Editorial

The State of Affairs

DPS is on the verge of being commissioned to enforce infractions just like the Eugene Police Department does now. Given the state of the department and its general reputation on campus, is this a good idea?

The Department of Public Safety's reputation has suffered over the years, primarily due to allegations of harassment, both in its treatment of students and its employees.

For example, in 1998, the department and the university settled a suit by former DPS employee James Williams, who alleged racial discrimination against the department. As of 2000, DPS withstood a harassment suit filed by a dispatcher, Pauline Conaway. Many other DPS employees have also either left the department or were fired in the last year. DPS now wants to raise the level of authority it possesses by commissioning its officers - during a time when crime is down on campus.

DPS needs to prove itself to be a fair and responsible public safety department. As detailed in this issue, officers have overstepped their bounds by intimidating students who do not know their rights and have sometimes gone so far as to search students, even though they do not have this authority. According to Hillary Berkman, the director of the Office of Student Advocacy, a numerous complaints are brought to the Office of Student Advocacy each year by students who claim DPS overstepped their boundaries in dealing with them. Berkman also notes that many students never report other cases, either because they do not know their rights, or they just don't take the time to go through the legal process.

A few years ago, for example, Conner Salisbury was working late at night for a professor in Straub hall. A window had been broken downstairs and DPS was patrolling the building looking for the suspect. Salisbury encountered the officers in the hallway near his professor's office and was questioned by a couple of officers as to why he was in the building. Salisbury went so far as to show them his keys to the building. According to Salisbury, his explanation was not sufficient enough for the officers and they attempted to restrain him. Salisbury claims he tried to back away, which the officers took as a sign of aggression, grabbed him, knocked him to the ground, and tried to put him into a submission hold. Salisbury, who has severe nerve damage in his right elbow, tried to slide out of the hold, all the time asking the officers to stop. The scuffle continued until EPD arrived, by which point Salisbury had severe rug-burns on his face and arms and the nerve damage in his shoulder had been aggravated.

Considering the instances such as these [See "A Questionable Procedure"], is it a good idea to grant DPS officers "stop and frisk" as well as "probable cause arrest" authority? If DPS is going to commission its officers, it needs to prove that it will not abuse these newfound powers. Critics of the department say that given the reputation officers have gained with the powers they already possess, the department is not ready to take on new responsibilities just yet.

Beyond the question of the department's qualifications, other issues exist as well. How will someone who is stopped by DPS be able to tell if the officer in question has the right to search their person? While commissioning will not be given to all officers, there is currently no way to tell a commissioned officer from a regular officer. However, Fitpatrick told the Commentator that the department is looking into the situation and could eventually recommend changes.

Recently, the newly installed lights on top of DPS squad cars have become a point of contention on campus. Director Thomas Fitzpatrick has been quoted as saying that the lights would be removed from the cars following the Emerald report that they were illegal. As of publication, most of the blue lights have been removed due to legal issues, but still remain on some vehicles.

Are such lights even necessary at a university such as ours? The UO campus landscaping is suitable more for that of bicycle and foot traffic, rather than that of cars, rendering the lights largely unusable in deterring most campus crime. Overall, there seems to be no adequate function or use that would necessitate such lights, short of pulling cars over. Fitzpatrick says that he has no desire to have his officers making traffic stops, citing the danger involved in such situations.

So what use would the lights have? "There may be extreme situations where we use the lights: safety issues," Fitzpatrick said. "Someone driving extremely erratically, and holding up traffic. Pulling them over until we get the police there."

Fitzpatrick also told us that the lights have indeed been used before. "The other day when we used the lights it happened to be an officer responding to a blue phone, female voice screaming on it 'I need some help!'" Fitzpatrick said. "We could identify the blue phone, but were cut off. So the officer did turn on his lights going to that call."

This action is in violation of the department's current authority, but Fitzpatrick defends his department's actions. "It was a life threatening situationÉand that's what we're going to reserve the lights for." While noble and perhaps justified, such choices give the departments' critics to condemn such actions as violations of the Oregon Vehicle Code [ORS 861.350], which only authorizes the use of blue emergency lights by police officers. Current use of the lights, before commissioning is in place, could ultimately cast a negative light on the department's good intentions.

This is not to say that Fitzpatrick himself is not a decent and hard working public safety director. He has granted multiple interviews with the Oregon Commentator and has willingly answered some very tough questions without getting angry that his department is under scrutiny. We do not doubt that he wishes to improve safety on campus, but the approach could be better.

Before DPS raises the authority of its officers, it should first work to repair its reputation with the people it serves. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the direction in which DPS is heading. Besides officer's conduct mentioned in the articles in this issue, their general appearance is moving away from an approachable disposition. Their white-shirted outfits have given way to police-like uniforms (official color: "LAPD Blue") with badges identical to those of EPD, short of the fact that they instead read "Department of Public Safety." The patrol vans with yellow and green lights have given way to dark gray Ford Tauruses with red and blue lights, which require a double-take at night to determine if they are in fact DPS vehicles and not police cruisers. Will decisions such as these improve the relations the department has with the people it serves, or will it leave a different impression in the minds of the people who require the services of the department?

The commissioning of DPS officers is, in all likelihood, inevitable. It has the support of the administration, as Dan Williams, the vice president of administration, has already received the approval of the State Board of Higher Education. All that remains is President Frohnmayer's approval and commissioned officers will be established.

We at the Oregon Commentator support the idea of having a public safety department on campus in order to protect the safety of university students. However, we do not believe that DPS, in its current form, fulfills this role to the best of its ability. Given this we do not think that this is the time to increase the department's authority. "Stop and frisk" authority and "probable cause" arrest should be reserved for municipal police. That is the purpose of the university's contract with EPD.

DPS must earn the trust of its students first. Only then should it consider raising its level of authority on campus.