The suspension of two public-safety officers at the University of Utah has led to a public controversy over the university’s policy on concealed weapons on the campus, The Salt Lake Tribune reported. A security guard at a university hospital said he and the other officer, a member of the university’s police force, were suspended after they made public an internal memo stating that no one can carry weapons openly on the campus, with or without a concealed-carry permit. Utah’s Supreme Court has ruled that the university is not exempt from a state law that allows permit holders to carry weapons in public. But advocacy groups differ over whether the law means the weapons must be concealed or simply allows them to be concealed. A university spokesman told the newspaper the institution’s policies were in compliance with state law.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
6 Responses to Officers’ Suspension Draws Scrutiny to U. of Utah’s Policy on Concealed Weapons
physicsprof - January 6, 2011 at 10:31 am
Regardless on whether University is exempt from the state open carry law or not, it is outrageous that they dare to suspend officers for making public the internal guidelines that outline what behavior could result in people getting arrested on public campus.
dutchjohn - January 6, 2011 at 11:01 am
The suggestion that the university administration continues to feel exempt from the laws of the state is more troubling still. I can appreciate the sensitivity over this particular issue, but the State Supreme Court ruled against them. Don’t get me wrong, the U is a great school, but this is a disturbing pattern of behavior that has been ongoing for a number of years. Are there other instances where they place themselves above the law? Is the Legislature willing to assume the liability associated with a State Agency choosing to ignore applicable laws and statutes?
r_barrow - January 6, 2011 at 1:23 pm
The issue I beleive is not that the university feels expempt from the law, but that these officers released internal operating prodedures. In fact, stories I’ve read show that the university is in compliance with the law. It seems reasonable that you wouldn’t want to publicize how police respond to calls, otherwise those who might be up to no good would have a significant advantage. I would think officers are not allowed to reveal internal operating procedures and if they do, that would be some sort of insubordination.
physicsprof - January 6, 2011 at 2:29 pm
r_barrow, it is one thing to reveal SWAT tactics or the protocol for hostage situation negotiations but it is totally different to keep people in the dark as to why they can be arrested. The concept is simply unheard of in a free society.
Again, no state law and no OFFICIAL university policy (available at http://www.regulations.utah.edu/general/1-003.html) deem open carry on campus as arrestable crime. If there is a secret memo to that extent people ought to be notified about its existence.
drjeff - January 6, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Oh, come on now. U administrators place themselves above the law all the time! I would cite examples, but it’s pretty unnecessary. Do you need examples of air-breathing mammals? As long as they believe that their institution is unique and distinct from the “outside world,” it will be the case. And, realistically, which U administrators don’t believe that? They consistently “respect” the law when there’s some concrete incentive attached to that respect, either a financial incentive or penalty, or if they think there’s a serious chance of prosecution. Not so different from the worst big corporations, now that I think about it, except that the administrators are driven by “higher principles.”
citizenship - January 6, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Not a legal eagle nor taking sides here, just some questions/observations:
Did the administration ever consider what the result would be if the university and its administrators were sued by a legally permitted individual who was detained/disarmed/arrested by their public-safety officers?
If the administrators’ policies and actions are deemed to be in violation of state law and state Supreme Court ruling, will the officers have grounds for a lawsuit in disclosing an illegal act by the university? If they had not disclosed an illegal action, would the officers have been culpable as well?
The school may have traded one lawsuit for another.