fear of our safety, but also we had arrestees, so … I was
thinking ‘Okay, they’re gonna try to … overpower us to get their
arrestees free.’” 21

Officer D

“I started getting scared … I began to think ‘Well, they’re gonna try
to hurt us, and then take [the arrestees], and go from there.’” 22
“I noticed the crowd started to get more volatile towards us, and it
started encircling us ... then I became worried.... [B]ecause they
started chanting things like, ‘Let them go!’ and ‘Shame on you!’ ...
My biggest fear was this whole crowd was now starting to encircle
us, which wasn't a good feeling.... [I]n my mind I[‘m] ... thinking
they're gonna come and try and lynch these guys and get them
out of there, you know? So now my job [has] ... become more
difficult, because now I am ... in charge of these guys [the
arrestees], ... I've got them in my custody.... I'm worried that this
going to happen.”23

18

Transcribed interview of

19

Transcribed interview of

20

Transcribed interview of

21

Transcribed interview of

22

Transcribed interview of

23

Transcribed interview of

Officer B
Officer B
Officer B
Officer C
Officer D
Officer D

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 19, 2012.
January 19, 2012.
January 19, 2012.
January 20, 2012.
January 19, 2012.
January 19, 2012.

9

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

After the initial three arrests, the crowd became “not necessarily
violent, just more aggressive. Instead of staying back and doing
their chanting, they're actually getting closer, as if ... the thought of
them lynching this person [the uncooperative arrestee] was, in
fact, going to be a reality. I actually started getting scared. ... I
began to think, ‘Well, they're gonna try to hurt us, and then take
them, and go from there.’ And there's so many, and there's only us
here, so I'm gonna do the best I can and just stay my ground and
wait.”24

Officer E

“We were stuck in place with no path of safe movement or retreat.
I feared that protesters were planning to charge through the inner
protection circle to lynch the arrestees or injure officers. If I had to
use my baton to push protesters away, I could injure them and
officers around me. I did not know what else to do other than to
hold my position and provide rear guard protection. I was awaiting
further orders. The scene was chaotic. Protestors were mobilizing,
yelling and chanting at us.”

Officer F

25

“Now during that time when I was taking these prisoners out ... I
really felt very claustrophobic because, you have the line of
officers in confrontation with the demonstrators and all the
screaming and yelling and the crowd. And it was frightening
because there was really no control. I felt we were surrounded.
The only reason I was able to get in and out with prisoners is
because I believe my persistence and the fact that I didn't hesitate
to go through the crowd. It was either get out of the way or I'm
going to mow you down.”26
When going into the crowd to get the second prisoner, “I felt
uncomfortable. I felt a little bit scared. I was concerned for, not so
much myself, but for the other officers.... I don't know whether

24

Transcribed interview of

25

Supplemental Narrative Report,

26

Transcribed interview of

Officer D January 19, 2012.
Officer E November 29, 2011.
Officer F January 20, 2012.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

10

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

that's my training, my own personal confidence, but I felt they
were in more danger than I was.” 27
“It's my experience when someone interlocks their arms, they're
no longer passive. They're resistive. And so, you know, at some
point that changes your mindset too, because we're no longer
dealing with passive resistors. They can say all day long, ‘I'm
being passive, I'm not being violent.’ But they aren't, they ... are
resisting, so it really changes my mind as an officer dealing with
that.”28

Officer G

“I was in shock. This was my first time dealing with an incident—
this many people. I think I was just kind of wondering what next....
I started thinking if I do use force what kind of force am I going to
use because they were five feet away.... I was just in shock—
really nervous, wondering what to do, how was I going to do it. I
was afraid the officers ... were going to get hurt.” 29

Officer H

“From my vantage point, they had encircled us. It was about four
people deep and getting thicker. Protestors were approximately
two feet from me, yelling, chanting.”30
“I was concerned that we were going to have to use force to get
ourselves out of there. From my vantage point, we were
surrounded. The crowd was 200 to 300 plus people in my
estimation, it was growing. We had several, several individuals in
the crowd that were very upset. Yelling andscreaming, yelling
profanities. From past experiences ... I was afraid that we were
going to have to use some force to, to get ourselves to safety.... I
was also concerned that they may also try to assist the prisoners
that we had there.”31

Officer I

27

Transcribed interview of

28

Transcribed interview of

29

Transcribed interview of

30

Transcribed interview of

31

Transcribed interview of

No comments. (Was transporting prisoners, wasn’t in the crowd).

Officer F
Officer F
Officer G
Officer H
Officer H

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 20, 2012.
January 20, 2012.
January 20, 2012.
January 19, 2012.
January 19, 2012.

11

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Officer J

“There's a bunch of yelling and hundreds, hundreds of people start
gathering around the entirety of the quad. At some point, I believe
the skirmish line tried to pull apart people to get to the tents and
break them down.... [A] group of occupiers basically encircled us
just because we were so outnumbered.... It seemed like as time
went on, more and more people were encircled around us and
that's when I started hearing things like, ‘Let them go and we'll let
you go.’ Aside from all the ‘f you's’ and other things.” 32
“I don't like being ... surrounded.... I started thinking okay, who ...
are the troublemakers I'm going to take out first. And looking
around and saying ... where are my escape routes.... So I'm
looking at what targets I need to take out to kind of keep myself
safe because I was expecting something to happen where the
crowd would come in on us.... It was just that ... little feeling in my
head, you know?... That feeling of ... that guy's gonna come after
me.”33

Officer K

After the pepper spray, “there were some [protesters] that were
still blocking our pathway out. They were not ... moving. So when I
came upon them, they were still seated, linking arms, and I just
had to assist Officer O in clearing the pathway. At that point, I
did see one or two that were standing in the east area, just east of
me, that were having water poured on their face.” 34

Officer L

“Based on the number of protestors and their hostile behavior, I
was in fear for the safety of myself and the other officers.” 35
“When I describe our job, and I tell people that it's 99 percent
boredom and one percent, oh shit terror. I have to describe that
that ... three, four minutes after their tents were disassembled and
that group surrounded us, I was living that one percent, "Oh shit"
terror. Was I in fear for my life? I don't think I was. But I was afraid
that the actions of the crowd was going to force me to do the full

32

Transcribed interview of

33

Transcribed interview of

January 20, 2012.
Officer J
January 20, 2012.
Officer J
34
Transcribed interview of Officer K
January 19, 2012.
35
Supplemental Narrative Report, Officer L
November 24, 2011.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

12

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

duties ... that my job describes and entitles me to do. And ... that
was not the objective, that wasn't the purpose of ... me being in
the campus that day. ... I was scared when I was there. I was
scared. I could see that my Trainee was scared.”36
“Now this place is turning into a powder keg, and any spark at any
moment could set this crowd off. I am recognizing this. I've seen it
happen.”37

Officer A

When the officers are surrounded by the protesters, “I'm a little
nervous.... I mean, it's not every day you get encircled by
anybody. I mean, that's the first time in my career that I've been
encircled.”38

Officer M

When the police encircled the detainees, then stopped, “I did
wonder what was going on, but I maintained my primary focus on
dealing with the people in front of me. It, it didn't serve me
anything to turn around and start questioning the people that were
making the decisions, because this crowd was growing and it was
becoming more volatile.” 39

Officer N

No comments. (Assigned to patrol, then to the transport of the first
three arrestees; was on the Quad only briefly.)
“The mob encircled the officers on the Quad. Four to five people

Lieutenant Pike

deep surrounded us in some areas of the circle. Several hostile
chants, were heard coming from the crowd. Some of the chants
that stood out the most for me were, ‘From Davis to Greece, Fuck
the Police”, “Cops off Campus”, and ‘If you let them go, we will let
you go”. Within moments, the crowd and mob mentality of the
moment became even more belligerent and worrisome.” 40

Officer P

“The sitting protesters rose to a standing positions [sic], with arms
linked, they went around us to the south side, encircling us. They

36

Transcribed interview of

37

Transcribed interview of

38

Transcribed interview of

39

Transcribed interview of

40

Supplemental Narrative Report, John Pike, December 13, 2011.

Officer L
Officer L
Officer A
Officer M

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 19, 2012.
January 19, 2012.
January 20, 2012.
January 2012.

13

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

began to yell: “Let them go, we will let you leave”. At this point, I
was concerned that they would attempt to take our prisoners back
and I was also concerned for the officers’ safety.” 41

41

Supplemental Narrative Report,

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Officer P

November 30, 2011.

14

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Accounts of Violent Acts or Threats of Violence from Crowd by UCDPD Officers
Officer

Comment
During the initial arrests, “I remember seeing Officer Q and one

Officer B

or two other people hands-on with [activists] and those people
resisting, arms flailing, that sort of thing.” 42

Officer C

Saw one prisoner “struggle with”

Officer K

“a little bit, and

tr[y] to pull away from her and … she had to take him to the
ground because [he] was resisting. And I remember just giving
people command to stay back … while she was dealing with
him.”43
Recalls “somebody saying that there is [sic] a couple people with
rocks on the north side, but on my south side … I never saw
anybody with rocks, [and] no one made any attempt to throw
anything at us … or I would have started engaging people.” 44

Officer D

Saw “officers at the skirmish line … dealing with an uncooperative
subject. Now this person is kicking and flailing, and so they’re
trying to have him stand up, which he’s just making his body limp.
He’s not going along with anything.” 45

Officer E

No comments.

Officer F

Described being “struck” as an activist was taken into custody:
“The [skirmish] line starts to move forward, the confrontation
[between the skirmish line and the crowd of students] occurs, the
crowd surges. At one point I'm trying ... to keep the crowd back....
I felt really like a rock trying to hold the tide back. You just couldn't
do that. They were just surging right into the back of us. As my
focus is southwest, I feel something hit me from behind. I could

42

Transcribed interview of

43

Transcribed interview of

44

Transcribed interview of

45

Transcribed interview of

Officer B
Officer C
Officer C
Officer D

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 19, 2012.
January 20, 2012.
January 20, 2012.
January 19, 2012.

15

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

tell it was a body by the weight. A body flies, hits me in the lower
legs, calf area. I start to fall back, I catch myself. And I realize that
there are two students laying on the ground. One student ... has
struck me in the back of my legs. I turn around obviously because
I've been ... struck. And when I say struck, it's not like a physical
punch or hit, it is a body flying against my body.... They made
impact with me.”46

Officer G

No comments.

Officer H

No comments.

Officer I

No comments. (Was transporting prisoners, wasn’t in the crowd.)

Officer J

When the skirmish line came in contact with the occupiers, “a
great majority of them ... put themselves in a circle, locking arms,
facing us. As [the] skirmish line went to try to disburse them to get
the tents away, that was when, if there was any kind of physical
resistance against the skirmish line, I was right behind the
skirmish line ... [I had] to point them out and grab them and get
them out of the way.... [F]rom a physical standpoint, there wasn't a
lot of peaceable or non-physical people in there. There was
certain individuals who were more aggressive than others.” What
do you mean by aggressive? “As opposed to just locking arms and
yelling, let's say, they would push against the skirmish line. That
was the main issue here. I didn't see much spitting or anything like
that.”47

Officer K

“As I was standing there [behind the skirmish line], several
protestors did try to approach the skirmish line and come up within
a feet [sic] ... to two feet of some officers that were standing to my
left. ... [A]nd they had to be told repeatedly to stand back. There
was a subject ... that came up, he appeared to be very agitated.
He was a white guy, beard, green jacket, carrying a guitar, and he
kept looking south of ... my location and was like … clenching his

46

Transcribed interview of

47

Transcribed interview of

Officer F
Officer J

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 20, 2012.
January 20, 2012.

16

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

... face in his hands and I didn't really know what he was gonna
do, what his intentions were.” Later, “I see the same guitar guy
come up again to our skirmish line. He's ... still agitated and the
officer that was next to me, I hear him yelling ... ‘Put that rock
down.’ Something to the effect of ‘Don't throw that rock, put the
rock down,’ and I look at his hands and he has some sort of object
in his hand, I don't know what it was. I couldn't discern what it
was, and he put it in his pocket and we just continued south, and
once we reached ... the end of the walkway we were on.” 48

Officer L

“Every hand has a camera in your face. All I see are cellphones,
and cameras, and computers. I'm trying to keep an eye on things
that ... are in people's hands, but everybody's got something in
their hand. And the shouting’s not stopping, the chanting's not
stopping. It's becoming a very hostile environment and it
happened at blitzkrieg speed.”49
“The people aren't as passive as they said that they wanted to be.
They were passive in the beginning. We used too little of force in
the beginning. Officers got injured because of it. And were now
having to recover and change our method of operation to reduce
the likelihood of injury towards the officers.” Refers to an officer
who injured his shoulder trying to pull two protesters apart. “He
was pulling two suspects apart who were linked at the elbows.
They violently pulled and pulled away from him and it was their
hostile reaction towards I’m trying to separate them that pulled his
arm. ... The extent of the injuries, or the type of the injuries that he
sustained I don't know. All I know is that his shoulder is very badly
injured and it could lead up to a career ending injury.” 50
“Several subjects attempted to contact us while we were in
formation and tried to ask questions of the officers. A female
subject ran up to my right and stopped approximately 10 feet from
me. She yelled, “Fuck you!” and spat at some of the officers
behind me as they continued past her. The female subject

48

Transcribed interview of

49

Transcribed interview of

50

Transcribed interview of

Officer K
Officer L
Officer L

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 19, 2012.
January 19, 2012.
January 19, 2012.

17

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

continued to yell, “Fuck you!” as the formation of officers passed
her location.” 51

Officer A

“[W]e were there, it seemed forever, but I'm sure it had to be ...
more than twenty minutes.... I had a concern that we might start
getting ... objects thrown at us, or we would get individuals who's
trying to break into the group and start pulling these people out....
And the longer you stay there, the worse it gets.” 52
“[T]he crowd had gotten larger and deeper in size, and for the
safety of the officers and us, we didn't want to get into a grabbing
match with prisoners back and forth, because then somebody
would get hurt. ... Or grabbing at our feet ... if we had to walk over
the top of them, because you'd have to use ... more of a force to
get free, and then they might be subject to injuries.”53

Officer M

Observed three or four male subjects “floating in and out of the
crowd, intermingling and pulling what looked like golf ball size
rocks out of their pockets and handing them to people.... I raised
the pepper ball gun at them ... and yelled at them. And ... they
dropped them.”54

Officer N

No comments. (He was assigned to patrol, then to the transport of
the first three arrestees; he was on the quad only briefly.)

Lieutenant Pike

“I received information that a couple of male subjects in the crowd
were seen holding and passing out rocks.” 55
“As the crowd was chanting ‘If you let them go, we will let you go”,
I became more concerned that the mob mentality of the group
would lend way to hostile acts that would force our hands. The
group had stopped us from moving. We were waiting for additional
UCDPD officers and officers from the City of Davis Police
Department to respond to assist us. I did not believe we could

51

Supplemental Narrative Report,

52

Transcribed interview of

55

Supplemental Narrative Report, John Pike, December 13, 2011.

Officer L November 24, 2011.
Officer A January 20, 2012.
53
Transcribed interview of Officer A January 20, 2012.
54
Transcribed interview with Officer M
January 20, 2012.

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

18

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

safely exit the circle with our in custody arrestees without further
confrontation from the crowd.”56

Officer P

“It was my belief that to step over the protesting occupiers with
prisoners and weapons would be hazardous. The occupiers had
collectively surrounded us and it was possible, if we did step over
them, that they could attempt to free our prisoners (they chanted
that they wanted them released) or attempt to grab us or our
equipment.” 57
As he was retreating with the other officers to their vehicles, “a
female Asian, wearing glasses, a black jacket and dark blue pants
slapped my hands.”58

56

Supplemental Narrative Report, John Pike, December 13, 2011.

57

Supplemental Narrative Report,

58

Supplemental Narrative Report,

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Officer P
Officer P

November 30, 2011.
November 30, 2011.

19

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

UCDPD Officers’ Understanding of the Legal Basis for the Operation
Officer

Comment

Officer A

“We had talked about certain laws, whether or not we were going
to do disbursement ... Unlawful assembly, and then illegal
camping, but that wasn't discussed until way after the fact when
people were arrested and were eventually cited, because I didn't
really know what charges they were going to do.” At the briefing,
that “wasn't discussed at length ... that I can recall.” 59

Officer B

No comments.

Officer C

At the briefing, Pike stated that the protesters had “set up tents,
which was violation of university code to camp on property.” 60

Officer D

No comments.

Officer E

No comments.

Officer F

The possibility of arresting the protesters for overnight camping
“was never discussed ... in the plan. It had been discussed earlier
in their occupation. [It] was decided that we weren't going to arrest
them ... for ... illegal camping. In fact, the discussion even
occurred, well then are we going to enforce illegal camping
anywhere else on the ... campus. And again, that was one of those
things that well, we'll have to talk about that … at a later time and
it was never discussed.” Do you recall what these individuals were
actually cited for? “I believe they were cited for ... failure to comply
to a lawful order, 409 PC, I believe.”

Officer G

61

“Failure to disperse and unlawful assembly, I believe was what it
was.”62

59

Transcribed interview of

60

Transcribed interview of

61

Transcribed interview of

62

Transcribed interview of

Officer A
Officer C
Officer F
Officer G

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

January 20, 2012.
January 20, 2012.
January 20, 2012.
January 20, 2012.

20

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Officer H

“We were informed that ... Student Affairs ... was going to
distribute flyers with information about the University rules
regarding ... overnight camping … on the Quad. They distributed
those flyers. Then

Officer Q

verbally notified the crowd that

was assembling there about the university regulations regarding
camping overnight.”63

Officer I

“If I remember, there was talk [about illegal camping] but it might
have been just between myself and other officers.... I don't know if
it was mentioned at the briefing that if you make an arrest this is
the code to use. I don't think so.” 64

Officer J

No comments.

Officer K

In the briefing, Lieutenant Pike “went over the university policy and
actually read ... some sort of card that was being handed out to
the campers, letting them know they were in violation of university
policy for camping overnight.”65

Officer L

Describes two rounds of arrests, before and after the pepper
spray. “Failure to disperse was the ... the first group. They ... failed
to disperse after a dispersal order was given. The second group ...
that surrounded us were chanting, "We'll let you go if you let them
go"; they linked arms to refuse passage of officers. They made
threats to release inmate, or arrestees from custody that had been
lawfully and legally arrested. That's lynching. Refusing to get out
of our way when we have a suspect, that's a 148. And them doing
it in unison it's conspiracy. As far as I was concerned, I would have
hauled up half dozen to a dozen of them right there and thrown
them all in prison.”

Officer M

63

Transcribed interview of

64

Transcribed interview of

No comments.

Officer H
Officer I
65
Transcribed interview of Officer K
66
Transcribed interview with Officer L
Confidential – Do Not Distribute

66

January 19, 2012.
January 19, 2012.
January 19, 2012.
January 19, 2012.

21

Report to the Office of the President
University of California
UC Davis Incident, November 18, 2011

Officer N
Lieutenant Pike

No comments.
“Both

Officer P

and I had several questions about the legality

of conducting a planned operation during the middle of the
afternoon versus the early morning hours.” 67

Officer P

“Chief Spicuzza gave Lt. Pike and I (Incident Commander) the
assignment of removing tents from the quad on 11-18-11, in
violation of university policy (Overnight Camping Prohibited,
PPM270-20.II.A.5) and Penal Code 602 (M) Entering/Occupying
Real Property Without the Permission of the Owner.”68

67

Supplemental Narrative Report, John Pike, December 13, 2011.

68

Supplemental Narrative Report,

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Officer P

November 30, 2011.

22

An Altegrity Company
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 610
Los Angeles, CA 90071
T 213.443.6090
F 213.443.6050

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

23

 

 

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side
Advertise here
The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct Side