ESPN sues Notre Dame over police records

[ND NYC]

great song...bad analogy, bogs

 

[T Town Tommy]

My understanding of what the judge stated was that he uncomfortable with the current law but made his decision based on the current law. And I think that was the right decision... based on how the law reads. He went on to state that he hoped that in the future the state legislature would look in to the law.

With that said, I do think my Bama fan Bishop makes a compelling argument as to why the law should be changed. The way in which one or two higher profile cases were initially handled by the university police department in the past proves one of two things: 1)either they are inept at performing routine, thorough investigations or, 2) they are handcuffed (pun intended) in their official duties by some other prevailing power. I would hope it is out of their own ineptness... to which I am reminded of the campus police at my school way back in the day.

As far as a burden on the police department to hand over copies of their case files for one year, five years, or even the last ten years... that should be request that should be fairly easy to accomodate. Obviously they have record retention laws, policies, etc. A week of gathering case files, making copies, and providing them to media requests surely wouldn't be that difficult. A couple of well defined computer quieries sorting for student athlete names on reports would be fairly simple and cut down on having to probe every report within those timeframes. As far as ESPN's motives... we all know what that's for. Their lack of solid, nvestigative sports journalism has fallen to the wayside long ago (sorry wizard.)

Should Notre Dame turn over the records that ESPN requesed? Not according to current law. But, as Bishop has pointed out in his arguments, one would think the university would want to be transparent as possible, especially given the current state of police powers, abuses, campus crime, etc. I would think that the Indiana legislature would want to take a look at the law and change it as necessary in order to satisfy the transparancy and accountability any police force and/or university should want. The "take our word for it" arguments has been dismissed long ago with the abuses we have seen at other institutions of higher learning.... including the school that I currently cheer for.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

great song...bad analogy, bogs

Took me a while.

Actually, not so much (a bad analogy in my mind).

My logic goes this way : I saw it as an example of hyperbole through comparison; the opposite aspect of these cases, connotes the gulf between the two situations, which is point I was trying to make. British Colonial rule everywhere is a perfect example (and provides this conversation sharp contrast) with the way things happen in the United States. And it isn't a mistake, (it is one of the things we learned most completely from our former masters).

When a police or military organization get out of line here, (NYPD in the sixties, ONG at Kent State in 1970, southern police forces in the Civil Rights era, CIA [and FBI] from the fifties through the mid-seventies as seen by the Church Committee hearings), the people of our country, through media in concert with the operation of our legal system, have a pretty transparent view of the criminality of authority.

There are rights in criminal and civil cases that promote this which many here are more adept at explaining than I am. But to put a final point on it, there are no similarities between the hunting expedition ESPN goes on with these ratings quests, (dare I say their real goal is ratings) and the kind of institutional kind of behavior that can result in rights violations, unjust injury and death of the citizens of which these forces are sworn to protect.

That is what I tried to say with my crude device.

 

[phgreek]

My understanding of what the judge stated was that he uncomfortable with the current law but made his decision based on the current law. And I think that was the right decision... based on how the law reads. He went on to state that he hoped that in the future the state legislature would look in to the law.

With that said, I do think my Bama fan Bishop makes a compelling argument as to why the law should be changed. The way in which one or two higher profile cases were initially handled by the university police department in the past proves one of two things: 1)either they are inept at performing routine, thorough investigations or, 2) they are handcuffed (pun intended) in their official duties by some other prevailing power. I would hope it is out of their own ineptness... to which I am reminded of the campus police at my school way back in the day.

As far as a burden on the police department to hand over copies of their case files for one year, five years, or even the last ten years... that should be request that should be fairly easy to accomodate. Obviously they have record retention laws, policies, etc. A week of gathering case files, making copies, and providing them to media requests surely wouldn't be that difficult. A couple of well defined computer quieries sorting for student athlete names on reports would be fairly simple and cut down on having to probe every report within those timeframes. As far as ESPN's motives... we all know what that's for. Their lack of solid, nvestigative sports journalism has fallen to the wayside long ago (sorry wizard.)

Should Notre Dame turn over the records that ESPN requesed? Not according to current law. But, as Bishop has pointed out in his arguments, one would think the university would want to be transparent as possible, especially given the current state of police powers, abuses, campus crime, etc. I would think that the Indiana legislature would want to take a look at the law and change it as necessary in order to satisfy the transparancy and accountability any police force and/or university should want. The "take our word for it" arguments has been dismissed long ago with the abuses we have seen at other institutions of higher learning.... including the school that I currently cheer for.

1) was it legal to force ND...you answered ...NO.
2) would any other municipality be forced to comply to a generic "FOIA" type request...the answer is NO. Time and again entities reject requests successfully for lack of specificity, and for good reason. COST. That anyone on the outside through conjecture could see an "easy" way to comply makes huge assumptions about records, in the legal sense...and to say its just a query is SO understating the issues ...other names are on those reports, and summary sheets...got some magic for redaction do ya? It takes hours of review and QA review by legal people...they get cheap all of the sudden? ND is NOT a state institution, so citizens do not have a financial (tax) interest in their doings, and ND has a duty to handle records just like any privately help entity.

I get what you guys are saying about transparency...and I actually agree...but the oversimplification of what goes into "records" production, and what it takes to produce them so you don't get yourself in trouble, or violate someone else's rights when you produce them...seriously, this isn't asking for a city zoning boardl set of meeting minutes, or data supporting a decision about curb and gutter. It is a fucking costly endeavor....unless legal and administrative fees have dropped below 300 bucks an hour for some reason I don't know about...

ONE "FOIA" type request, well specified, that has minors and legal issues attached to it ...Shit, I can't imagine that being produced for less than 25K. So this ain't no 50K a year SQL DB administrator solution...

 

[Legacy]

My understanding of what the judge stated was that he uncomfortable with the current law but made his decision based on the current law. And I think that was the right decision... based on how the law reads. He went on to state that he hoped that in the future the state legislature would look in to the law.

With that said, I do think my Bama fan Bishop makes a compelling argument as to why the law should be changed....

Should Notre Dame turn over the records that ESPN requesed? Not according to current law. But, as Bishop has pointed out in his arguments, one would think the university would want to be transparent as possible, especially given the current state of police powers, abuses, campus crime, etc. I would think that the Indiana legislature would want to take a look at the law and change it as necessary in order to satisfy the transparancy and accountability any police force and/or university should want....

The case before the judge was whether the ND police force was a public entity based on the fact that Indiana had granted the university the power to create a police force to exercise certain powers. NDPD are composed of retired or part-time police officers, so doing proper investigations and an experience in determining if a crime has been committed are not issues.

Comfort
ESPN first filed a complaint with Indiana's Public Assess Counselor, who felt that the ND police were subject to the law, saying "I am not comfortable saying an organization can hide behind the cloak of secrecy when they have the power to arrest and create criminal records and exercise the State’s police powers."

The judge did express his "discomfort with the notion that a private party can exercise police powers without providing to the public the access to records required".

The judge said that all the law does is grant private universities the power to “appoint police officers with certain enumerated powers." He framed the implications of ESPN's argument as “If Notre Dame is a ‘public agency’ because it appoints police officers, it is a public agency, period.”

He also said “similarly uncomfortable” with ruling that Notre Dame was a public entity with access to their records and that this "was not about 'comfort' but the law". He concluded: "This court will not stain the language of the statute in order to do what the Legislature has not..."

"Cloak of Secrecy" and Changing the Law
Jameis Winston's alleged rape was first reported to the Florida State university police, who - once it was determined to have happened off campus - deferred the investigation to the Tallahassee Police Department, who declined providing info to the media based on "ongoing investigation".

Often, campus police may defer arrest and charging to local police and prosecutors as was the case at Michigan State where eleven football players out of 15 to 20 people stormed a on-campus fraternity dorm and started fights sending some to the hospital. Campus police did the investigation forwarding their findings to the local prosecutor and again cited "ongoing investigations" for not providing further information.

Changing the statute to allow media access to university police investigation records of allegations involving student-athletes would allow the media more access than they have to ongoing police investigations. The media would have more access to records within a private university than they had with taxpayer-funded police departments. Also, student-athletes would be placed in a different category than other students.

Transparency
So, the Indiana Legislature would be tasked with changing the law to allow media access to records of campus investigations that do not result in any arrests and are not ongoing investigations while preserving individual rights of privacy of students and not hindering any possible future prosecution. It would also have to address a thorny situation of granting this access on the basis of campus police being on an equal standing as other police departments, but having private university files accessed with more availability and scrutiny than their public cohorts. And is it much of a step that the media should also have access to other students' campus police files just because the campus police are granted their powers by the state?

I can't think of anyone who would offer up access to their records just to prove they are not operating under a "cloak of secrecy".

One prominent coach addressing the media said, “And to make presumptions like you all make really, really upsets me. It really does. It's so unfair. You don't need to write about that. There are so many more good things you can write about happening around here that people would be interested in. I'd love to see some of you do a little bit of research, and figure it out. It would really do my heart good.” Source
(Hint: He was not the Duke lacrosse coach.)

 

[IrishLax]

With that said, I do think my Bama fan Bishop makes a compelling argument as to why the law should be changed. The way in which one or two higher profile cases were initially handled by the university police department in the past proves one of two things: 1)either they are inept at performing routine, thorough investigations or, 2) they are handcuffed (pun intended) in their official duties by some other prevailing power. I would hope it is out of their own ineptness... to which I am reminded of the campus police at my school way back in the day.

Please explain exactly which cases you're referring to and explicitly define what they did wrong.

As far as a burden on the police department to hand over copies of their case files for one year, five years, or even the last ten years... that should be request that should be fairly easy to accomodate. Obviously they have record retention laws, policies, etc. A week of gathering case files, making copies, and providing them to media requests surely wouldn't be that difficult.

It's cute that you think an extremely small group of people dedicating their limited resources for a week to meet the flippant request of a multi-billion dollar media conglomerate is not overly burdensome.

A couple of well defined computer quieries sorting for student athlete names on reports would be fairly simple and cut down on having to probe every report within those timeframes. As far as ESPN's motives... we all know what that's for. Their lack of solid, nvestigative sports journalism has fallen to the wayside long ago (sorry wizard.)

Should Notre Dame turn over the records that ESPN requesed? Not according to current law. But, as Bishop has pointed out in his arguments, one would think the university would want to be transparent as possible, especially given the current state of police powers, abuses, campus crime, etc.

To the contrary, one would expect Notre Dame to stand behind 30 years of precedent and not waste resources for an entity who's only goal is -- as you said -- obvious. There is literally no upside to Notre Dame complying with ESPN.

I would think that the Indiana legislature would want to take a look at the law and change it as necessary in order to satisfy the transparancy and accountability any police force and/or university should want. The "take our word for it" arguments has been dismissed long ago with the abuses we have seen at other institutions of higher learning.... including the school that I currently cheer for.

You all just continue to completely fail to realize what this is actually about. As was posted earlier in this thread, people do not have a right to know everything at all times from every entity... including legal/police matters. Even with public universities this has been well established, as someone gave numerous examples of Penn Sate, FSU, etc. earlier where public entities were even afforded privacy and were not forced to disclose certain things.

With ND... it is a step further. It's a private entity with private security... this is literally no different than a corporation having a security force capable of arresting a trespasser. There is no scenario where Indiana changes the law and Notre Dame continues to have NDSP if that would subject the entire university to being treated as a public entity. Should the day come when Indiana changes the law, then ND would re-classify NDSP into whatever group isn't subject to the law in order to preserve the rights of the University as a whole.

If your point was "I don't think ND should be allowed to have a police force capable of arresting people and they should be closer to mall cops" then that would make sense. But that's not your point, you're all obsessed with this fanciful notion of transparency that just does not fit the realities of the situation.

 

[BGIF]

Debate over Notre Dame police records not over - Politics - South Bend Tribune

By Jeff Parrott South Bend Tribune 21 hours ago

Could the debate over University of Notre Dame Security Police records, and whether they should be public, eventually shift to the Statehouse?

The judge in the case seemed to nudge the issue in that direction. While he ultimately decided that Notre Dame does not need to make its police records public, St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Steven Hostetler this past week wrote in his ruling: “Perhaps this will cause the Indiana Legislature to consider this important matter.”

After all, it was state legislators who first created and wrote the law years ago. Now, at least one local legislator says he’s ready to take on the question of how the law should apply to private universities.

State Rep. B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, has vowed to author legislation or work with others on a bill that would change Indiana’s public records law to specify that records by campus police departments at private colleges and universities must be subject to public disclosure. He says he could introduce the bill as soon as January, when the next session starts.

“I believe any private police force should be under the same rules as a public police force because they’re acting instead of a public police force,” Bauer told The Tribune. “We cannot keep going on this way.”

The veteran lawmaker’s remarks came a day after Judge Hostetler ruled, in a suit brought against Notre Dame by ESPN, that the private university’s police department records aren’t public under records law. The sports media giant and its reporter, Paula Lavigne, sued the school in January when it refused to provide campus police records related to student athletes.

Bauer, a Notre Dame graduate, said he was equally frustrated with how his alma mater has handled sexual assault cases reported to campus police. A day before Hostetler’s ruling, retired NDSP detective Patrick Cottrell told The Tribune that of approximately 30 sexual assault cases he investigated over his 20 years on the department, not one resulted in criminal charges.

...

More at thr Link.

 

[BGIF]

Our Opinion: Again, Notre Dame should be more open - Our Opinion - South Bend Tribune

Updated 20 hours ago

Two different news stories created headlines about the University of Notre Dame at roughly the same time. The connection between the two stories is unmistakable.



On Monday, a St. Joseph County judge ruled that Notre Dame’s campus police department records aren’t public. ESPN had filed a complaint after the university denied a request for police incident reports and logs related to student athletes.

The decision comes as the university is getting an unwanted closeup in the new film “The Hunting Ground,” a documentary that explores sexual assauts on American college campuses. Three alleged incidents of sexual assault involving students at Notre Dame and Saint Mary’s College are featured in the film. Patrick Cottrell, who served two decades as an investigator on Notre Dame’s Security Police department, appears in the film and raises several issues about how the university handles sex assault cases.

Among Cottrell’s concerns are that Notre Dame’s private campus police force doesn’t adhere to Indiana’s public records law, just like every public police agency in the state, and that campus police investigate sex assault cases on their own, instead of joining with the countywide sex assault police investigation unit.

Both are concerns that we share and have expressed on these pages. The Notre Dame Security Police includes sworn Indiana police officers who carry guns, have arrest powers and investigate cases. Yet the university has been consistent over the years in its reluctance to provide basic information when incidents, including allegations of sexual assault, occur on its campus.

We still believe that the Notre Dame police should join the Special Victims Unit, which investigates rape and sexual assault reported throughout St. Joseph County, including every other college and university. Sexual assault is a crime wherever it occurs and it should be the job of a public police agency to investigate, the prosecutor to determine if evidence warrants charges and the courts to determine guilt or innocence. Investigation by Notre Dame’s own Security Police, no matter how thorough and objective, leaves the university open to charges of conflict.

Monday’s court ruling may reinforce Notre Dame officials’ belief that the university’s approach to handling serious criminal investigations in an independent and opaque manner is correct. But we’d suggest they consider the other story from last week, one that put Notre Dame in an uncomfortable spotlight. A large part of that story involved complaints that the university is not transparent enough in its handling of sexual assault cases. A commitment to transparency — regarding every incident, whether criminal or not, and with the reports from those incidents — would benefit students, the community and, yes, the university itself.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Our Opinion: Again, Notre Dame should be more open - Our Opinion - South Bend Tribune

Updated 20 hours ago

My feeling is sexual assault is something where in every case victim names can be protected. And because Federal monies are used by UND students, these cases can be joined for the ST Joe's Co., Special Victim's Unit. This will most effectively make sure each case is correctly identified, investigated, and properly categorized. It will help the victims and be fairer for the alleged perpetrators. I have seen trained "Rape - Trauma Units" work, and they are more compassionate, more comprehensive, and more effective than any generalized police unit, in every case I have seen. If UND turns these cases over, it does not have to disclose anything, and can rely on the discrete nature of the legal process.

 

[IrishLax]

Yeah, there's really no reason not to join with the St. Joseph's County SVU. It's not like they're headed by the clowns from Durham (at least I don't think). Anybody who has an incident can already go to SBPD if they want to though sooo.... I have a hard time seeing how this is actually a change from the status quo.

My opinion is pretty consistent... if you want to change the law, fine. If you want to change NDSP's function, fine. But it's ridiculous to say that a private entity can't have campus security that is likewise private. There are numerous states with numerous communities/corporations/schools that employ private security that receive empowerment from the state to carry weapons, perform arrests, etc. This is not an Indiana issue or a Notre Dame issue... heck, it's not really an issue at all except that ESPN made it one.

So if you say "yeah you can have a private security force but any report of a felony must be investigated by a public police department" maybe that's the best compromise.

 

[kmoose]

Yeah, there's really no reason not to join with the St. Joseph's County SVU.

But once a report is filed by, or with, the St. Joseph's County SVU, then it is fair game for public release, and the holder of said report can be legally compelled to release it. The question, in my mind, is whether or not that presents conflicts with federal student privacy laws? I know that there are some types of information about students that schools are required to keep confidential, but I don't know how those requirements would, or would not, factor in to this kind of arrangement with an organization that is beholden to make public perhaps that same information?

 

[Legacy]

phgreek, kmoose, Bogtrotter and IrishLax (or others) have summarized some issues very eloquently. I'd only add that, as we've seen in the Jameis Winston case, a university imperils itself should it brush aside sexual assault allegations for violating Title IX. Two integral pieces of in any rape case are preservation of evidence and respecting the privacy of the victim at the worst time in their lives. Both of which require the involvement of specially trained professionals with followup care, especially in circumstances like at a university where the victim may well come into contact with her assailant. Victims and their stories will out, especially if an outraged parent that senses a coverup. If you are the investigative press, research it, talk to those involved, document it, and assume liability if you are wrong like Rolling Stone has learned. But, as responsible media, recognize that privacy are integral parts of the judicial and healing processes. It may well be very wise for university police to defer certain cases to those specialty units of - or associated with - the local police department in which case you may hear deferrals of questions to "ongoing investigations".

While those may take some time, universities and football programs can act swiftly with suspensions, dismissals and code of conduct hearings. (With the latter, sometimes not as swiftly as we think it should)

Also know that in some circles the definition of media and, therefore, who can file under the Freedom of Information Act, is being advocated to be expanded to online bloggers.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Please explain exactly which cases you're referring to and explicitly define what they did wrong.

Everyone knows the two major cases that has received the most criticism. And in each case, I don't think it is without reason that the university and/or the NDSP could have handled their investigations better. Even they stated they could have done better.Secondly, even the most senior investigator that worked for the NDSP was critical of how the university handled assault claims. His statements are in the public domain for anyone to read if they want to. So that leaves us with your opinion of how the NDSP handles their investigations and the opinion of the person who actually performed the investigations. While I admire your knowledge of the inner workings of Notre Dame... I think I will take his opinion over yours in this instance.

It's cute that you think an extremely small group of people dedicating their limited resources for a week to meet the flippant request of a multi-billion dollar media conglomerate is not overly burdensome.

A quick search of the NDSP crime reports for the last 2-3 years shows that the overwhelming majority of cases involve illegal drinking of some sort. Say it isn't so on a college campus. The cases involving assault, robbery, burglary, etc., are very few so it would not appear to be "overly burdensome" as you state to find out how many involved student athletes.

To the contrary, one would expect Notre Dame to stand behind 30 years of precedent and not waste resources for an entity who's only goal is -- as you said -- obvious. There is literally no upside to Notre Dame complying with ESPN.

I stated that the judge ruled correctly, according to the current law. Keep in mind that the judge didn't appear to be very confident that the law itself was correct... only that he has to rule as the law is written. Even he stated the law should be reviewed.

You all just continue to completely fail to realize what this is actually about. As was posted earlier in this thread, people do not have a right to know everything at all times from every entity... including legal/police matters. Even with public universities this has been well established, as someone gave numerous examples of Penn Sate, FSU, etc. earlier where public entities were even afforded privacy and were not forced to disclose certain things.

I don't think ESPN, or any other entity, wants to know everything about everything. They did sue to get records of student athletes who may or may not have been in trouble with the police. While I do agree the public doesn't need to know the names of the student athletes who may have ran afoul with the law, I don't think it is unreasonable to request the information behind such cases.

With ND... it is a step further. It's a private entity with private security... this is literally no different than a corporation having a security force capable of arresting a trespasser. There is no scenario where Indiana changes the law and Notre Dame continues to have NDSP if that would subject the entire university to being treated as a public entity. Should the day come when Indiana changes the law, then ND would re-classify NDSP into whatever group isn't subject to the law in order to preserve the rights of the University as a whole.

Which is why Notre Dame will be criticized even more for their lack of transparency. If one has nothing to hide, then why would they not be forthcoming in dealings with their student athletes. I can't count the number of times I have read posters on this very forum criticize schools - both public and private - for not being transparent in their dealings with the law as it pertains to their student athletes. And with good reason in most instances. But for posters that are Irish fans, it appears some want their cake and eat it too. Which is it? Should we only believe the University of Notre Dame and be damned all other schools?

If your point was "I don't think ND should be allowed to have a police force capable of arresting people and they should be closer to mall cops" then that would make sense. But that's not your point, you're all obsessed with this fanciful notion of transparency that just does not fit the realities of the situation.

If Notre Dame has nothing to worry about, then I don't see how transparency isn't a good thing. I don't believe the public has the right to know everything, but I again allude to the current climate of police brutality, sexual assault, campus crime, etc., and wonder why an institution of higher learning - either public or private - would not want to reassure prospective students and their parents that if something ever happened on campus they would be reassured that the investigations would be done fairly and impartially. And according to the former investigator for the NDSP, that may not have always been the case. At least with sexual assault... he never had one person accused of assault testify in court in his 20 years as investigator. Think about that and tell me there isn't need for more transparency. I respectfully differ... law or no law.

 

[IrishLax]

The thing is I don't actually think you and I disagree much, we're just approaching it from opposite ends of the spectrum. You and I both think it's reasonable that the law be revised. You and I both think police accountability is important, and that there needs to be transparency in the judicial process.

Where we disagree is whether ESPN should be able to do fishing expeditions at a significant burden to the school to dig up unpursued allegations and write a spin article, and whether the current system is acceptable for disclosure of documents. You think ESPN's request is reasonable, I think it's completely unreasoanble given the precedent of how Notre Dame has been operating for 30+ years and how similar private entities with empower police forces operate all over the country. It seems unfair. You think there isn't enough transparency, I think there's enough considering that any case where a party requests prosecution or further investigation is subject to applicable public records laws of the state.

Everyone knows the two major cases that has received the most criticism. And in each case, I don't think it is without reason that the university and/or the NDSP could have handled their investigations better.

Nope. Please explain which two cases you're talking about, whether their reports are public, and what specifically they did wrong.

The entire point you're making for the need for transparency is ironic considering in both the cases I believe you're talking about (but I'll let you specify which they are) all police documents were turned over to the public. Sooo....

A quick search of the NDSP crime reports for the last 2-3 years shows that the overwhelming majority of cases involve illegal drinking of some sort. Say it isn't so on a college campus. The cases involving assault, robbery, burglary, etc., are very few so it would not appear to be "overly burdensome" as you state to find out how many involved student athletes.

I stated that the judge ruled correctly, according to the current law. Keep in mind that the judge didn't appear to be very confident that the law itself was correct... only that he has to rule as the law is written. Even he stated the law should be reviewed.

He also stated, as Legacy noted above, that he was "similarly uncomfortable" ruling that Notre Dame was a public entity. So he's not on one side of the fence and saying his hands are tied by the law, what he's saying is that if this isn't how the law was intended to function, then it's up to the legislature to modify it and he won't do that for them.

I don't think ESPN, or any other entity, wants to know everything about everything. They did sue to get records of student athletes who may or may not have been in trouble with the police. While I do agree the public doesn't need to know the names of the student athletes who may have ran afoul with the law, I don't think it is unreasonable to request the information behind such cases.

Which is why Notre Dame will be criticized even more for their lack of transparency. If one has nothing to hide, then why would they not be forthcoming in dealings with their student athletes. I can't count the number of times I have read posters on this very forum criticize schools - both public and private - for not being transparent in their dealings with the law as it pertains to their student athletes. And with good reason in most instances. But for posters that are Irish fans, it appears some want their cake and eat it too. Which is it? Should we only believe the University of Notre Dame and be damned all other schools?

Really? Where are those criticism? I, frankly, can't remember anyone on this site ever demanding to know truths from private Universities that they think they're entitled to for some reason. And I've posted WAY too much on this site, so I think I'd remember it.

Notre Dame operates no different than hundreds of other private colleges or thousands of corporations/neighborhoods/communities who get approval from their state to have private security on their grounds employed by them with the approval to make arrests and carry weapons.

What people are taking exception to is that no one... not ESPN, not other media, not random message boards... gives a single crap about any of those places. But when Big Media sees a potential opportunity to get pageviews on a muckraking article that takes uncharged allegations and twist them into "guilt" or "cover up" then suddenly that's a noble cause.

If Notre Dame has nothing to worry about, then I don't see how transparency isn't a good thing. I don't believe the public has the right to know everything, but I again allude to the current climate of police brutality, sexual assault, campus crime, etc., and wonder why an institution of higher learning - either public or private - would not want to reassure prospective students and their parents that if something ever happened on campus they would be reassured that the investigations would be done fairly and impartially. And according to the former investigator for the NDSP, that may not have always been the case. At least with sexual assault... he never had one person accused of assault testify in court in his 20 years as investigator. Think about that and tell me there isn't need for more transparency. I respectfully differ... law or no law.

It's pretty funny that you're pulling from a "documentary" widely condemned by anyone who fact checks as, at best, misleading... but by those that don't it's considered a masterpiece. Not only does the "college rape epidemic" not exist (people in college are FAR less likely to be raped than those not in college), but let's look at the actual statement you're talking about. He said 30 cases in 20 years... so 1.5 allegations a year. In the public, the prosecution rate for sexual assault is below 15%... so in those 30 cases the expectation would've been to have 4 to 5 allegations get prosecuted. So having 0 cases out of 30 prosecuted is well within reason just by pure chance alone. But let's dig further...

"Cottrell said his bosses at Notre Dame would verbally support victims of sexual assault. They accepted his reports, he said, but no pressure was applied to the prosecutor's office to file charges. Cottrell doesn't know precisely how many of the cases he investigated were forwarded to the prosecutor's office." -- one hit on is that Notre Dame, like pretty much every other college in the country, has an internal processes/hearing students can choose to use if they have a sexual assault complaint. These processes come in many forms, such as the one at Yale that hosed a completely innocent Rhodes Scholar candidate with a scorned girlfriend, but every college has them. Cottrell admits that many of complainants went this route... he also admittedly does not know how many cases were given to prosecutors and if the complainants refused to cooperate/press charges. Considering the complainants at any time could've referred the case to the St. Joe's County SVU and attempted to press forward, it seems likely they simply opted not to.

Then let's look at his other complaints:
-Policy of not involving coaches in investigations... makes total sense. The fact that he objects to this is idiotic. If you can't see that, then you didn't follow Penn State or Vandy with Franklin closely enough. Coaches should not be involved in criminal investigations, period. Unless, obviously, they're a witness. There needs to be a clear separation of powers between athletics officials and campus discipline.

This complaint was pretty accurately shot down by these comments:

Johnson on Friday responded to Cottrell's claim. "I specifically directed officers not to involve third parties," the police chief said. "That means officers should approach a student for questioning directly, through a rector at the student's residence hall or, in the case of an off-campus student, going to the student's house or apartment."
Johnson said the same approach applies to non-student athletes — that officers are expected to approach them at their residence rather than through staff for any extracurricular activity. It wasn't a policy change so much as a directive on how a good investigation should proceed, he said.
University spokesman Paul Browne also said the practice applies to all students, not just student athletes.
Browne disputes Cottrell's claim in the film that university officials sought to keep campus crime statistics as low as possible. Even if a suspect is not charged with a crime, all crimes reported by victims to police or university officials are included in the annual crime statistics, Browne said.
He wonders if Cottrell was pressured by the filmmakers to make the statement about keeping crime stats low. "You never know what ends up on the cutting room floor," he said.

-Lack of support for complainants in the hearings process... no examples given.
-Investigation of sexual assault cases independent of the St. Joe's SVU... very legitimate criticism.

Of the two cases noted in The Hunting Grounds, it should be noted that the prosecutor WAS involved and declined to file charges believing there was no case and therefor, like any case that gets to this point, the records are public and available for request by ESPN or whoever. So you have an investigation performed by this guy (Cottrell) who the movie is putting up as a crusader... where the evidence he collected didn't amount to enough for the prosecutor to want to charge. Seems like the complaint should be with the prosecutor (NOT affiliated with Notre Dame) for not wanting to pursue the case or with Cottrell for not doing a good enough job investigating.

Either way, the public records law and ND's reluctance to genuflect at the altar of ESPN seems inapplicable to any case where the victim wants it public. With Seeberg, all files were turned over. With Hudak, all files were turned over. With any specific case where a victim wants it prosecuted, the police reports become public domain once they hit the prosecutors hands. So the only reason to go on a fishing expedition is still to dig up dropped allegations that no party to the allegation wants public in order to write a spin story. How can anyone support that?

 

[irishff1014]

I know this really isn't ND related but ESPN is trying to sue Verizon about the TV contract. Apparently Verizon is charging extra for ESPN,espn2,and ESPN u in which I assume ESPN wants some of that money.

 

[IrishLion]

I know this really isn't ND related but ESPN is trying to sue Verizon about the TV contract. Apparently Verizon is charging extra for ESPN,espn2,and ESPN u in which I assume ESPN wants some of that money.

The issue is actually that Verizon is offering a basic cable package that doesn't include sports programming, and offering other packages in which the sports and "sports premium" can be added.

ESPN says that their programming must be included in basic cable packages via their contract, which Verizon is not adhering to with their new offerings, and so ESPN is taking legal action.

You can find a discussion on that in the ESPN thread.

 

[Legacy]

Changing Indiana law to provide access

Changing Indiana law to provide access

Here's the Open Government Guide on Indiana laws by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

It's helpful in defining what is a public entity, i.e "A “public entity” is any provider of goods, services, or other benefits that is: (1) maintained in whole or in part at public expense; or
(2) supported in whole or part by appropriations or public funds or by taxation." (Open Records, Section 4)

Also helpful is a definition of nongovernmental agencies subject to the laws, but, in general, is usually determined by a totality of factors including the degree to which the entity receives public funding, the extent to which the entity operates under the authority of a governmental agency, what financial interest a governmental agency has in the non-governmental agency, how much decision-making a governmental agency has in the entity, ownership of land of the entity, etc.

Exclusions include any investigative records of law enforcement agencies, medical files, etc (Section II, A, 2). What are not excluded are records of individuals arrested or jailed.

An applicant must be specific as far in their request for records from non-governmental agencies who fall under the limits of these laws.

Changes
Necessary changes to the law to cover ND security/police would need to encompass incidents on privately owned land by a private university which derives minimal funding from government in which no arrests were made with the exclusions above. The new laws would need to protect the privacy of any individuals involved if no crime was committed.

What does concern me is a professional, experienced ND police officer who worked for decades during which he may have felt laws were broken and coverups were made but continued in his role of investigator while saying nothing. That's what got Penn State officials charged and in front of a judge.

 

[phgreek]

I know this really isn't ND related but ESPN is trying to sue Verizon about the TV contract. Apparently Verizon is charging extra for ESPN,espn2,and ESPN u in which I assume ESPN wants some of that money.

easy...ESPN is harder to deal with...they are the driver of the price increase...so they are asking to get paid to be a pain in the ass...what a gig.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The thing is I don't actually think you and I disagree much, we're just approaching it from opposite ends of the spectrum.

I would agree with that.

Where we disagree is whether ESPN should be able to do fishing expeditions at a significant burden to the school to dig up unpursued allegations and write a spin article, and whether the current system is acceptable for disclosure of documents.

While I think ESPN is on a fishing expedition, I also believe their role as sports journalists is to do just that. I have stated my opinions on their lack of effective investigative journalism in the past, but I can't condemn them when they are trying... no matter who or which institution they are trying to "fish." The results of their journalistic reporting would and should be open for debate. Furthermore, I disagree on it being a burden on the NDSP since we are only talking a handful of cases each year that would fall under crimes where there may have been a victim. I don't really think ESPN cares if Johnny WR was caught with a six pack of beer and he was only 19 at the time. And illegal drinking is the overwhelming majority of the case files handled by NDSP.

Nope. Please explain which two cases you're talking about, whether their reports are public, and what specifically they did wrong.

I stated that even the university said they could have done a more effective job with the two cases that everyone knows about, one of which led to a months long federal OCR iinvestigation and pending settlement by Notre Dame in which the university agreed to make their process of handling sexual assaults more adequate and in line with Title IX requirements.

What people are taking exception to is that no one... not ESPN, not other media, not random message boards... gives a single crap about any of those places. But when Big Media sees a potential opportunity to get pageviews on a muckraking article that takes uncharged allegations and twist them into "guilt" or "cover up" then suddenly that's a noble cause.

Hence the reason any "story" by ESPN should be scrutinized. I have long given up on them being top notch investigative journalists and have myself accused them in the past of only wanting to draw more internet "hits" and/or tv viewers. But until they put a story out there... which is still a part of their reason for being... I can't state with certainty that it is factual or not.

It's pretty funny that you're pulling from a "documentary" widely condemned by anyone who fact checks as, at best, misleading... but by those that don't it's considered a masterpiece. Not only does the "college rape epidemic" not exist (people in college are FAR less likely to be raped than those not in college), but let's look at the actual statement you're talking about. He said 30 cases in 20 years... so 1.5 allegations a year. In the public, the prosecution rate for sexual assault is below 15%... so in those 30 cases the expectation would've been to have 4 to 5 allegations get prosecuted. So having 0 cases out of 30 prosecuted is well within reason just by pure chance alone. But let's dig further...

I haven't seen the current documentary nor will I. I do give credit to Notre Dame for allowing it to be screened on campus to bring awareness to sexual assault on college campus' around the country. I based my comments directly from the NDSP investigator that was reported in the South Bend Tribune.

"Cottrell said his bosses at Notre Dame would verbally support victims of sexual assault. They accepted his reports, he said, but no pressure was applied to the prosecutor's office to file charges. Cottrell doesn't know precisely how many of the cases he investigated were forwarded to the prosecutor's office." -- one hit on is that Notre Dame, like pretty much every other college in the country, has an internal processes/hearing students can choose to use if they have a sexual assault complaint. These processes come in many forms, such as the one at Yale that hosed a completely innocent Rhodes Scholar candidate with a scorned girlfriend, but every college has them. Cottrell admits that many of complainants went this route... he also admittedly does not know how many cases were given to prosecutors and if the complainants refused to cooperate/press charges. Considering the complainants at any time could've referred the case to the St. Joe's County SVU and attempted to press forward, it seems likely they simply opted not to.

But his comments line up with the exact same reasoning the OCR investigated Notre Dame. Paraphrasing what he said, his biggest concerns was the fact that he felt the system used by Notre Dame didn't do enough to protect the alleged victims and/or the victims was unsure or hesitate to pursue their claims based on how their initial claims were handled. The OCR concluded that the process should be streamlined and that every complaint should be handled under Title IX requirements... and Notre Dame agreed to do just that moving forward.... given I comprehended what I read. While there were other avenues for alleged victims to take, it appears some either did not know them or was hesitate to go those routes based on how their case was initially handled by the NDSP and/or university.

Then let's look at his other complaints:
-Policy of not involving coaches in investigations... makes total sense. The fact that he objects to this is idiotic. If you can't see that, then you didn't follow Penn State or Vandy with Franklin closely enough. Coaches should not be involved in criminal investigations, period. Unless, obviously, they're a witness. There needs to be a clear separation of powers between athletics officials and campus discipline.

His complaint centered around the fact that it appeared to only apply to student athletes. That may or not be correct as his supervisor at the time stated it applied to every student. Not having a written policy in place... the policy was apparently changed verbally... was something one would think the university and NDSP would want to have on official record for such things as properly investigated cases and/or transparency issues if ever questioned.

I do agree no coach should ever be involved in an ongoing case, partly because of the whole Franklin ordeal. But an investigator showing up at the practice facility because he could not locate the student athlete doesn't seem to be a big issue. Any investigator worth his weight in salt would tell the coach they need to see a player due to a pending investigation and that's that. If the coach asks what's up, any effective investigator should tell him he can't discuss it with the coach for obvious reasons.

Of the two cases noted in The Hunting Grounds, it should be noted that the prosecutor WAS involved and declined to file charges believing there was no case and therefor, like any case that gets to this point, the records are public and available for request by ESPN or whoever. So you have an investigation performed by this guy (Cottrell) who the movie is putting up as a crusader... where the evidence he collected didn't amount to enough for the prosecutor to want to charge. Seems like the complaint should be with the prosecutor (NOT affiliated with Notre Dame) for not wanting to pursue the case or with Cottrell for not doing a good enough job investigating.

His concerns on the one case was the fact that when the process took place his investigation showed contradicting statements from the accused and others. He stated that based in large part on that , he felt the prosecutor should have sent it to grand jury. The prosecutor declined.

As far as campus sexual assault being overblown, I don't believe anyone can say that with reasonable certainty. We simply don't know how many victims don't report their crimes out of fear of retaliation, shame, broken institutional systems, etc.

In the end, I am confident Notre Dame is doing what they should to address any issues with their student athletes. But I can also see how many would suspect otherwise given the lack of transparency generated by the current laws that are in place. Should the laws be changed to enable even private institutions the ability to show they are above board when it comes to such cases? Again, I would say the institution should want that so they can be above the fray that has been shown to happen when it involves the student athlete... especially those athletes that bring a tremendous amount of revenue to the schools. And yes... the student athlete has to be protected as well. There is a fine line in all of it, but given the current climate of campus sexual assault - real or not - I would hope every school would do the right thing. Taking their word for it doesn't appear to be good enough these days... nor should it.

Good conversation Lax. Thanks for being open-minded about it.

 

[Legacy]

I hate these whispers, innuendos, half-truths, assumptions, speculations, citation of partial statements and smearing. This is probably what ESPN would do.

You think Notre Dame is hiding the truth about their student athletes, prove it.

Keep in mind that sexual assault is like no other crime with much of the decision-making on examination, involvement of legal authorities, commitment to testify, counseling and support, and disclosure in the hands of the victim. There are avenues outside of a campus police department for an on-campus incident that can be pursued. Cover-ups are very hard to maintain.

 

[wizards8507]

You think Notre Dame is hiding the truth about their student athletes, prove it.

That's absolutely not the legal issue here. "Notre Dame," as in "The University of Notre Dame," absolutely has the legal right (and legal obligation really) to maintain confidentiality regarding their student athletes. Nobody is arguing that. The argument is whether the Notre Dame Security Police, as currently constituted and chartered, is an entity of the private University of Notre Dame and therefore exempt from public disclosure laws. Nobody (not even ESPN) is saying that the University should make university documents available to information requests. Instead, the question is whether NDSP must make police records available to information requests, since they're a fully chartered police force in the State of Indiana.

I'm personally extremely uncomfortable with this interpretation of a semi-private police force that is completely exempt from disclosure and public oversight requirements yet somehow maintains the power of arrest.

 

[Legacy]

That's absolutely not the legal issue here. "Notre Dame," as in "The University of Notre Dame," absolutely has the legal right (and legal obligation really) to maintain confidentiality regarding their student athletes. Nobody is arguing that. The argument is whether the Notre Dame Security Police, as currently constituted and chartered, is an entity of the private University of Notre Dame and therefore exempt from public disclosure laws. Nobody (not even ESPN) is saying that the University should make university documents available to information requests. Instead, the question is whether NDSP must make police records available to information requests, since they're a fully chartered police force in the State of Indiana.

I'm personally extremely uncomfortable with this interpretation of a semi-private police force that is completely exempt from disclosure and public oversight requirements yet somehow maintains the power of arrest.

I certainly understand your feeling that you disagree with the judge on this matter and would like some change to Indiana's law on this. Others agree with you, too.

Feel free to disagree on any points in my previous posts (158 & 170 may be applicable). Also, 137 and 139 have ESPN losing on similar complaints according to Pennsylvania and Ohio State laws.

 

[wizards8507]

easy...ESPN is harder to deal with...they are the driver of the price increase...so they are asking to get paid to be a pain in the ass...what a gig.

I get it. You hate ESPN. Others hate ESPN. But if Verizon signs a CONTRACT with ESPN, your hatred of them and belief that they're a pain in the ass is not legal justification for the alleged breach.

 

[Legacy]

easy...ESPN is harder to deal with...they are the driver of the price increase...so they are asking to get paid to be a pain in the ass...what a gig.

ESPN is a > $50 billion company. deriving most of its income from cable. Here's the table (from Wall Street Journal) for cable channel costs, which have reached over $6 a month for ESPN with an expected increase of 39% in four years by 2018. That monthly charge is way more than any other content provider. How Much Cable Subscribers Pay Per Channel (Aug 2014)

ESPN is now targeting the broadband only group of 10-15 million current subscribers and reached agreement with Dish. But they evidently couldn't with Verizon, so they sued - and have plenty of money to pursue this as far as they want to gather in more market share.

What you pay for Sports

 

[wizards8507]

ESPN is a > $50 billion company. deriving most of its income from cable. Here's the table (from Wall Street Journal) for cable channel costs, which have reached over $6 a month for ESPN with an expected increase of 39% in four years by 2018. That monthly charge is way more than any other content provider. How Much Cable Subscribers Pay Per Channel (Aug 2014)

ESPN is now targeting the broadband only group of 10-15 million current subscribers and reached agreement with Dish. But they evidently couldn't with Verizon, so they sued - and have plenty of money to pursue this as far as they want to gather in more market share.

What you pay for Sports

You seem to be implying that ESPN is acting as a bully in this situation. Verizon is larger than The Walt Disney Company in its entirety, let alone ESPN, so I don't exactly pity them. Further, ESPN is not going after new market share but preserving that market share to which they are already legally entitled. Verizon is in breach by not including ESPN in these packages, which they are contractually obligated to do. This isn't about what's good or bad for consumers, it's about what Verizon agreed to do and not do.

Also, it's not just ESPN. Fox and NBC are both furious at what Verizon is doing. This is the first of what will likely be several lawsuits depending on the contents of those other agreements.

At the end of the day, sports networks are uniquely positioned as we move deeper into broadband content delivery and away from cable packages. Live sports are the only "DVR-proof" content out there, so it'll eventually be the only thing that advertisers continue to spend money on.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[phgreek]

I get it. You hate ESPN. Others hate ESPN. But if Verizon signs a CONTRACT with ESPN, your hatred of them and belief that they're a pain in the ass is not legal justification for the alleged breach.

Fair enough...Unfair to ESPN here. Guilty.

I was more talking about the premium of time it takes to deal with the market juggernaut post contract that likely causes negotiated rates to be WOEFULLY inadequate. Despite your belief, ESPN is not an easy "partner", and is not above causing great pain post contract...if it sees it is in its best interest to do so, it will twist and turn, and it has the resources to do so. That you contend it may be happening to ESPN here...ok, sorry about that.

I don't hate ESPN.... I think ESPN has some really good stuff...I was physically ill went Mr. Scott passed. I like SVP. I like Mike & Mike. Dare I say I like Olbermann in the sports arena....among others. Again the talent is there, and credible in many cases...As an ND fan I am very leery of ESPN for obvious reasons. As a person who once had interests in sports media, I know a little about ESPN on the business side.

 

[Redbar]

OTL: UF, FSU athletes often avoid prosecution
FLORIDA GATORS15hPaula Lavigne
Lawyers, status, public backlash aid college athletes accused of crimes
15h - COLLEGE FOOTBALL MEN'S COLLEGE BASKETBALL +19 mo
Paula Lavigne, ESPN Staff Writer

As a University of Florida running back, Chris Rainey was named a suspect in five crimes in Gainesville. He faced charges once.

Rainey's experience as a star athlete accused of criminal activity -- stalking, fighting, injuring someone with fireworks -- but ending up with a mostly clean record is not uncommon: From 2009 to 2014, male basketball and football players at the University of Florida and Florida State University avoided criminal charges or prosecution on average two-thirds of the time when named as suspects in police documents, a result far exceeding that of non-athlete males in the same age range, an Outside the Lines investigation has found.

Last fall, to determine how often crimes involving college athletes are prosecuted and what factors influence them, Outside the Lines requested police reports involving all football and men's basketball players on rosters from 2009 to 2014 from campus and city police departments covering 10 major programs: Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Michigan State, Missouri, Notre Dame, Oklahoma State, Oregon State, Texas A&M and Wisconsin. Some police departments withheld records citing state disclosure laws. (ESPN sued the University of Notre Dame and Michigan State University for not releasing material; both cases are pending on appeal.) And not all information was uniform among jurisdictions.

ABOUT THIS PROJECT
Outside the Lines cross-referenced football and men's basketball rosters from 2009 through 2014 at 10 schools with police reports from 20 campus and city police departments to complete this project. How to interpret the data.

Individual reports about what Outside the Lines found at each school studied:

• Auburn
• Florida
• Florida State
• Michigan State
• Missouri
• Notre Dame
• Oklahoma State
• Oregon State
• Texas A&M
• Wisconsin
But available reports showed that Rainey's alma mater, Florida, had the most athletes -- 80 -- named as suspects in more than 100 crimes at Florida. Yet the athletes either never faced charges, had charges against them dropped or were not prosecuted 56 percent of the time. When Outside the Lines examined a comparison set of cases involving college-age males in Gainesville, 28 percent of the crimes ended either without a record of charges being filed or by charges eventually being dropped.

Florida State had the second-highest number of athletes named in criminal allegations: 66 men's basketball and football athletes. In 70 percent of those incidents, the athletes either never faced charges, had charges against them dropped or were not prosecuted. By comparison, cases ended up without being prosecuted 50 percent of the time among a sample of crimes involving college-age males in Tallahassee.

Overall, the Outside the Lines investigation found that what occurs between high-profile college athletes and law enforcement is not as simple as the commonly held perception that police and prosecutors simply show preferential treatment, though that does occur. Rather, the examination of more than 2,000 documents shows that athletes from the 10 schools mainly benefited from the confluence of factors that can be reality at major sports programs: the near-immediate access to high-profile attorneys, the intimidation that is felt by witnesses who accuse athletes, and the higher bar some criminal justice officials feel needs to be met in high-profile cases.

Other factors found from the examination of the 10 schools:

• Athletic department officials inserted themselves into investigations many times. Some tried to control when and where police talked with athletes, while others insisted on being present during player interviews, alerted defense attorneys, conducted their own investigations before contacting police, and even, in one case, handled potential crime-scene evidence. Some police officials were torn about proper procedure -- unsure when to seek a coach's or athletic director's assistance when investigating crimes.

• Some athletic programs have, in effect, a team lawyer who showed up at a crime scene or jail or police department -- sometimes even before an athlete requested legal counsel. The lawyers, sometimes called by athletic department officials, were often successful in giving athletes an edge in evading prosecution -- from minor offenses to major crimes.

• The high profiles of the athletic programs and athletes had a chilling effect on whether cases were even brought to police and how they were investigated. Numerous cases never resulted in charges because accusers and witnesses were afraid to detail wrongdoing, they feared harassment from fans and the media, or they were pressured to drop charges in the interest of the sports programs.

'I conducted my own investigation'

On a Thursday morning in mid-December in 2010, just as the Oklahoma State men's basketball team was getting ready to practice, six police officers showed up at Gallagher-Iba Arena in Stillwater and approached head basketball coach Travis Ford. The officers had a search warrant and wanted to speak with some players, but especially Darrell Williams.

Williams was under investigation for rape and sexual battery.

He was in a film session, Ford told the officers -- they'd have to wait 10 minutes. So two officers waited, and 30 minutes later, Williams arrived. One of the officers wrote in a police report that Ford "was hesitant to do anything to assist us in locating the players and executing the warrants."

College athletes and crime

Outside the Lines studied how many football and men's basketball players from 2009-14 were suspects in criminal incidents.


A year and a half later, during Williams' criminal trial, testimony revealed that Ford had actually heard about the sexual assault allegations before being contacted by police -- through a letter the alleged victims sent to his office. After he received the letter, Ford had Williams and another player come to his house for a meeting to talk about the allegations. Ford said he never contacted police because the letter had indicated police had been notified.

"I conducted my own investigation," Ford testified in court.

His conclusion? Williams was innocent.

A jury in July 2012 found otherwise, convicting Williams of rape and sexual battery; however, the conviction was overturned on appeal last year when it was determined at least two jurors had made an unauthorized visit to the crime scene. Ford and an athletic department spokesman did not respond to requests for comment from Outside the Lines.

Former Assistant District Attorney Jill Ochs-Tontz deems the incident and what happened afterward wholly disturbing.

"By the time law enforcement got involved, Travis Ford [had] pulled the athletes in, talked to them and made sure their stories were straight," she said. "From the university's side, they moved immediately to protect these athletes and did not cooperate in the investigation."

In the Outside the Lines investigation, the Stillwater Police Department stood out because its officers are instructed not to notify school officials when an allegation involves an athlete, unlike many departments where it's common to give athletic departments or universities a heads up: "It would give the appearance that there could be some special treatment," said department spokesman Capt. Kyle Gibbs. "We don't want to give anybody special treatment."

Police reports involving athletes at several schools show that city and campus police routinely notify campus administrators, coaches or athletic department officials when an athlete is involved in a crime. Some -- such as the University of Wisconsin campus police, University of Florida campus police and Corvallis (Oregon) police -- also had liaisons assigned to the athletic department or university officials.

It also works in reverse, with officials at some athletic programs -- including Florida, Florida State and Oregon State -- reaching out to police and prosecutors. And sometimes, they want more than just information.

In a Florida State University Police Department case from August 2012, officers asked a football player if they could examine his car in connection with a possible hit-and-run, but he told them he was busy and would call back later. He did so but never reached an officer. Officers ultimately heard from FSU associate athletic director Monk Bonasorte, who asked if he could bring the vehicle to the police station "due to [the player] being in a mandatory football meeting."


Former Oklahoma State basketball player Darrell Williams reacts after being found guilty of rape. The conviction would later be overturned on appeal. AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki
Bonasorte's name appears in multiple players' police reports. He also helps arrange legal representation for players accused of crimes.

After reviewing details of the alleged hit-and-run and Bonasorte's involvement, Florida State Police Chief David Perry told Outside the Lines "that's not how it always goes. ... I am not in support of anyone else trying to intervene" in an investigation. He added that sometimes, though, a coach or administrator can be helpful in getting an athlete to cooperate.

A former Florida State athletic department employee told Outside the Lines that Bonasorte's routine involvement in criminal cases troubled some colleagues because of the administrator's own record; Bonasorte, a former Florida State football standout, pleaded guilty in 1987 for cocaine distribution and served six months in prison. Bonasorte, through a university spokeswoman, declined a request for an interview.

"He is kind of the fixer for football," the former staff member said. "He knows where the skeletons are buried, but he also helps keep those football players, not out of trouble, but out of paying for the trouble they've gotten into."

In Tallahassee, Outside the Lines found at least nine examples from 2009 to 2014 in which officers documented that Florida State coaches or athletic department officials tried to determine when and where city police would interview athletes or attempted other involvement.

"That would be a classic example of real poor police work," said Willie Meggs, the state of Florida's chief prosecuting attorney in the Tallahassee region. "You don't do an interview of a suspect -- football, non-football, athlete, non-athlete -- in their own comfortable environment. That's common sense."

A civil lawsuit filed this year against Florida State for how it addressed allegations of sexual assault against quarterback Jameis Winston includes an allegation that Bonasorte did not permit Tallahassee police detectives to contact two witnesses, who were also football players, until after Bonasorte had called attorneys for them.

Tallahassee police officials declined to be interviewed for this story but addressed specific questions about their practices with a statement via email that read in part: "If the investigators are unable to directly contact the involved party, they will then utilize intermediaries, including family, friends or attorneys to locate and conduct an interview with the involved party."

The exact opposite happened in 2010 at the University of Notre Dame, in one of the school's most notorious cases involving an allegation against a member of the football team.

Lizzy Seeberg, a student at neighboring St. Mary's College, told police that she had been sexually assaulted by a football player. But police didn't interview him until two weeks after Seeberg reported the incident -- and five days after Seeberg had committed suicide. Police initially indicated they couldn't find the athlete, according to her father, Tom Seeberg, even though there was a home football game just three days after the incident was reported.

That Tom Seeberg said police could not find the athlete on campus or at practice didn't surprise former Notre Dame police officer Pat Cottrell, who said a university policy prevented campus police from approaching athletes at any athletic facility. Further, the university would not allow anyone on the athletic staff to be contacted for help in finding a player, he said.


FSU associate athletic director Monk Bonasorte, who often communicates with police when Seminoles players are accused of crimes. Special to ESPN
Cottrell, who worked 20 years for the department, said the policy took effect during Charlie Weis' coaching tenure, which began in 2005. Notre Dame officials did not respond to multiple messages left by Outside the Lines. Cottrell said he only came across the policy when dealing with athletes, although university officials have said in prior media reports that athletes did not receive special treatment.

Whether athletic department or university officials are aggressively involved or being potentially obstructive or both -- the actions can affect investigations, police reports show.

In October 2013, when Tallahassee police showed up at FSU basketball player Ian Miller's apartment to question him about a stolen vehicle, police wrote that "men's basketball coach, Coach [Leonard] Hamilton, requested to be with Ian during questioning by police. Ian's story slightly changed from his original story."

(Miller's brother would end up admitting to taking the vehicle, and he agreed to pay the victim for any damage; prosecutors declined to pursue charges. Miller was named as a suspect in three other crimes while at Florida State but never charged.)

Hamilton did not respond to requests for an interview. Miller, who is now playing professional basketball in Italy, answered questions via text message and wrote that coaches become involved because they "don't want any false things being said about their players."

"They wanted to make sure the cops handled the situation in orderly fashion," he wrote. "... Some coaches at other schools could care less about their players. They just use 'em. But at FSU, for all sports ... our coaches genuinely care and love their players and treat us as if we are their own kids and that's from scholarship players to walk on."

Police officers who support notifying coaches or college administrators say it prepares schools for the likely media onslaught that follows and can sometimes help get athletes to talk.

Officers in some departments refer certain incidents to coaches or school officials for punishment instead of pursuing criminal charges, especially for what the officers say are minor offenses or when evidence might fall short of prosecution. That's how Gainesville police handled Aaron Hernandez when the former Florida tight end admitted to drinking at a bar and hitting a bar manager when he was 17. Officers said they wouldn't charge him for underage drinking, "but that it would be noted in the report so the coaching staff may handle that issue internally."

According to the report, the bar manager told police he wanted to press charges for the alleged assault, but two weeks later told them that "he has been contacted by legal staff and coaches with UF and that they are working on an agreement" and "that he may request that charges be dropped." Public court records, which are limited in juvenile cases, show no resolution for that incident.

Expert legal help a phone call away

Hernandez's attorney was a man named Huntley Johnson, a graduate of Florida's law school, donor to its athletic fund, and counsel to so many Florida athletes that a local newspaper even dubbed him the Gators' real MVP.

When Outside the Lines first presented Ben Tobias, spokesman for the Gainesville Police Department, with data showing athletes were less likely to be prosecuted than non-athletes, Tobias said the main reason was likely the athletes' unique access to legal counsel, which Outside the Lines found was a factor at such other schools as Florida State, Missouri and Oklahoma State.

Repeat offenders

Among the football and men's basketball players studied by Outside the Lines, there were many repeat offenders.


"Sometimes we joke that [Huntley Johnson's] got a better communication system than 911," Tobias said.

Johnson, who has a history of rejecting media interview requests, declined to answer questions from Outside the Lines. The first time Chris Rainey -- the Florida running back with the long list of alleged crimes -- needed Johnson's help was September 2010, after Rainey sent his then girlfriend a text message that said, "Time to die, b----, U and UR!" while she was at home with her 8-year-old son and sister.

Rainey was initially charged with felony stalking but agreed to deferred prosecution on a reduced charge of misdemeanor stalking.

Rainey told Outside the Lines he remained wary of police, but he had confidence in Johnson to keep him, and the team, out of serious trouble: "... you still got Huntley, so, if anything happens, we got Huntley. So, he will get you out of anything, everything."

Even in the NFL, Rainey found himself accused in three additional crimes in Gainesville, including an arrest for dating violence and simple battery. He never faced any charges.

Tallahassee attorney Tim Jansen, who represented Florida State quarterback Jameis Winston against accusations of sexual assault more than two years ago, said there is a "90 percent better chance of getting a better outcome than a person who just does nothing, or they get a public defender, once they're charged."

The attorney, who charges some clients up to $500 an hour, said he gets paid by the families and does not represent them for free. He said he often gets alerted to cases by FSU's Monk Bonasorte, who has his personal cell phone number and will call him at the first sign of trouble.

"[Police] will contact probably Monk and say, 'We need to talk to this student,'" Jansen said. "Now, then my phone rings or somehow that magically does happen, and how it's done, I don't know. It's like making sausage."

In 2011, police reports show, Jansen showed up unannounced at the Tallahassee Police Department station as one officer interviewed a player suspected of striking and raping a prostitute. The allegations, while graphic, were inconsistent and coming from a woman who police said was coming down from a cocaine binge.

The player, who was not ultimately charged, had not called Jansen and was in the middle of detailing what happened when two other officers -- one of whom was a teammate's father -- interrupted to tell the athlete "he had representation in the lobby."

Tipped off to the trouble -- Jansen said it was likely by police -- Bonasorte called Jansen.


Tallahassee (Florida) attorney Tim Jansen says he often gets called by athletic department officials when an athlete is accused of a crime. AP Photo/Steve Cannon
At the police department, Jansen spoke with the player for a few minutes outside of officers' presence, police reports show. The player returned and gave a different account of the night's events, admitting he had sex with the woman but that it was consensual.

Michigan State might prove an example of what happens when everyone is afforded the same legal counsel; students there can get a free defense attorney through the school's student legal services.

As a result, East Lansing Police spokesman Lt. Steve Gonzalez said, a lot of Michigan State students get attorneys for even the most minor cases, such as a ticket for having alcohol in public. And those same attorneys show up on athletes' misdemeanor cases.

When Outside the Lines analyzed the results of case dispositions involving Michigan State students compared to a set of East Lansing cases involving college-age males, there appeared to be no discrepancy like seen at Florida State and Florida. About 62 percent of MSU athlete cases resulted in no record, dismissal or plea to a lesser charge of civil infraction; among the comparison set, it was 66 percent.

In felony cases, in which any defendant is likely to have an attorney, athletes sometimes still benefit by having better legal counsel than someone who has to settle for a public defender. That's what happened with Darrell Williams, the Oklahoma State basketball player who was initially convicted of rape and sexual battery after two women said he groped them and shoved his hands down their pants and penetrated them during a house party in December 2010.

Williams' attorneys were William Baker and Cheryl Ramsey, both known for representing Oklahoma State athletes and coaches. Ramsey is a veteran Oklahoma City criminal defense attorney who was part of the team selected to defend Oklahoma City federal building bomber Timothy McVeigh in the late '90s. She is currently defending former Oklahoma State football player Tyreek Hill, who was arrested Dec. 11 for allegedly choking and punching his girlfriend.

Ramsey said she took on Williams' case for free because of the severity of the charges and how they were out of character for him: "It wasn't that he was an athlete, but he was a person who needed help."

After a jury trial ended in a conviction in July 2012, Ramsey hired private investigators to interview jurors, which is how she found out that at least two of them had made unauthorized visits to the crime scene, which the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals determined influenced the verdict and the court overturned the conviction in April 2014.

Fear of involvement and fear of betrayal

While several defense attorneys said in interviews that athletes were more likely than regular students to need an attorney because their status makes them prone to being targeted or falsely accused, Outside the Lines' examination found a significant number of examples to the contrary: their fame deters victims and witnesses from coming forward.

When a woman told Columbia, Missouri, police in April 2014 that football player Dorial Green-Beckham had forced a door open and pushed her down the stairs in the apartment she shared with Green-Beckham's girlfriend, the girlfriend texted the alleged victim to persuade her to tell police to drop the charges.

"He will be kicked out of Mizzou and then not qualify for the [NFL] draft next year. The coaches talked to me and explained how serious this is and there's no time to waste at this point."

When police questioned the girlfriend about the texts and whether coaches had pressured her to get the charges dropped, she changed her story and said the coaches never talked to her directly but that Green-Beckham had told her to relay the information.

The alleged victim told police she wanted to drop the case: "She stated she was afraid of the media and community backlash since Green-Beckham is a football player," the report states. "[She] was afraid of being harassed and having her property damaged just because she was the victim. [She] stated she did not want to deal with the mental stress of the whole ordeal; it was already making her physically sick to think about it."

She had reason to be fearful. On TigerBoard.com, a popular online forum for Missouri fans, the name-calling and harassment had begun: "Which loser ass snitch called the cops over some drunk kids arguing?" "Snitches get stitches!" "No, just a jersey chaser looking for $." "Jock sniffin for dark meat team." "Is gold digging a sport?"

Incident resolutions

The incidents Outside the Lines examined did not always ended up prosecutions or charges.


Outside the Lines contacted Green-Beckham's agent, who declined comment and did not make Green-Beckham available for an interview. On May 1, Green-Beckham was drafted in the second round by the Tennessee Titans.

Outside the Lines found multiple examples of alleged victims and witnesses refusing to participate in criminal investigations -- including sexual assaults, fights and even theft -- because they were worried about publicity and fans harassing them. Others simply didn't want to get players in trouble.

Many of the alleged victims, mostly women, spoke to Outside the Lines on the condition their names not be revealed. They described fans who showed up at their workplaces to harass them; vulgar, sexual insults on the phone, in email and social media; and even death threats toward them and their relatives.

Prosecutors routinely encounter reluctant victims and witnesses in everyday cases, especially domestic violence, but they say the element of celebrity and media coverage can take it to a higher level.

"I think it would be naïve to suggest that the high level of publicly doesn't have a chilling effect on people," said Benton County (Oregon) District Attorney John Haroldson, whose office handles cases involving Oregon State athletes. "You certainly see that happen in cases of sexual assault ... they have to contend with, 'Do I want this to play out in the media?'"

Around midnight on April 12, 2014, Oregon State student Michael Davis said he and a friend had been arguing with some football players about cutting in line at a bar and he had fallen to the ground with one of them while fending off a punch. As Davis stood up, tight end Tyler Perry ran up and punched him in the head, knocking him to the ground, the police report states.

According to the report, Davis said a friend who played football told him that he "shouldn't call the cops. We won't have a starting lineup next year." Another person involved in the incident said he "knew the males to be OSU football players so did not really want them in any trouble."

Days after the incident, Davis said that one of his professors noticed several football players milling outside the door of a classroom and the professor told him to exit through a different door because she was afraid they were going to harass him.

"I never wanted to be that guy who turned on the football team," Davis told Outside the Lines, adding that he has several friends who were athletes.

Davis said he sustained $5,000 in injuries to his teeth and nose and has a scar that starts between his eyes and gives him sort of a "joker nose."

Perry, who did not respond to emails or phone messages left by Outside the Lines, admitted hitting Davis, according to the police report. Davis said he "was in disbelief" when the prosecuting attorney told him there wasn't enough evidence to file charges.

Two months later, Davis said, he ran into Perry at a party. Perry apologized, he said.

While Davis said he appreciated Perry's apology, "all those guys got away with it, and I know it's not the first time it happened."


Former Florida running back Chris Rainey was named a suspect in five crimes in Gainesville. He faced charges once. AP Photo/John Raoux
Madison (Wisconsin) Police Capt. Carl Gloede, whose district includes the University of Wisconsin campus, said he doesn't see many cases in which victims or witnesses are afraid to speak out against athletes in an investigation, but that might be in part because those cases don't get reported in the first place.

"If people have information and they're afraid to provide it because of the notoriety, we do our best to encourage that openness. But it's hard to provide anonymity to witnesses because the accused have the right to know who's accusing them of crimes," Gloede said.

State Attorney Willie Meggs in Tallahassee said he understands why victims would be unwilling to come forward, having felt some of the fan backlash himself when his office decided on the Jameis Winston case.

"I had people writing me saying that they hope my daughter and my wife got raped, and just all of those kinds of things for not doing this, and then I had people writing me saying, 'You're going to cost us a national championship, and you're just evil, and you hate athletes,'" he said.

When the Tallahassee Police Department took an unusual step of turning an ESPN public records request -- which contained the reporter's email address and cell phone number -- into a press release and posting it online on Christmas Eve, hundreds of Florida State fans responded to the reporter with harassing phone calls, emails, texts and social media posts, including many of a sexual and threatening nature. (Tallahassee police said the publication of the request followed departmental procedure, yet no other requests have been publicized in a similar fashion.)

One of the reports received from that request was an incident from July 2011, in which a woman reported that her ex-boyfriend, a Florida State basketball player, had broken into her apartment in Tallahassee. Police noted evidence of destruction and a voicemail suggesting the athlete had been there. The woman told police she simply wanted her ex-boyfriend to leave her alone and she did not want to pursue charges, the report states: "She has a great deal of concern that her name will end up in the news."

Gainesville's Officer Tobias said "everyone" is at fault for athletes having such leverage.

"It's the fault of the athletes, it's the fault of the victims, it's the fault of society, it's the fault of the media, because everyone paints this picture and holds athletes up on a pedestal sometimes and we all are making them invincible," he said. "The fans are making them invincible, and the victims themselves, they look up to them at the same time. So to think that they can be victimized by this person is sometimes a reach for them."

Producer Nicole Noren of ESPN's Enterprise/Investigative Unit, ESPN senior writers Elizabeth Merrill and Mark Schlabach, and freelance reporter Anna Hensel contributed to this report.

 

[phork]

Has its own post already broseph.

 

[Rhode Irish]

The moments when ESPN does something for the public good are practically nonexistent. Yet for all the times that I have poked fun at Bristol or ridiculed its on-air “talent” it is time to praise ESPN for spearheading a legal battle that benefits all of us.

Currently, the Worldwide Leader in Sports is engaged in a lawsuit against the almighty Notre Dame Fighting Irish to gain access to campus police records and it recently received the support of the Indiana Attorney General.

As a bit of background, the legal fight arose after ESPN reporter Paula Lavigne twice asked to see the campus police report of an incident involving a physical altercation between fans prior to a Notre Dame vs. Michigan football game in 2014. Lavigne had also requested other reports and logs related to Notre Dame student athletes, but the university denied all requests for access.

ESPN then sued Notre Dame for violating Indiana public record laws. Notably, Lavigne also battled with Florida State over access to police records last year.

Despite the fact that campus police are police —as in they can arrest you, search you, detain you, and sometimes shoot you — a St. Joseph County Superior Court judge ruled that the campus cops were immune from Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act because Notre Dame “is clearly not ‘an agency or a department of any level of government.’”

In effect, this judge essentially said that a private university’s police can operate like secret police as no reporter or citizen could ever compel access to police records or reports. The consequences of such a ruling are truly frightening considering we now know the extent that major public schools’ campus police, such as Florida, Florida State, and Penn State, will go to in order to protect athletes. Notre Dame, despite being a private Catholic institution, is no stranger to such scandals — ask Lizzy Seeberg’s family.

Fortunately, ESPN did not take its defeat lightly. It filed an appeal in May and has now gained the backing of the state’s AG, Gregory Zoeller.

Zoeller’s amicus brief explained the obvious that no police force should operate under a cloak of privacy. The brief stated:

A police officer is perhaps the quintessential public employee, cloaked in the authority of the state to investigate, detain, arrest, incarcerate, carry and discharge a firearm, and generally maintain the safety of the citizenry. The notion that a police department exercising these core state powers can be shielded from public scrutiny by dint of its affiliation with a private university is antithetical to the important policy interests underlying the Access to Public Records Act.
Zoeller further stated that it is Indiana’s “legal position that transparency is needed in the exercise of police power in order to maintain the public’s trust.” The South Bend Tribune and the Hoosier State Press Association have also joined the AG in siding with ESPN.

As a former journalist and current U.S. citizen, I am thankful that an organization with the resources to take on Notre Dame, such as ESPN, is fighting this fight. No matter how you feel about the television network or even Notre Dame, we should not support secrecy in policing.

However, even a favorable appellate ruling might not end this legal war as Notre Dame certainly does not want police records concerning its student athletes seeing the light of day.

Yet if you are a Notre Dame student or a visitor to South Bend subject to the authority of the campus police, you should hope that the campus police force is subject to the same laws and regulations as any other police department in the state.

EDIT: ESPN Fighting To Remove Privacy Shield From Notre Dame's Police Force

 

[Rhode Irish]

It's a kinja blog, not a gawker property but ok. My comment about agreeing with the author was specifically with respect to one point, which I had quoted before Lax edited my post:

No matter how you feel about the television network or even Notre Dame, we should not support secrecy in policing.