Police Abuse

Cincinnati Revokes Campus Police's Authority to Patrol Off-Campus

Same local politicians voted to bring them off-campus just two years ago

|

UC

The Cincinnati City Council's law and public safety committee voted this week to end off-campus patrols by University of Cincinnati (UC) police and to open an investigation into the school's policing practices. The decision comes a few days after Fox 19 received a respond to its freedom of information request for details on the kinds of stops UC cops made off campus.

Fox 19 found that campus police made 2,028 traffic stop so far this year—a huge spike over previous years. Cincinnati approved off-campus patrols in 2013. That year the cops made 713 stops. In 2014 they made 1,453. Of the more than 2,000 traffic stops this year, 932 involved a ticket and 223 ended with an arrest. Fox 19 also found the number of white people stopped by UC police doubled while the number of black people stopped quadrupled.

The breakdown of tickets and arrests vs. stops is peculiar too. The 2013 agreement between UC and the city permits campus police to "serious traffic offenses," meaning an offense that "jeopardizes public safety and/or constitutes a misdemeanor of the fourth degree or a higher offense." In that case, every legitimate UC stop would have to end in a ticket or an arrest.

Members of the law and public safety committee said they didn't want to accuse UC of racial profiling before an investigation, but that that's what it looked like. "It may be something that looks bad, but isn't bad," Cincinnati's police chief, Jeffrey Blackwell, told Fox 19. "But, I really think we need to look at that." The chief of UC police, Jason Goodrich, has so far refused to talk to media.

Notably there has not been a local election in Cincinnati since the city approved UC police patrolling off-campus, meaning the same politicians who voted to bring campus police into their neighborhoods have now heard sufficient outrage over the idea, in part due to the killing of Sam DuBose by a UC cop, to change their minds. That cop, Ray Tensing, has been charged with murder but through his union is demanding his job back and may eventually get it.

I argued against the idea of campus police patrolling off-campus, especially because of its effect on police-community relations, several months ago.

NEXT: Trump Tops His Ultra-Classy Debate Performance by Suggesting Megyn Kelly's on the Rag

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “It may be something that looks bad, but isn’t bad,”

    Oh, the possibilities.

    1. You know what would be sweet? If the cops started every investigation with that attitude. That would be sweet.

  2. I don’t understand why cities allow campus police departments to patrol off-campus. I’ve heard it has something to do with less patrols the metro PD has to deal with/pay for and so it’s a cost-cutting measure where the university police (essentially state-funded) do some of the local policing, but I’m not sure how true that is.

    And this could be totally wrong, but I’ve never really seen campus police as real police. I know they have the same authoritah, but I always assumed they took the campus job so they could bust parties instead of getting shot.

    1. Nobody sees them as real police, that’s why they have such shitty attitudes and always have to assert their authority. Which is a great reason to limit their jurisdiction to campus.

    2. College kids are also responsible for a lot of local ‘disturbance’ crimes (drinking then brawling, public indecency, making the locals uncomfortable, getting robbed/raped). The local cops don’t want to have to deal with mommy and daddy swooping to their precious babies rescue and the campus cops are paid to do so. Campuses also prefer when their walking wallets aren’t subjected to real jail cells. They prefer their own guys just escort the kid back to their room and then let the college require responsibility seminars.

      1. Which would be fine – if they limited themselves to that. Its is, essentially, the same policy most police forces have for military personnel they pick up in their jurisdiction – book ’em, call SP/PMO, turn ’em over, and let the SEL beat the crap out of them the next day.

        But college police *insist* on doing more than patrolling the apartment complexes and bars near campus and interject themselves into situations that should be left to the local cops.

        There is, absolutely, completely, and utterly, no excuse for campus cops to be doing traffic stops off campus.

        1. Indeed.

          In NV, the Clark County School District PD was ‘assisting’ in speed traps on Boulder Highway and US 95, MILES away from a school or school property, despite their jurisdiction is limited by law to school district property and the adjacent roads to the centerline.

          They offered up multiple claims – that they were allowed because their officers were POST 1 certified, then that they were engaging in “mutual aid”, then finally settling on the claim that state law requires/allows any “peace officer” to enforce reckless driving statutes.

          In the meantime, they never addressed who was patrolling campuses and school district property while they performed traffic enforcement with other agencies.

    3. Sometimes it actually works. As in my university. Here’s the NY Times on the topic. And I work here and it’s true:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02……html?_r=0

  3. OT: Target Removes Gender Labels From Kids Sections After Complaints

    Retailers have been moving away from gender stereotypes, and some startups have emerged to break down the divide in kids’ clothing and toys.

    FTS. Why label stuff for *kids* in the first place? Talk about your “stereotypes”!

    1. Another thing: I’ll wager plenty of people — adults and children — go into these stores and ask in effect “Do you have clothing for stereotypical girls?”.

      1. stereotypical girls

        WTF is that supposed to mean shitlord?

    2. Remember years ago out running around with daughters and we decided to go to park. Of course youngest had to have shorts because it was hot so stopped at a Walmart that was nearby. Spent 5 minutes in the young teen section looking for them before having to ask if they had any shorts for young teens that were not street walkers. Got a blank stare. No one got shorts. That was quite some time ago. Not sure if it’s any better now.

      1. It’s not. Just buy from the guy’s section. Unless your daughter is an extreme early bloomer, she won’t have the hips that define the difference between male/female pants yet. Plus the guys have some really cool clothes. My favorite pair of pants when I was younger was bought in their section (camo with a skull belt). Alas, college gave me hips and a butt. I no longer can shop there.

    3. putting the “Frank” back into Lisa Frank

    4. putting the “Frank” back into Lisa Frank

      1. oh squirrels

  4. “Fox 19 also found the number of white people stopped by UC police doubled while the number of black people stopped quadrupled.”

    UC is surrounded by almost entirely black neighborhoods (It’s right off of MLK Drive). Once they started patrolling off campus the number of black people getting stopped was inevitable.

  5. “The 2013 agreement between UC and the city permits campus police to “serious traffic offenses,” meaning an offense that “jeopardizes public safety and/or constitutes a misdemeanor of the fourth degree or a higher offense.” In that case, every legitimate UC stop would have to end in a ticket or an arrest.”

    So, if I understand this properly, you’re saying the city limited the campus police to only stopping drivers off campus for serious offenses–and so the campus police made sure to charge every minor offense they pulled over with a “serious” charge?

    That’s called a perverse incentive.

    I hate it when people call it an “unintended consequence”, because it assumes that those responsible for instituting it didn’t intend for the perverse incentive–and that isn’t always true.

    However, I think it is safe to say that the people who stipulated that ‘all off campus traffic stops must be predicated on serious charges’ were either evil in their intentions or both ignorant and incompetent.

    If there’s another explanation, I’d love to hear it.

    To what extent are the racist outcomes in our country the result of progressives being painfully stupid about basic economics?

    1. “Are you serious?” 😉

  6. in part due to the killing of Sam DuBose by a UC cop, to change their minds. That cop, Ray Tensing, has been charged with murder but through his union is demanding his job back

    I wonder how truly monstrous a person would have to be for his union to refuse to work on his behalf.

    “Yes, Officer Smith did sodomize two infants on live TV before caving their skulls in and swallowing them whole, but he also has an exemplary attendance record. Should one isolated incident deprive a man of his livelihood?”

    1. *plants “PROUD TO BE UNION” sign in yard*

    2. I wonder what the speech code is like at UC.

      I wonder if you can get expelled for using the n-word.

      Wouldn’t it be ironic if saying the wrong thing could get you expelled, but you can’t fire an employee for murder?

      1. Look for the union label when you shooting a puppy or man

      2. Well wasn’t there some incident in the Ferguson riots where a cop was fired because he pointed a rifle at a protester (who was filming him) and shouted some obscenities? I remember he got fired promptly.

        So the standard seems to be: kill someone, you’re fine, but if you threaten to kill them and don’t follow through, you’re fired.

        1. If I read right, officer Go Fuck Yourself resigned.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFia3Uo0TQ

    3. I wonder how truly monstrous a person would have to be for his union to refuse to work on his behalf.

      Depends on what you mean by work on their behalf. The unions have a duty to represent their members and failing to do so can open the the union to liability.

  7. #blacklivesdon’tmattertorepublicancandidates

    One immediately apparent sign of the party’s disregard for black America’s woes was that it was held in the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland. It’s been widely reported that black people are disproportionately harmed by the mortgage market. So it was fitting that Fox hosted the first debate of Republicans ? a party which is mostly white ? in a stadium named for the kind of business that disproportionately rips off black people.

    Fox then proceeded to fill up the room and its screens with female Fox News journalists (who looked like they were in a casting call for a roll as a Hitchcock blonde), a couple of white dude moderators, a stage of nine white men (and Dr Ben Carson) vying to be president ? and an overwhelmingly white audience.

    Having never really watched Fox News before for any period of time, I was surprised at the quality of the questions the moderators posed.

    And Republicans certainly didn’t care about immigrants or their families, who were repeatedly referred as “illegals” as if they weren’t even human.

    No, black lives certainly didn’t matter last night. But to the Republicans and Fox News, neither did the lives of women, immigrants, homosexuals, or transgender soldiers.

    1. That’s a whole shitpile of stupid. “I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about but that’s not going to stop me from voicing my opinion.”

      1. It’s awful.

    2. Transgender Soldiers ? I’m a Soldier. I’m not aware of a single Transgender Soldier serving today. Proggies live in a 100% fantasy world, what a decedent society we have created where people contributing zero to humanity or society can worry about make believe issues and siphon off valuable resources to combat them.

      1. I know some. My oldest friend (I’ve known her since she was three months old and I was three years old) came out as transgendered to friends and family a while back. He’s navy, and friends with a bunch of other transgendered in the navy and other armed forces. Until they get out, though, they can’t say anything or they’ll be kicked out. He just takes the drugs, dresses masculine, and just continues registering as female officially.

        If they just would get rid of the gendered benefits (lower physical requirements), none of this would even fucking matter. Just treat a soldier like a soldier. Treat them all like the replaceable identical cogs in the war machine they are and kick ’em out if they complain or can’t hack it (the gendered haircut thing is bull shit too).

        1. I dig it when a butch chick cock’s up to go fight the bad guys.
          Not so much when a guy pusses out, ala Manning.
          And before anyone criticizes me for the above, keep in mind that there are literally an infinite number if identities and perspectives which a person may choose, all of which are equally valid and valued, including mine.

        2. Treat them all like the replaceable identical cogs in the war machine they are …

          They are not identical cogs though. Men and women are vastly different compared to a man and another man or a woman and another woman. I don’t see how pretending those differences don’t exist will improve the fighting capabilities of the armed forces.

          As for the physical requirements, there is a lot of clerical work in the military; why exclude a significant portion of the population from performing those tasks.? The transgendered are an insignificantly small portion of the population, there is no justifiable reason to upend and overhaul military practices and customs to accommodate them. Women, on the other hand are half the population, they can do the clerical work and the men can hike up the mountains carrying over a hundred pounds of gear. When mech suits become a reality then women can ruck right alongside them.

          1. Eliminating the gender-based accommodations would not prevent a significant proportion of people from serving.

            Same thing with eliminating the age-based accomodations the military has.

            You set a minimum standard for *everyone* and adjust according to the expected duties of rank/rate(MOS).

            So those clerical duties get serious competition from all the people who are not strong enough to hump pack in the infantry and MSGT may have a less demanding PRT than a CPL (regardless of relative ages) but no one is *excluded* a priori from any job.

      2. I’m a Soldier. I’m not aware of a single Transgender Soldier serving today. Proggies live in a 100% fantasy world . . .

        Maybe because admitting they are transgender is a one way ticket to a DD-214?

        Two decades ago you would likely not have been aware of a single Homosexual Soldier serving either. Doesn’t mean that they weren’t there, just meant they kept it on the downlow because to do otherwise would have meant looking for a new job.

    3. in a stadium named for the kind of business that disproportionately rips off black people.

      Sheesh, talk about reaching.

      I also love that the Hispanic candidates (and Dr Ben Carson) are ignored so that they can continue to play the “GOP is only white people” (and Dr Ben Carson). I don’t expect the same complaints during the Democrat’s debates, which are so far only white old people (and not Dr Ben Carson).

      1. Well, those are all “Uncle Toms” so they are not really non-whites.

    4. “It’s been widely reported that black people are disproportionately harmed by the mortgage market. So it was fitting that Fox hosted the first debate of Republicans ? a party which is mostly white ? in a stadium named for the kind of business that disproportionately rips off black people.”

      And if Micky D’s catered the affair?

      1. Obviously a deliberate snub to black people as they prefer Burger King.

    5. ” It’s been widely reported that black people are disproportionately harmed by the mortgage market.”

      Mortgage market? Harmed? Widely reported? WTF?
      Derp overload.

    6. That is a joke, right? A parody?

      I refuse to believe that is anything other than a parody.

    7. “But to the Republicans and Fox News, neither did the lives of women, immigrants, homosexuals, or transgender soldiers.”

      Because obscure minorities are so critical when discussing matters of national policy
      Zomg! What about wheelchair-bound dyslexic midgets? I’ve NEVER heard Democrat politicians discuss those poor souls.. I can only conclude they must hate them and want them all to die.

  8. The chief of UC police, Jason Goodrich, has so far refused to talk to media.

    Leadership.

    1. You know who else isolated themself and avoided the media?

      1. Hillary Clinton?

      2. Hillary Clinton ?

      3. Hillary Clinton?

      4. Hillary Clinton!

      5. Hills of Clit son.

  9. Jesse Benton indicted

    “Senator Rand Paul is disappointed that the Obama justice department chose to release this just prior to the highly anticipated first Republican presidential debate,” said a campaign spokesman, who asked not to be identified. “It certainly appears suspiciously timed and possibly, politically motivated. Additionally, these actions are from 2012 and have nothing to do with our campaign.”

    1. politically motivated.

      Not the Obama Justice Department.

      1. If so, it wasn’t a particularly good gotcha. I don’t think it will hurt Rando’s campaign much.

      2. But I agree that it would be fully in character.

  10. I got a ticket once from a U of Louisville cop off-campus.

    I legitimately rolled the stop sign coming off the interstate. At midnight. With no one around (except the cop).

    I still wouldn’t complain except that intersection had a no-left turn sign that was ignored by multiple students every single morning, backing traffic up onto the interstate. With no enforcement.

  11. Only the ignorant will continue to have these dedicated campus police “departments”.

    These never were necessary decades ago and should be ended now.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.