UTAH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Independent Investigation of Allegations of Misconduct by UUPD Of?cers Table of Contents Table of Contents 0 Executive Summary 0 Case Report 0 Authorization and Noti?cation Letter from Chief Rodney Chatman 0 Garrity Admonitions and Written Noti?cations ol'lnvestigation to Of?cers: Garrity and Noti?cation - Lieutenant Brian Whalin: 05/21/2020 Garrity and Noti?cation - Of ?eer-05/22/2020 Garrity and Notification - Of?cer 5/22/2020 Garrity and Noti?cation - Of?cer?05/22/2020 Garrity and Noti?cation - Sergeant?050 7/2020 Garrity and Noti?cation - Sergeant 05/28/2020 Garrity and Noti?cation - Detective 05/28/2020 Garrity and Noti?cation - Assistant Chief Rick McClenon: 05/29/2020 9. Garrity and Noti?cation - Of?cer 05/27/2020 10. Garrity and Noti?cation Sergeant 06/01/2020 1 l. Garrity and Noti?cation - Of?cer 06/02/2020 12. Garrity and Noti?cation - 06/15/2020 13. Garrity Only - Of?cer 14. Garrity Only Of?cer Addendums IA Investigative Report by Lt. Whalin dated December 13. 2019 1A Investigative Report by Lt. Brian Whalin dated February 6, 2020 Nelson Jones PI Response to Tribune Story on Of?cer Miguel Deras dated May 19, 2020 Documentation of searches conducted on UU PD email accounts by Chief Information Security Of?cer Corey Roach looking for evidence ofsharing or forwarding extortion photos Documentation on and email correspondence with Chieflnformation Security Of?cer Corey Roach regarding ?'l?he l; Watch? emails Watch Noti?cations and documentation from Sgt? G. Of?cer schedules for October 12 to October 22, 2018 H. Access Usa Re ort for October 13, 2018 to October 16, 2018 I. Sgt?vork time between October 10, 2018 to October 30, 2018 J. Request documentation and Report of West Valley Police Department?s download ofOf?cer Miguel Deras? phone AXON Evidence Audit Trail K. 'l?hree pictures found on the download ofl)eras? phone: of Sgt?at crime scene, and Lauren McClusky Dl, Photo from Spillman CAD system Spreadsheet of GRAMA request information .505?? - Page [1 M. Documentation of GRAMA request made by DPS IA to Logan Police Department regarding the Garrity interview of Officer Miguel Deras N. Email documentation from Lieutenant Hinojosa regarding February 7, 2020 response from UUPD to The Salt Lake Tribune 0. Copies of Departmental Polices as issued on 02/10/2020 701? Personal Communication Devices 806? Computers and Digital Evidence 1009 Personnel Complaints Digital Media 1. 001 Authorization and Noti?cation Letters From UUPD 2. 002 Noti?cation and Garrity Forms 3. 003 Miguel Deras Garrity Interview by Logan PD 4. 004 Investigative Information Provided by UUPD 5. 005 DPS Recorded Interviews 6. 006 Chat Logs, Spillman Ms 7. 007 UUPD Lexipol Policy Manual 8. 008 Protected Information: UUPD Personnel Rosters, Contact Information, Access Logs, Time Sheets, GRAMA Information Pagelz Utah Department of Public Safety Independent Investigation of Allegations of Misconduct by UUPD Officers Executive Summary Allegations: In May of 2020, The Salt Lake Tribune published a story regarding the University of Utah Police Department (UUPD), alleging that one of its former officers was involved in downloading, sharing, and bragging about having explicit photos of Lauren McCluskey, the victim of a highly publicized homicide in 2018. The article alleges that former UUPD Officer Miguel Deras saved the images of Lauren McCluskey to his cell phone. However, this investigation did not find any physical evidence to suggest that Officer Deras ever downloaded the pictures in question to his phone. Also, there is no evidence that Officer Deras forwarded the images in question to anyone other than to Detective Kayla Dallof (who was the detective assigned to this case), and to the records officer/executive assistant, (on August 16, 2019), who was processing the GRAMA requests related to this case on behalf of UUPD. Independent Administrative Investigation: At the request of the University's Chief of Police (Chief Rodney Chatman), the Office of Professional Standards (IA) for the Utah Department of Public Safety (DPS) conducted an independent administrative investigation regarding these allegations. During this independent administrative investigation, DPS IA investigators interviewed 20 current officers and employees, and 17 former employees. All interviews conducted with current UUPD officers were conducted under Garrity. Only two individuals DPS IA attempted to contact were not interviewed, one of which was Officer Deras. Due to the fact that Officer Deras is no longer a UUPD employee, this investigation did not have the authority to compel him to submit to an interview. The second individual who declined to be interviewed was a non-sworn UUPD employee at the time of the McCluskey Investigation, but is no longer employed there; this person was also under no obligation to respond to requests to be interviewed. Additionally, DPS IA scheduled appointments to interview any current police department employee wanting to speak to investigators confidentially about this matter. This investigation determined that on October 13, 2018, Lauren McCluskey emailed copies of explicit images, which were part of an extortion case, to UUPD Officer Miguel Deras’ work email address. Officer Deras then forwarded the same photos to the Detectives Division (Detective Kayla Dallof) within the same hour that he received them from Lauren McCluskey. On October 13, 2018, UUPD Officer who was with Officer Deras when Lauren McCluskey reported the extortion incident to the UUPD, also saw the images. After Lauren McCluskey left the police department, Officer Deras showed the photos to Officer , the Officer in Charge (OIC), and asked for supervisory guidance regarding the elements of the crime of extortion as well as how to handle the pictru'es, speci?cally, how to attach them, or even if he should attach them to his police report. 011 October 15, 2018, Of?cer Deras showed the images to a Sergeant (reportedly to Sgt. - dru?in a shift-brie?ng. Deras a ain asked for guidance on how to proceed with handling the pictru'es. Of?cer and Of?cer said they were in this shift-briefmg when Deras showed Sgt. the pictru'es. Sgt. denies being there or that Of?cer Deras asked him for his advice on how to handle the digital evidence. Although the date carmot be con?rmed, at some point after the afore-mentioned briefmg, Of?cer Deras showed the images to three of?cers (who had ah?ead seen the hotos . The of?cers who are believed to have been there when this happened are Of?cers . Of?cers told DPS IA they remember this ha enin in the hallway outside of the conference room where briefmgs take place. Of?cers? remember hearing some Improfessional comments being made when the pictru?es were displayed. Of?cer denies having any knowledge about this event. Garrity Interview of Of?cer Miguel Deras: On September 16, 2019, Of?cer Deras left employment with UUPD and began working for the Logan Police Department. On May 18, 2020, after The Tribrule published their story, LA investigators from Logan PD interviewed Of?cer Deras rurder Garrity about these allegations. Dru?ing the Garrity interview, Of?cer Deras explained which of?cers saw the photos on the day that Laru?en McCluskey emailed the iictru'es to him. He also explained the circumstances srurormding when he showed the images to Sgt. while asking for help regarding how to handle the digital evidence. Of?cer Deras did not te Logan PD whether he showed the images in a setting outside of the afore-rnentioned shift-brie?ng. DPS LA investigators attempted to contact Of?cer Deras and interview him. Ultimately, Of?cer Deras was not interviewed as part of this investigation. Download of Of?cer Deras? Phone: As reported by The Tribrure and later con?rmed by the University of Utah Police Department, on August 15, 2019, the West Valley Police Department (at the request of UUPD) conducted a download of Of?cer Deras' phone. The download in question occru?red months before The Tribune raised allegations of downloading and sharing Laru'en McCluskey's pictru'es. UUPD copied Deras' cell phone to try to answer questions about the number of phone calls and length of calls that occurred between Of?cer Deras and Laru?en McCluskey, between when she reported the extortion incident and her mm?der. DPS IA eventually searched a copy of the download but did not ?nd any of the explicit photos in question 011 his phone. Allegations of Boasting: The Tribrme reported that Of?cer Deras boasted about having explicit images of Laru'en McCluskey. Dru'ing this investigation, Of?cer reported hearing Deras say, "He could look at them whenever he wanted." Of?cer said he remembers Of?cer Deras making this statement outside of the previously-reported r1efmg. Of?cers both con?rmed hearin a couple of improfessional or crass comments made by those who were there. Of?ceri admits that he made a crass and said the other two of?cers made similarly improper comments. Of?cer said he could have said something off-color but doesn?t remember anything speci?c. Of?cer said he Page I2 remembers hearing other officers making some unprofessional remarks but doesn't remember anything specific, or who said what. IA Investigation by UUPD: In the fall of 2019, UUPD received a GRAMA request regarding the download of Officer Deras' phone. In December of 2019, UUPD Lt. Brian Wahlin began an IA investigation to answer the GRAMA request. The GRAMA request did not include specific allegations of officer misconduct and was not handled by Lt. Wahlin with that end in mind. However, during his investigation, Lt. Wahlin learned that Deras showed at least one image to Officer during a shift-briefing (possibly held on October 15, 2018). In May of 2020, during this investigation, it was learned that Officer was also in this briefing and also saw the images. In February of 2020, Lt. Wahlin conducted follow-up interviews as part of his IA investigation and it was at this time he discovered that Officer had witnessed the photos while acting as the OIC on October 13, 2018. When interviewed about this, Officer told Wahlin it was for business purposes only. Lt. Wahlin did not interview Officer Deras or any other former UUPD officers who were potential witnesses to these events. Ultimately, Lt. Wahlin completed his investigation and verbally reported the results of his investigation up the chain of command, but did not physically give his report to the Acting Chief of Police Rick McLenon to review it. Acting Chief Rick McLenon said Lt. Wahlin told him there was "nothing there". Acting Chief McLenon, in turn, reported those same findings to Robert Payne of the Office of General Counsel for the University. On May 29, 2020, McLenon told investigators he didn't read the IA report until after The Tribune published their article on May 17. In hindsight, he said it became apparent that the initial investigation had fallen short of answering the eventual allegations raised by The Tribune. Conclusions: In conclusion, the following details of this investigation can be confirmed: On Saturday, October 13, 2018, Lauren McCluskey contacted UUPD to report Melvin Rowland (as later confirmed) was extorting her by threatening to release sexually explicit images of her to her friends and family. Former UUPD Officer Miguel Deras handled this call with the help of Officer , and later that same day, Lauren McCluskey sent copies of the extortion photos to Officer Deras at his work email address. After Lauren McCluskey reported the extortion, Officer Deras went to the on-duty supervisor, Officer , and asked him for supervisory guidance on how to handle the digital evidence Lauren McCluskey sent to Officer Deras. Due to their involvement in this call, all three of these officers (Deras, ) witnessed or saw the photos in question. On October 15, 2018, the photos in question were shown to UUPD Sgt. during a shiftbriefing. Officer Deras again asked for supervisory guidance regarding the handling of these images. UUPD Officers and Officer have confirmed that they were at this briefing and reported seeing the photos when Officer Deras showed them to Sgt. . At some point in time after the afore-mentioned briefing, Officer Deras reportedly showed the images again to Officers . Officer remembers seeing the pictures for a second Page 3 time when this took lace. Of?ce- said he was nearby when this took place but denies seeing the images. Of?cer states he has no memory of this taking place or being there. As reported by Of?cers they remember hearing some improfessional comments being made when Deras showe pictru?es. Sgt. denies that he was in the afore-mentioned briefm and denies that Of?cer Deras asked for his supervisory guidance regarding these images. Sgt. states that Of?cer Deras showed him one of the photos in question on the night that Lauren McCluskey was mru?dered by Melvin Rowland. In August of 2019, a download of Of?cer Deras' personally-owned cell phone was conducted by the West Valley Police Department, at the request of UUPD. The searches that have been conducted of the download of Of?cer Deras' phone formd no evidence of the images in question being on his device. In December of 2019. and again in February of 2020. UUPD conducted Internal Affairs interviews regarding the allegations that Of?cer Deras shared the extortion photos with Of?cer-. UUPD Lt. Brian Wahlin conducted the IA investigation and determined, "there is no evidence that any pictru?es were electronically transferred from Miguel Deras to Of?cer during the dates in question." There is no evidence ?'om this investigation to $11 ort that Of?cer Deras' electronically transferred or shared any of the extortion photos with Of?cer? Investigation and Report By: The Utah Department of Public Safety Of?ce of Professional Standards Date: 07/29/2020 Page 4 University of Utah Police Department Lauren McCluskey? Allegations of Misconduct by UUPD Officers 583:3! Meets Deras at Shift Change Briefing (Exact Date Unknown) Lauren meets Ofc. After Lauren leaves, Deras At shift change briefing Deras shows Deras and -at shows extortion images to extortion images to other officers and the PD. She filled out OIC or advice on how ultimately to the Sgt. asking for advice on a statement and sends to handle digital evidence. how to handle the digital evidence. e-mails to Deras. The Within the hour the e-mails extortion images were are forwarded to Det. Viewed by Deras and Da of_ j\ JK University of Utah Police Department Lauren McCluskey - Allegations of Misconduct by UUPD Of?cers 93'" ?9 Group ?Showing? Actual Date Unknown Lauren McCluskey is Killed Curen is killed in athe crime scene it is stated\ Deras showed the extortion images to three or four other officers where inappropriate her car, located in by Sgt-that Deras comments were made. her dorm parking showed him one of the The exact date of this showing is unknow but it extortion images. is believed to have taken place in the hallway outside the briefing room most likely on October 15th. /k University of Utah Police Department Lauren McCluskey - Allegations of Misconduct by UUPD Officers A Download of Deras's Phone Ofc. Deras Quit GRAMA Request GRAMA Request Cthe request of UUPD Request from the Salt Request from the Salt Lake administration, Deras agrees Miguel Dears Lake Tribune for Deras Tribune for Deras text to have his phone downloaded ended his phone download. messages between with the expectation that it employment 10/1/2018 and 12/1/2018' will help disprove allegations With the UUPD regarding the number and and W815 hiFEd duration of correspondence by Logan PD. There were many GRAMA request regarding the Qetween him and Lauren. McCluskey case but these three are specific to this investigation. University of Utah Police Department Lauren McCluskey - Allegations of Misconduct by UUPD Officers Lt. Wahlin directed to investigate Ofc. ?mpleted report dated 12/13/2019 states ?there is no evidence that any pictures were electronically transferred from Miguel Deras to Officer ?during the dates in question being 10/10/2018 11/5/2018 0r 9/12/2019 @9/2019. It. 'Wafh'iin follow-up investigation a Wahlin identified\ two other officers aside from Deras who had seen an extortion image. It is indicated that showing was for legitimate reasons only. The other two Lake Tribune article published miegations made thaA Deras saved the extortion images to his phone, and showed at least one of the images to a co-worker and bragged about getting to look at them Qe? Whenever he wantedj A Employees put on admin leave UUPD Deputy Chief Rick McLenon and Lt. Brian Wahlin are put on administrative leave. University of Utah Police Department Lauren McCluskey - Allegations of Misconduct by UUPD Officers ?-e'i'iasn ask-s ops for same; Deras Interviewed 3 IA Starts Investigation Approves ChiefChatman requests DPS to DPS Office of conduct an independent investigation into the allegations brought by the Salt Lake Tribune. Commissioner Professional Jess Anderson Standards approves starts the Ofc. Deras was interviewed under Ch'Ef I Investigation. Garrity by his current employer, Chatman Logan PD, regarding the allegations. request. Deras identified UUPD Sgt. _as the supervisor in the briefing he showed the image to. TR?Signation "of McLenon Deputy Chief Rich McLenon resigns from UUPD. . 7' IA Completes Investigation DPS Office of Professional Standards completes the investigation and submits the report to Chief Chatman. Utah Department of Public Safety Independent Investigation of Allegations of Misconduct by UPD Of?cers Case Report Summary: On or about May 17, 2020, The Salt Lake Tribune published a story regarding the University of Utah Police Department (UUPD) and their handling of sensitive photos of Lauren McCluskey. The Tribune's story alleges that former University of Utah Of?cer Miguel Deras showed off explicit photos of Lauren McCluskey to his co-worker. The article states he saved the pictures on his personal phone and boasted to his fellow of?cers about having them to look at whenever he wanted to. Investigation: On May 18, 2020, recently appointed UUPD Chief of Police (Rodney Chatman) asked for assistance from the Utah Department of Public Safety (DPS) in conducting an independent administrative investigation regarding these claims. On May 19, 2020, and at the direction of the Commissioner of Public Safety, Jess Anderson, The Of?ce of Professional Standards (IA) for the Utah Department of Public Safety began an independent investigation of these allegations. On May 20, 2020, Lieutenant D. Troy Denney and Sergeant Don Gould (from the Utah Department of Public Safety's Of?ce of Professional Standards) met with Chief Rodney Chatrnan and UUPD Lieutenant Jason Hinojosa. Chief Chatrnan and Lt. Hinojosa briefed Denney and Gould on the allegations. Lt. Denney, Sgt. Gould, and Sgt. Napierski conducted the ensuing investigative efforts and interviews. Chief Chatrnan explained to DPS IA that in the fall of 2019, UUPD began receiving GRAMA requests from news outlets seeking information regarding the download of former UUPD Of?cer Miguel Deras' personal cell phone. On September 18, 2019, UUPD received a request from The Tribune asking for a copy of the download of Deras' phone by the West Valley Police Department (WVPD). UUPD received additional GRAMA requests in October of 2019, which were for information regarding communications between Of?cers Miguel Deras and _(between October 10 to November 5, 2018, and August 12 to 19, 2019). On December 10, 2019, Acting Chief of Police Rick McLenon directed UUPD Lieutenant Brian Wahlin to, "Please formally conduct an IA based on the GRAMA request." (Email from Rick McLenon on 12/10/2019, 6:35 pm) Pagell On February 6, 2020, Lt. Brian Wahlin conducted follow up interviews with of?cers from UUPD regarding the allegations that ex licit ictures of Lauren McCluskey were shared between Of?cer Miguel Deras and Of?cer? According to those interviewed as part of this investigation, the purpose of the in December was to ful?ll the GRAMA request. However, the entire IA investigation conducted by Lt. Wahlin between December 2019, and February 2020, fell short of being a complete or thorough investigation. It would not be able to answer the yet to come allegations of misconduct that were ultimately reported by The Tribune on May 17, 2020. On or about October 31, 2019, UUPD Lt. Jason Hinojosa and Acting Chief Rick McClenon met with and were interviewed by Courtney Tanner from The Tribune as part of a story she was preparing. On or about February 6, 2020, UUPD acknowledged in a press release that during their review of this incident, it was determined, ?it was unnecessary for Of?cer Deras to show this image during the brie?ng.? On May 17, 2020, The Tribune published its story and allegations. That same day, McLenon ?nally read Lt. Wahlin?s IA investigative report. On or about May 18, 2020, UUPD placed both Lt. Brian Wahlin and Assistant Chief Rick McLenon on administrative leave. On May 19, 2020, Chief Chatman asked DPS IA to assist their Department by conducting an independent investigation of these events. On May 22, 2020, DPS 1A interviewed Lt. Wahlin about these allegations. Lt. Wahlin told DPS IA that, initially, his investigation focused on answering questions from the GRAMA request about communications between Deras and -and the download of Deras' personal phone. However, in February of 2020, Lt. Wahlin conducted a series of follow up interviews, and, on February 6, 2020, he wrote his supplemental report detailing his ?ndings after interviewing four more officers. Wahlin?s report states he did not follow up with interviewing six other of?cers who were no longer employed by UUPD. During this interview, Lt. Wahlin explained that when he interviewed the of?cers in February, he discovered Of?cer-aw the images in question on October 13, 2018, the same day that Lauren McCluskey provided them to UUPD. Lt. Wahlin said Of?cer-old him that Deras showed him the images while asking procedural questions about handling the digital photos. Lt. Wahlin? 5 report states. [-aid] he did not see the picture in any brie?ng however on 10/13/2018 (Saturday) when Of?cer Deras took the call involving Lauren McKluskey [sic] he was the OIC, Of?cer Deras came to him with questions regarding information he received that needed to be put into evidence. Of?cerIaid that Of?cer Deras did show him a photo he received from Lauren McKluskey [sic], but it was for business purposes in getting information as to how to upload it to the case properly. . . It was never a situation of 'hey check this out' but simply a procedure question" (IA follow up report Pictures, 02/06/2020) Lt. Wahlin explained his role in the initial IA by saying, during the latter part of 2019, he had been tasked by UUPD to conduct their IA investigations. He explained that before this, he didn?t have any training in how to conduct 1A investigations. Shortly after being assigned as the IA investigator, he was given three or four IA or HR-related incidents to handle and was overloaded with work. Wahlin said Pagel 2 UUPD did not have a formalized process or procedure for handling IA cases. Furthermore, IA investigations, discipline, and HR-related issues were complicated because the HR department for the entire University determined the outcomes and ?ndings of any IA investigation. He also said the University's HR processes and the UUPD IA policy con?icted with each other. Lt. Wahlin told DPS IA, in hindsight, his efforts fell short of answering all of the yet to come allegations of misconduct involving the downloading/saving of evidence photos, sharing them, and boasting about them. In retrospect, he states he should have attempted to contact and interview Of?cer Deras about the investigation. Wahlin said he didn't because Of?cer Deras was no longer a University employee and focused on interviewing their employee,_ Lt. Wahlin also wishes he would have reached out to other former of?cers who may have been witnesses. Assistant Chief Rick McLenon Did Not See the Report: On May 29, 2020, DPS IA interviewed Assistant Chief Rick McLenon about these allegations. McLenon was also questioned about what he knew about Lt. Wahlin?s IA investigation. McLenon said Lt. Wahlin told him there was "nothing there." Lt. Wahlin con?rmed this and explained that when he said, ?there was nothing?, he meant, have determined that there is no evidence that any pictures were electronically transferred from Miguel Deras t0 Officer-luring the dates in question . . (Wahlin?s IA report on December 13, 2019). Acting Chief McLenon told DPS there was a breakdown in communication when Lt. Wahlin said there was "nothing there." McLenon said once Wahlin told him there was nothing there, he verbally passed along the same information to Robert Payne of the Of?ce of General Counsel for the University, and the University's Communications Director (Chris Nelson), who were involved in responding to The Tribune's allegations. Acting Chief McLenon said it wasn't until Monday, May 18, 2020, (after The Tribune published their story) that he ?nally read Lt. Wahlin?s report and realized the difference between what he passed up the chain of command and what Lt. Wahlin wrote in his report. McLenon admitted it was a failure not to have read the report when it was ?rst written. The Download of Deras' Personal Cell Phone: On July 1, 2020, DPS IA interviewed former Chief of Police Dale Brophy about these allegations. Former Chief Brophy was asked about the decision to download Of?cer Deras' phone. According to former Chief Brophy, both he and Assistant Chief Rick McLenon decided to conduct the download of Of?cer Deras' cell phone. In deciding to do the download, Brophy and McLenon agreed they would ask Of?cer Deras for consent to conduct the download while explaining to him it would help clear his name of allegations that he mishandled the original call from Lauren McCluskey. UUPD Detective-med Assistant Chief McLenon asked him to pick ui Of?cer Deras from his home and drive him to the WVPD to conduct the download. According to the agreement they made with Deras was that WVPD would download Deras' phone, UUPD would review it for information, and then give him the only existing copy of the download. Detective old Of?cer Deras they would not keep a copy of it and would have WVPD delete the download from their servers. Pagc 3 Assistant Chief McLenon told Detective 0 ensure that WVPD did not keep a copy of the download. In his interview with DPS IA, Detective aid he argued with McLenon, saying UUPD should pull a case number to document what they were doing or create a supplemental report to the original McCluskey report. Still, either way, he felt the download should be more tranSparent. Ultimately, WVPD copied Deras' phone. However, WVPD failed to delete the copy of the download. Detective -states that he gave what he believed to be the only copy of the download to Deras. Deras (in his statement to Logan PD Internal Affairs investigators) claims no one from UUPD ever went over the ?ndings of the download with him. In the fall of 2019, shortly after Deras left employment with the University of Utah (and was hired by Logan PD), Deras received a phone call from reporter Courtney Tanner from The Tribune asking about the download. Of?cer Deras said after Courtney Tanner called him, he called Acting Chief McLenon and asked him if UUPD had a copy of the download contrary to their agreement. Acting Chief McLenon, believing there was no copy, told Deras they did not. However, Acting Chief McLenon eventually learned that WVPD had a copy of the download after they received a GRAMA request for it. WVPD told UUPD they failed to delete the download but ultimately gave their copy of the download to Robert Payne from the University's Of?ce of General Counsel. A report from WVPD dated November 21, 2019, shows the original download occurred on August 15, 2019. The time and date stamps on the download are from November 21, 2019, and likely re resent when the download was provided to UUPD by WVPD Of?cer?badge After the download on August 15, 2019, WVPD (presumably Of?cer_ told Detective the information he was searching for was either corrupted or had been overwritten to the pom a it was unrecoverable, or was no lon er available on the phone. The terms "corrupted" and "nothing" were then reported by Detective ?back to Lt. Brian Whalin, and Lt. Wahlin reported this same sentiment to Acting Chief Rick McLenon. MeLenon told DPS IA investigators he was under the impression that "nothing at all" was recovered from the download. He said he was later shocked to learn that there was information still on Deras? phone. Instead of "nothing," Of?cer Deras had tens of thousands of personal photos on his phone. However, the information concerning call logs and phone numbers was no longer available. That information had either been overwritten, become corrupted, was unrecoverable, or non-existent; there was nothing there. The download was conducted on a phone other than the one Of?cer Deras owned when Lauren McCluskey reported the extortion case to the UUPD. Of?cer Deras likely owned at least one other phone between the time he met with Lauren McCluskey and the download. It may have been the third phone Of?cer Deras owned during that time. The information which was ultimately recovered may have been the product of backups (or partial or incomplete backups) from the previous phones he had owned. Detective -aid he searched the download looking for evidence of downloading, sharing, or sending Lauren McCluskey's photos to anyone. He said he was speci?cally looking at the dates in question on the GRAMA request; however, his search covered the contents of the entire download. Detective Arrington told DPS IA he found no evidence of explicit images of Lauren McCluskey on Deras' phone. Download vs. Access Via Email: The Tribune's article states, ?When Miguel Deras, one of the of?cers assigned to her case, received them, he saved the photos on his phone." At the time of this incident, UUPD of?cers did not have Department-issued phones. It wasn?t until after July of 2019, that UUPD issued department phones to their line level of?cers. Prior to July of 2019, UUPD Of?cers used their personally-owned cell phones to conduct police business, and it was customary to access their work emails through their phones. Of?cer Deras told Logan PD this is how he accessed the images of Lauren McCluskey on any of the occasions when he displayed or showed the photos. Deras told Logan PD he accessed his work email account when he showed the pictures to the OIC on October 13, and also when he showed the Sgt. in the brie?ng. Deras denied ever saving or downloading the images to his phone. When Detective the download, his initial reason for searching Of?cer Deras' phone was to look for information about Deras and McCluskey's phone calls. While that was his primary purpose for searching the phone, Detective ttests that he did not ?nd any explicit photos of Lauren McCluskey on Deras' phone. In December of2019, Lt. Brian Wahlin searched Of?cer 3 personal and work phones, looking for evidence that Of?cer Deras had transmitted or shared the photos with- Lt. Wahlin wrote in his report: have determined there is 11 that any pictures were electronically transferred from Miguel Deras to Of?ce during the dates in question, being October 10, 2018 to November 5, 2018, or August 12, 2019 to August 19, 2019." As part of this independent investigation, DPS IA investigators also searched the download looking for evidence that Deras had the extortion photos from Lauren McCluskey on his phonethe images in question on Of?cer Miguel Deras' phone. Briefing on October 15, 2018: Lt. Wahlin?s investigation determined that Of?cer Deras did show the images of Lauren McCluskey to a supervisor and co-workers at a shift-brie?ng that likely took place on October 15, 2018. DPS IA learned that although shift-brie?ngs were usually conducted in a conference room, sometimes they took place in UUPD's parking lot or just in passing, and were occasionally informal. Sometimes the brie?ngs were nothing more than one Officer passing along information to the next Of?cer. Shift-brie?ngs are supposed to happen between graveyard shifts and day shifts at 06:30 am, between day shift and swing shift at 02:30 pm, and between swing shift and the graveyard shift at 9:00 pm (approximately). Although someone from the shift that was checking off-duty needed to attend the brie?ng, not all of the of?cers going off-duty were required to participate in the brie?ng. If of?cers were handling calls, they were not required to participate in the brie?ng. Also, any of?cer assigned the security detail at the Hospital was not required to attend. Nor was there any requirement to document the meeting. There was no requirement to ?le an agenda from the brie?ng. Furthermore, there was no requirement to document who the on-duty supervisor was, who conducted or attended the meeting, or if any issues were addressed with the of?cers. Efforts to determine who attended the brie?ng on October 15, 2018, have included obtaining a copy of the electronic key-card access logs and requesting copies of any security camera footage of the PD on that day. Additional efforts included obtaining work schedules, asking for and reviewing daily logs for officers scheduled to work that day, and reviewing call logs and records for anyone who claimed work hours on the 15th. DPS IA obtained a copy of the UUPD of?cer's work schedule for October 15, 2018, electronic key-card access logs, daily logs from some of the of?cers, and radio call logs. Security camera footage was not available due to the length of time that has passed since that day until the time that it was requested. Of?cer Deras reported to Logan PD that Of?cers-and _were also in this brie?ng. Of?cer _denies being at the brie?ng in question or ever seeing the photos in question and there is no evidence to suggest that he was there. Additionally, this investigation found that Of?cer eft employment with UUPD on October 19, 2018, and had been out on a medical issue for over a week prior to his departure, and was not working on the day the brie?ng in question is believed to have taken place. The or supervisors who worked at UUPD in October of 201 8 were Sgt._ Sgt.- and Call logs from October 15 2018, suggest that the only Sgt. at the PD at the time the brie?n was likely held, is Sgt. Documentation from the call logs shows that Sgt. ?was not at UUPD until the evening of the 15th. There are no call logs for Sgt._for October 15. Call logs for Sgt. show him at UUPD at 6:19 am on October 15, which corresponds with the time of the morning brie?ngs. Ultimately, there is no documentation to show who actually attended the meeting, if it was a formal brie?ng, or if it was something as informal as a group of of?cers sitting around together. Althou Sgt. _claims he wasn't at the shift-brie?ng, key-card records and call logs show Sgt. vorked an overtime shift at the University of Utah Hospital the night of October 14, 2018, and that he was at UUPD on the morning of the 15th. The key-card logs show that Sgt. entered UUPD at 6:06 am through the west entry door. The radio-call logs document that Sgt. was at UUPD at approximatel 06:19 hours on Monday, October 15, 2018. When confronted with this information, he doesn't remember those details but does not deny the records' accuracy. In conclusion, there is very little information obtained through these efforts that helped determine who attended the brie?ng, although there is evidence to suggest the supervisor was Sgt.? Allegations of Boasting of Having Images of Lauren McCluskey: The Tribune alleges Deras boasted about getting to look at the explicit photos of Lauren McCluskey whenever he wanted. Page 6 On May 22, 2020, UUPD Of?cer-old DPS IA that he remembers hearing Deras make a statement to the effect of, ?And I can look at them whenever I want.? This comment reportedly took place outside of or separate from the afore-mentioned shift-brie?ng. Of?cer-was the ?rst to report that this happened, and Of?cer?later con?rmed that this was another instance when O?icer Deras displayed the images. DPS has not determined the date and time when this display of the images happened. According to Of?cers-nd_ this display occurred outside of the conference room where brie?ngs take place. Officers -and -described the gathering as taking place in the hallway near the door to the conference room. Officer-also told investigators that he remembers a small group of of?cers who saw the pictures. The of?cers re orted to have been art of this incident are Of?cer Miguel Deras, Of?cer omccr and omeerh Of?cer-aid he was there and saw what was oin on, but denies seeing the images anywhere other than the brie?ng as mentioned above. Of?cer dmits it is possible that he made an inappropriate comment while with this group of of?ces, but couldn't say, speci?cally, what he might have said. He remembers hearing some unprofessional comments but can't say speci?cally what those comments were, or even who said what. Allegations that Officer Deras Was Nervous About his Phone Being Downloaded: Another statement from The Tribune was that Of?cer Deras was nervous about the download. This investi ation found that at least two individuals familiar with the download (Detective nd Of?cer asked Deras if he was nervous or worried about something on his phone. Detective and former Of?cer -aid Deras told them he wasn't concerned with anything related to auren McCluskcy being found on his phone. Detective-icked Deras up from his home and drove to WVPD. It was Deras' impression the download would take a relatively short amount of time. In reality, the download reportedly took between 12 to 16 hours to complete. Deras told Logan PD, Detective -picked him up about noon, and he got his phone back sometime around 4:00 am the next morning. After waiting approximately 4 hours for the download to be done, Deras told Detective -he needed to get home because he was scheduled to work in the evening and needed time to get dressed for work and drive from Utah County to the University of Utah. Of?cer Deras ultimately went to work without his phone and discovered he needed the phone to conduct police business. During the hours that he did not have the phone, his Sergeant asked him to make phone calls, which Deras couldn't do. At one point, Deras borrowed a fellow of?cer's phone (Of?cer_ to make a call. When the other of?cer asked him where his phone was, Deras explained that the Department was downloading it. According to Detective- Deras was concerned about the Department's prying eyes on his private conversations with his girlfriend and grew worried about the length of time the download was taking because he needed his phone when he checked on-duty. Detective -aid Deras was concerned about not having his phone because he needed it to conduct police business, and his girlfriend might need to get a hold of him and he wouldn't be able to answer her call. Lastly, he was concerned about not having his phone because he was expecting a phone call from Logan PD regarding his recent employment application with them. After getting his phone back from Detective- Of?cer Deras went back to the University of Utah and ultimately made his rounds over to the University of Utah Hospital, where security of?cers and swom of?cers rovide securit for the Hospital. While at the Hospital, Deras reportedly spoke with Of?cer? Of?cerh and a security of?cer by the name of? On June 2, 2020, DPS IA interviewed Of?cer-bout these allegations. Of?cer- openly said that the University of Utah terminated him between then and the time of this investigation and readily admits that he feels aggrieved by UUPD. Furthermore, he says that he spoke with The Tribune reporter Courtney Tanner about Of?cer Deras before they published their story. Of?cer said after the download, Deras asked him for his thoughts and advice regarding the download. Of?cer-says that Deras told him that he had the only copy of the download. When Of?cer sked Deras if they would ?nd an thin' on his phone, Deras supposedly told him he was worried about messages between him and? DPS IA searched all of the Spillman chat logs between Of?cer Deras and Of?cer-but did not ?nd any conversations between the two of?cers that would be considered obscene, or derogatory toward Lauren McCluskey, or even toward UUPD or their supervisors. etc. Sgt.? On May 19, 2020, Logan PD conducted a Garrity interview with Of?cer Mi uel Deras. During this interview, Deras said he showed the images of Lauren McCluskey to On May 27, 2020, DPS IA interviewed Sgt-bout these allegations. Sgt. said he did not know about the extortion case involving Lauren McCluskey until after she was murdered. Sgt-tatcs he works as an administrative Sergeant whose schedule is day shift, Tuesday through Friday. He says he works in the UUPD basement and does not regularly interact with the other of?cers, nor does he normally attend shift-brie?ngs. Sgt-claimed not to have been working the moming of MondaiI October 15, 2018. He also denies being part of the brie?ng or being the on-duty Sergeant. Sgt. denies he was ever shown an explicit photo of Lauren McCluskey until October 22, 2018. Sgt. said on the night Lauren McCluskev was murdered, he was assigned to help with perimeter security at the homicide scene. Sgt. tates, while standing there, Of?cer Deras arrived on the scene. Sgt. told DPS IA he remembers being at the homicide scene and wondering who the victim was. Sgt. said he remembers saying to Of?cer Derras, wonder what she looked like." After that, aid Of?cer Deras held up his hone where he could see it and on the reen was an image?of Lauren McCluske He said it was a sexually explicit image He sa 5 he doesn't recall anything else about the photo, on at it was a qu1e impse. . gt. as unsure if the picture was on Deras' phone or if Deras pulled it up from his email. Sgt. aid when he saw the photo, he could have said something along the lines of "Um, she's cute" but he doesn?t recall what he said. Sgt-aid he didn?t think Miguel showed it to him to get a reaction out of him or for shock value. Page 8 Although Sgt-claims that the photo Deras showed him on October 22, was one of the extortion photos, that has not been con?rmed. When DPS IA searched the download of Deras? phone, they found photos taken on October 22, 2018, outside of the perimeter of the crime scene. One of the photos was a screenshot of Lauren McCluskey?s driver?s license photo from the Spillman's Computer Aided Dispatch system. Another picture is of Sgt?standing outside of the crime scene near a red cooler. Sgt._old DPS IA that if anyone says he saw any explicit picture of Lauren McCluskey before the homicide, they would be lying because he did not know about their existence until October 22, 2018. Ultimately, Sgt.-aid he does not remember being at a shift-brie?ng when Deras showed the ima es nor does he remember Of?cer Derras asking for guidance on what to do with them. Sgt. ?aid he is not sure why anyone would say they showed him the photos, because, according to him, that didn't happen. On June 11, 2020, DPS IA interviewed UUPD it. Of?cer Deras showed him the images. Sgt. brie?ng, and he was never shown the plctures. DPS IA asked Sgt-if esponded by saying he was not at the shift- While being questioned, Sgt-old DPS IA about something UUPD called "The Watch." He said, "The Watch" was an email noti?cation that was supposed to be sent to the Department's command staff after shift brie?ngs. It was intended to rovide information about issues that were being handled by the of?cers during their shift. Sgtdaid they were supposed to be sent frequently, if not every day, but would typically only include the more important things and not day-to-day issues. Upon learning about these noti?cations, DPS IA asked t. 'f he had copies of any of "The Watch" emails he sent the week of October IS. as able to ?nd four such notices from ?les he kept on his work computer. DPS IA also requested the assistance of the University's IT Department by searching email accounts for any emails related to "The Watch" notices between October 12, 2018, and October 22, 2018. Chief Information Security Of?cer for the University of Utah, Core Roach, searched and found few such emails, three of which were e0pies of the same notices Sgt?wad already provided. On Ma 26, 2020, DPS IA questioned Sgt._about these allegations. DPS IA questioned bout whether or not he viewed the images in question and asked if he was the supervisor on duty the morning of October IS, 2018. Sgt.-xplained that he has retired from working at UUPD but was employed as a Sgt. at the time of the McCluskey Investigation. gt-aid he has not seen the extortion photos and was not in the afore-mentioned brie?ng. He further states he is unaware of whether Of?cer Deras shared the pictures with anyone. Page 9 On May 22, 2020, DPS IA interviewed Of?cer-bout these allegations. Of?cer-tates that he is extremely embarrassed and ashamed of his actions but remembers saying something inappropriate when Deras showed the images while in the UUPD hallway. Of?cer-is the only Of?cer DPS IA interviewed who has admitted to making an unprofessional comment, and recognizes UUPD could discipline him for his actions. Of?cer-aid -1nd -made some off-color comments too but doesn't remember precisely what was said or who said what. Ile does, however, recognize that their comments were unprofessional. Even though he doesn't speci?cally remember what the other of?cers said, Of?cer emembered Of?cer Deras saying something like, "And I get to look at them whenever he wants to." Of?cer the only person DPS IA interviewed who has reported that Of?cer Deras said this. On May 22, 2020, DPS IA interviewed Of?cer?bout these allegations. dmits that he was in the brie?ng when Of?cer Deras showed the images to Sgt. Of?cer-described the brie?ng as being lax, and Sgt?didn?t do anything to shut down what was going on. Of?cer-aid he remembers Of?cer Deras walked around the brie?ng table and showed each person the pictures. Of?cer-aid he remembered seeing three explicit images and remembers hearing people say things like, "cute girl," and, "lucky you got that also told DPS IA that using the phrase "lucky you" could have meant something satirical, implying the opposite of being luck meaning Deras would have his hands full with an investigation of this type. (2nd interview with When asked about viewing the images in a setting other than in the brie?ng, he acknowledged he was nearby when Deras showed the photos to the of?cers in the hallway. Of?cer -ays he remembers hearing some off-color comments but denies viewing or seeing the images then and there. Of?cer said he remembers Of?cer?and Of?cer Derras (and maybe Of?cer being present during that occasion. Of?cer-lenies he was present at this and no one else has mentioned him as possibly being there. On June 29, 2020, DPS IA interviewed Of?cer -for a second time. On this date, DPS IA uestioned Of?cer-bout statements made by former UUPD Of?ce_ Officer isaid Of?cer Deras was concerned about the text messages between Of?cer Deras and Of?cer Officer-Jenies that he and Officer Deras were worried about inappropriate communications between them being found on the download or any other messaging app. Of?cer said, that at the most, Deras might be concerned about "trash talking" UUPD or his supervisor, who he sometimes thought was treating him unfairly. Page 10 Of?cer aid almost all of his messages with Deras were over the Spillman chat system. Of?cer aid any texting outside of Spillman would have been using the text message app on his phone and never through any social media app like acebook messenger, or Instagram, etc. Of?cer-old DPS that when Lt. Wahlin investigated this incident in December and again in February, Lt. Wahlin went through-s phone and text messages and did not ?nd anything inappropriate between [)eras and himself. On June 29, 2020, Of ?cer-vent through his phone and text messages again, in Lt. Denney?s presence, for any conversations between him and Of?cer Deras. There were no text messages on his cellphone between Of?cer Deras and Of?cer- There were only two instances where Of?cer Deras' name appeared in any text messages, and they were from a supervisor who was scheduling a security detail that was being handled by UUPD. As part of this investigation, DPS 1A read all of the messages between Of?cers -md Of?cer Deras in the Spillman chat logs. This investigation did not ?nd any communications that resembled an attack on the UUPD leadership or any comments of a coarse, off-color, or unprofessional nature about Lauren McCluskey. Lt. Brian Wahlin?s report from December 13, 2019, states: "Of?cer-did tell me that after thinking about the situation that there may be an IM from back around the time this case [was] initiated in which Of?cer-em something to the effect of heard you had an interesting case" or hear you have good pictures. After reviewing the IM's from in/around the dates in question, there was nothing found in regards to the statements by Of?cer-" On June 29, 2020, DPS IA also questioned Of?ce-about another question that arose from this investi ration. Speci?cally, former UUPD Detective Kayla Dallof told DPS IA investigators that Of?cer ?sked her for the photos causing her to become very uncomfortable and telling him that he could not view them. Of?cer damantly denied this allegation saying that Kayla was lying. Of?cer-stated that her claim that this happened is false. Of?cer-denies ever asking Kayla to see the photos. On May 22, 2020, DPS IA interviewed Of?cer -about these allegations. Before May 22, 2020, it was believed that Of?cer-ad only seen the photos while helping Of?cer Deras handle the initial extortion call. However, on May 22, 2020, Lt. Hinojosa contacted Lt. Denney to report Detective-ad told him (I-Iinojosa) that Of?cer-was also at the brie?ng on the day Deras showed the photos to the Sergeant. Lt. Hinojosa said Detective -old him that he talked to Of?ce-at the Hospital on May 19, 2020. According to Detective Of?cer-was surprised he had not been questioned about these allegations before [by Lt. Whalin] and said, don't know why no one has come and talked to me, because I was there at that brie?ng." Of?cer-explained to DPS IA he saw the hotos for the ?rst time while helping Of?cer Deras handle the initial extortion complaint. Of?cerhdenies that he ever asked Of?cer Deras to see the photos. He states no one ever shared or sent the images to him and that he certainly never saved or shared the photos with anyone else since he never had the opportunity to, because he didn't have them. Pagc' ll On June 29, 2020, DPS IA interviewed Of?cer second time. DPS IA questioned Officer-bout being part of a "huddle" after the shift-briefing. Of?cer-states that he has no recollection of that happening. He also states that he has no memory of ever saying anything unprofessional or disrespectful about Lauren McCluskey, as it has been alleged that he did. On May 29, 2020, DPS IA investigators interviewed Detective?regarding these allegations. Detective -xplained that he worked as a Detective for the West Valley Police Department before coming over to UUPD. Regarding the phone download, Detective-aid he had a friend at WVPD who could conduct the download off the record, which Acting Chief Rick McLenon wanted. According to_ they wanted to confirm the number of calls, and the duration of those calls back and forth between Lauren McCluskey and Officer Deras. Detective Faid he was supposed to make sure Officer Deras got the only copy and that WVPD di n?t eep a copy of it. Detective aid that he wanted to document the download with a report but was told not to by Assistant Chief McLenon. Detective-told DPS IA he asked to draw a separate case number to attach a supplemental report to, and to document the download but was again told no. Detective laims he pushed the issue with McLenon because he saw no reason not to document it, but ultimately did what Assistant Chief McLenon wanted, and had the download performed the way McLenon asked to have it done. After "nothing" was found on the download, Detective old WVPD to delete the download and personally gave (what he believed to be) the only copy of it to Officer Derras. Detective said he later found out that WVPD did not delete the download, and Acting Chief McLenon was upset because McLenon was told there were no other copies. When DPS IA questioned Detective-if he had ever seen any of the extortion images, aid he had because he was part of the Detective?s Division that handled the homicide investigation. Detective-aid he saw the extortion pictures once they were uploaded to a UUPD server used for investigations, called the Drive." Assistant Chief Rick McLenon: On May 29, 2020, DPS IA investigators interviewed Assistant Chief Rick McLenon regarding these allegations. Assistant Chief McLenon said he did not know about the extortion aspect of the McCluskey investigation until after her murder on October 22, 2018. Assistant Chief McLenon told DPS IA that he spoke to Courtney Tanner from The Tribune on or about October 3 2019. McLenon told Tanner that Deras volunteered to have the download done. According to Assistant Chief McLenon, Deras wanted to use the download to clear his name from the allegations that he improperly handled the initial call with Lauren McCluskey. Assistant Chief McLenon told DPS IA he didn't remember Detective ushing back or arguing that he wanted to document the download with a report. Page: 12 Assistant Chief MeLenon told DPS IA he is aware that some things about UUPD need to change, including how IA investigations are conducted; however, he believes the systems at the University hinders some of the process of implementing change. Assistant Chief McLenon said, in light of all that has taken place since the McCluskey Investigation, UUPD has implemented some procedural changes in response to some of the Department's de?ciencies. Speci?cally, he referred to the fact that of?cers are now issued department-owned cell phones and should not be accessing digital evidence from their personal phones. Additionally, on February 10, 2020, UUPD updated the following policies: Policy 701 Personal Communication Devices, Policy 806 Computer and Digital Evidence, and Policy 1009 Personnel Complaints. In conclusion, Assistant Chief McLenon reiterated he never saw the extortion photos before Lauren McCluskey's murder on October 22, 2018. He explained that, since the time of her murder, he has seen the photos because of his position in the UUPD, and his role in the homicide investigation. Assistant Chief McLenon denies ever making any inappropriate comments regarding the pictures. Assistant Chief McLenon said he is uncomfortable making any further comments about this case due to the ongoing litigation surrounding the McCluskey Investigation. On June 6 2020, DPS IA questioned former UUPD Of?cer-bout these allegations. Of?cer-xplained that even though he worked for UUPD in 2019, he no longer works for them but is currently employed by another law enforcement agency. Of?cer-old DPS IA that Courtney Tanner with The Tribune contacted him, and he talked with her about these same issues. Of?cer-aid that he left employment with UUPD in the fall of 2019. Shortly after that (late August or early September), he was interviewed by Courtney Tanner from The Tribune about these allegations. He said Tanner called him and asked if "Deras kept a he told her, knew that he had a photo but I don't know that he showed it to anybody. It could have been legit because we didn't have Department phones at the time." (58:29 time on-interview). Of?ce aid Of?cer Deras was worried about things he had texted to bout Lauren McCluskey. Of?cer-said he didn?t know what it was speci?cally but it might have been something like, "We're shit heads, and she was a cute little gal. It could have been dirty text messages." (Time 1:02 on the recording of the interview). -old DPS 1A, knew that he had downloaded the picture, but I don't know if it was, I know it was for the case. Whether or not he kept it to show around; I have no idea." (1:02:49 time on interview). PS lA asked him how he knew Of?cer Deras had a photo, he said he heard it from Of?cer When they were at a shift?brie?ng. Of?cer -said it was at a completely unrelated shift- rie mg when Of?cer passed along the information about a track star that was being said Miguel wasn't even at extorted for money (1:20:35 Time on interview). Of?cer this brie?ng when Of?ce rought this up. When asked to comment on what Of?cer-had told him-said, "It was something like, she's a track star, she's kind of pretty, but they're extorting her for money. Deras has got her picture, but Page 13 I don't know if that meant Deras actually has the picture, or Deras got the picture and it was in the case or anything like that. Everybody knows the picture was sent, but whether or not he kept it and was showing it around, I have no idea." :45 Time on -nterview). -told DPS IA that he confirmed for The Tribune, "Deras had a picture, and that he talked to another of?cer?, but-aid he didn't know anything about bragging. never heard him brag about anythin . I never heard him even talk about this case directly until the night of the murder." (1:05 Time oninterview). Of?cer-reported that he never heard Of?cer_ or Of?cer ?saying anything inappropriate about Lauren McCluskey (1:22:33 Time on-interview). He also said he never heard Miguel Deras say anything inappropriate about Lauren McCluskey. Of?cer aid that Courtney Tanner told him that she has heard that "Of?cer Deras prolonged investigations With attractive women to et their interactions to last longer, and then that he would do multiple follow ups with them." Of?cer icsponded by telling Tanner, never heard anything about that." (1:24:14 Time on-nterview). Of?cer-said it was only his impression that Of?cer Deras had downloaded the photos in question to his personal phone, "Whether or not he ke it, I don't know . . . because some of us would use our phones as cameras." (1:24:40 Time Of ?cer-aid that when he read The Tribune article in May, he felt like she had taken his comments out of context. Speci?cally, he said, "If she's basing anything on that, on me, then 'yes.? because, basically, when I read that I thought, I hope she's got another source besides me. . . (1:37:07 Time on interview). On June 24, 2020, DPS IA interviewed _about these allegations-was a security of?cer for the University of Utah Hospital in the Fall of 2019.- employment at the University ended in January of 2020. DPS IA questioned-ecause his name was suggested as someone who might con?rm the allegations that were reported by The Tribune. When interviewed, aid he was aware of the accusations against Deras and UUPD. When DPS 1A asked hat he was aware of regarding the complaint against UUPD, he responded by saying, ?Yeah, I?ve worked a lot with Courtney Tanner and people, so, you know, I uh, see it from both ends of it.? (3:20 Time on interview). ?said he reached out to Courtney Tanner and emailed her directly. aid what he talked to Courtney Tanner about, mostly, was other employee?s alleged acts of misconduct. He said he told Tanner that he believed the culture at the University Police Department before the McCluskey Investigation would allow allegations such as these to happen. To paraphrase?s comments regarding the allegations involving Of?cer Deras, he said the following: I worked with Miguel but he never showed me any pictures. I didn?t know him well enough for him to show me photos. I never had any conversations with him about the McCluskey case. I am not aware of anyone sharing photos. I?ve only heard about these rumors from reading about them in the papers and from Courtney Tanner. I?ve never heard any of the of?cers making derogatory comments about Lauren McCluskey, nor did I ever make any inappropriate comments about her. Page l4 _said he didn?t have any issues with Deras or reason to suspect that something was going on between Of?cer Deras and the Department. emce? On June 4, 2020, DPS IA questioned former UUPD Of?cer?about this case as his name was brought up as someone who might be able to con?rm some of the allegations that were made by The Tribune. Of?ce-aid he worked day-shift at the time in question and explained that brie?ngs were mandatory unless you were dispatched to a call. Of?cer-aid he has no recollection of Of?cer Derras showing him or anyone else photos of Lauren McCluskey. Of?cer-aid the only talk he remembers about Lauren McCluskey was Of?cer Deras feeling bad that more wasn?t done for her and that it had turned into what it did. of the Department. Of?ce said Courtney asked him about the McCluskey case but all he Of?cer-aid that Courtne Tanner from The Tribune called him and asked about the culture told her was that Of?cer Deras take all the blame because he was a new cop. Of?cer Miguel Deras: On June 25, 2020, DPS IA attempted to contact Of?cer Deras. DPS IA investigators used the last known personal phone number for Deras (as was provided by Logan PD). On July 1, 2020, DPS lA called Deras and left both voice mail and text messages for him with contact information on how to respond to their requests. DPS IA sent a text message to Deras with speci?c questions that DPS IA would like to ask him. DPS IA also requested that he respond one way or another and indicate whether he would consent to an interview. Since Of?cer Deras is no longer a University of Utah PD employee, this investigation did not have the authority or legal means to compel Deras to submit to an interview. On July 20, 2020, DPS IA still had not heard from Of?cer Deras, so they contacted the law ?rm representing Of?cer Deras to make the same request through his attorney, to ask if he would consent to be interviewed. On July 28, 2020, the law ?rm representing Of?cer Deras responded by saying, they weren?t saying no to an interview but contended that they didn?t have enough information about what their client would be asked to effectively counsel their client on how to respond. Conclusions: In conclusion, the following details of this investigation can be confirmed: On October 13, 2018, Lauren McCluskey contacted UUPD to report Melvin Rowland (as later con?rmed) was cxtorting her by threatening to release sexually explicit images of her to her friends and family. Of?cers Miguel Deras_ and _were all workini the day that Lauren McCluskey contacted UUPD about the extortion, and Of?cers Deras and et with Lauren McCluskey at the police department. Page 15 Lauren McCluskey emailed copies of the extortion photos to Officer Miguel Deras at his work email address. Within the same hour of receiving the images, Officer Deras forwarded the pictures to Detective Kayla Dallof. Both Of?cers Deras and ?aw the pictures while handling the initial complaint from Lauren McCluskey. Of?cer Deras asked or supervisory advice on how to handle the digital evidence and if he should attach the pictures to his report in the Spillman CAD system. Shortli after Lauren McCluske left UUPD. Of?cer Deras showed the images to the Of?cer in Charge, Of?cer Deras reports that he showed the extortion photos to another supervisor, presumably on Monday, October 15, 2018. Of?cer Deras again asked for guidance from this supervisor on how to handle the digital evidence. Officer Deras reported that the supervisor was Sergeant The of?cers identi?ed as being in the shift-brie?n I when Deras showed the images to Sgt.- are Of?cer _nd Of?cer? Sgt._denies being part of the brie?ng and said that anione who says otherwise would be lying. However, there are key-card access logs that show key?card accessed the building at approximately the same time the brie?ng in question was likely held. Sometime a?er the briefing, Of?cer Deras showed the images to a group of of?cers. The of?cers believed to have been present when Deras showed the photos are Officer- Of?cer- - and Of?cer? Of?cer-eports that he remembers making an inappropriate comment about the picture(s) when Deras showed the photos to the group ofofficers. Officer emembers hearing unprofessional remarks being made, and believes he might have said something off-color but doesn't remember anything speci?c about what he said. Of?cer _states he doesn't remember being there, nor does he remember saying anything coarse or crass. Sgt.-laims that on the night of Lauren McCluskey's murder, Of?cer Deras showed him one of the extortion photos. The West Valley Police Department made a copy of Of?cer Deras' personal cell phone at the request of UUPD. No evidence of the extortion photos was found on Of?cer Deras' cell phone. During a search of the download DPS IA found a screenshot of Lauren McCluskey's DI. photo that was presumably taken (by Of?cer Deras) on the night of October 22, 2018. The DL photo appears to have been captured from the Spillman CAD system when UUPD dispatched of?cers to Lauren McCluskey's abduction and murder. In the fall of2019, The Tribune began making GRAMA requests to UUPD to get a copy of the download of Of?cer Deras' phone. In December of2019, and again in February of 2020, UUPD conducted Internal Affairs interviews regarding the allegations that Of?cer Deras shared the extortion photos with Of?cer- UUPD Lt. Brian Wahlin conducted the IA investigation and determined, "there is no evidence that any pictures were electronically transferred from Miguel Deras to Officer?during the dates in question." Page l6 No physical evidence was discovered during this investigation of any communications between Of?cer Deras and Of?ce wherein they were boasting or otherwise making disrespectful comments about Lauren McCluskey, or about having the extortion photos. Re arding whether Of?cer Deras said he could look at these photos anytime he wanted to, Of?ce. ireported hearing Of?cer Deras say something to that effect. Of?cer Deras has not responded to this allegation since he was not interviewed as part of this investigation. Investigation roll Lt. D. Troy DJ Utah Depar lentof Pub Safety Of?ce of fessional Sta ards Date: 07/29/2020 Investigation and Report Review By: Date: 07/29/2020 Sgt. Don Gould Utah Department of Public Safety Of?ce of Professional Standards Investigation and Report Review By: a Date: 07/29/2020 Sgt. Nick Napierski Utah Department of Public Safety Of?ce of Professional Standards Page 17 Tl'lliu. IVE RS I TY OF UTAH 7 Depirtment of Pu?afety 1735 South Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 801?585?2677 Fax 801-581-7193 INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION To: Utah Department of Public Safety Of?ce of Professional Standards From: Chief Rodney Chatman Date: May 20, 2020 You are instructed to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated in December 2019. otify the employee of the investigation. 30:) not notify the employee of this investigation. Chief Rodney Chatman University of Utah Department of Public Safety TH UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Department of Public Safety 1735 South Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 801--585 2677 Fax 801? -581 4193 RE: Administrative internal Investigation This letter is to inform all employees of the University of Utah Department of Public Safety, I directed the Office of Professional Standards for the Utah Department of Public Safety to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated" In December 2019. You are instructed not to discuss this case with potential witnesses, involved employees, or other parties. If you need specific counsel, please direct your questions to Chief Safety Officer Marlon C. Sincerely, mimT #1!th Chief Rodney Chatman University of Utah Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Department of Publlc Safety 1735E South Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 801 ~585- 2677 Fax 801- 581- 7193 Date: 203? Dear, Ll RE: Administrative investigation This letter is to inform you of an administrative investigation that I authorized. 1 have directed the Of?ce of Professional Standards for the Utah Department of Public Safety to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated in December 2019. Regarding this investigation, you are instructed to make yourself available as needed as part of this investigation. You are further instructed not to discuss the details of this case or the events that lead to the initiation of this case with any witnesses, co-workers, other University employees, or other law enforcement of?cers who may potentially be involved with this incident. However, if you need supervisory counsel or guidance, you are instructed to direct your concems and questions directly to Chief Sa?ey Of?cer Marlon C. Upon the conclusion of this investigation, my of?ce will inform you of the completed status of the case. The Department of Public Safety?s Of?ce of Professional Standards will give their report to me for review and for ?nal determinations and ?ndings. Every attempt will be made to finish this investigation The Of?ce of Professional Standards will contact you soon to make arrangements to interview you. if you have further questions, please feel free to contact Lt. D. Troy Denney at (801) 558-7752. Sincerely,@ ?ueyMJ Chatman Chi University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah - Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: I wish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an of?cial investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. if you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subsequent internal departmental discipline. Ga rrity Statement given to: Signature Print 3/7 Date Time Garrity Statement given by: Sigmature Print b0 A 6; A Date S- 2" 1 gm Time ?726 Witnessed by: Si nature Print In? I Date 6/1) Time TH UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Department of Public Safety 1735 South Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 801-585-2677 Fax 801-581-7193 Date: 32, 2033 RE: Administrative investigation This letter is to inform you of an administrative investigation that authorized. have directed the Of?ce of Professional Standards for the Utah Department of Public Safety to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated in December 2019. Regarding this investigation, you are instructed to make yourself available as needed as part of this investigation. You are further instructed not to discuss the details of this case or the events that lead to the initiation of this case with any witnesses, co-workers, other University employees, or other law enforcement of?cers who may potentially be involved with this incident. However, if you need supervisory counsel or guidance, you are instructed to direct your concerns and questions directly to Chief Sa?ey Of?cer Marlon C. Upon the conclusion of this investigation, my of?ce will inform you of the completed status of the case. The Department of Public Safety?s Of?ce of Professional Standards will give their report to me for review and for ?nal determinations and ?ndings. Every attempt will be made to ?nish this investigation The Of?ce of Professional Standards will contact you soon to make arrangements to interview you. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Lt. D. Troy Denney at (801) 558-7752. Sincerely, WM . ney Chatman University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah mu - Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: I wish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an official investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subse uent internal de artmental discipline. Garrity Statement given to: Garrity Statement given by: Signature Print bone. Date 5139' 31030 Time 070'? Witnessed by: SignatLK/iyg? Print Arm??km Fv?fa?r?tfl) Date 6 Time OI TH IVE RS ITY OF UTAH Department of Public Safety 1735 ESouth Campus Drive SaltLake City, Utah 84112 801- 585- 2677 Fax 801 --581 7193 Date: 22. 20 20 RE: Administrative investigation This letter is to inform you of an administrative investigation that authorized. 1 have directed the Of?ce of Professional Standards for the Utah Department of Public Safety to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated in December 2019. Regarding this investigation, you are instructed to make yourself available as needed as part of this investigation. You are further instructed not to discuss the details of this case or the events that lead to the initiation of this case with any witnesses, co-workers, other University employees, or other law enforcement of?cers who may potentially be involved with this incident. However, if you need supervisory counsel or guidance, you are instructed to direct your concerns and questions directly to Chief Sa?ey Of?cer Marlon C. Upon the conclusion of this investigation, my of?ce will inform you of the completed status of the case. The Department of Public Safety?s Of?ce of Professional Standards will give their report to me for review and for ?nal determinations and ?ndings. Every attempt will be made to ?nish this investigation The Of?ce of Professional Standards will contact you soon to make arrangements to interview you. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Lt. D. Troy Denney at (801)558-7752. Sincerely?j Chi l'R ney Chatman University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah - Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: wish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an official investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings However, these statements may be used against you in re Garrity Statement given to: Garrity Statement given by: Signature (DJ v/g/ (pond) @vl? Print Date 5.11309" Time ??05 Witnessed by: Signature 6< Print lm?y" "mix Date ns/n/h?m Time [1:05 TH UNIVERSITY OF TA Department of Public Safety 1735 South Salt La?lie City, Utah am i2 801-585-2677 Fax 801-581-7193 Date: 23. 20% Dear, RE: Administrative investigation This letter is to inform you of an administrative investigation that authorized. I have directed the Of?ce of Professional Standards for the Utah Department of Public Safety to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated in December 2019. Regarding this investigation, you are instructed to make yourself available as needed as part of this investigation. You are further instructed not to discuss the details of this case or the events that lead to the initiation of this case with any witnesses, co-workers, other University employees, or other law enforcement of?cers who may potentially be involved with this incident. However, if you need supervisory counsel or guidance, you are instructed to direct your concerns and questions directly to Chief Sa?ey Of?cer Marlon C. Upon the conclusion of this investigation, my of?ce will inform you of the completed status of the case. The Department of Public Safety?s Of?ce of Professional Standards will give their report to me for review and for ?nal determinations and ?ndings. Every attempt will be made to ?nish this investigation The Of?ce of Professional Standards will contact you soon to make arrangements to interview you. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Lt. D. Troy Denney at (801) 558-7752. Sincerely, Chi ney Chatman University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY or UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: I wish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an official investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution ofthis State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subsequent internal departmental discipline. Garrity Statement given to: Si nature Garrity Statement given by: Signature 9" Print Date 5312-2030 Time Witnessed by: Signatureyg Print Jbe?C/ Date 3-12? 320 Time [0 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Depar_tment_ of Public Safety l735 South Campus Drive Salt lake City Utah 84112 801 -585- 2677 Fax 801- 581? 7193 Date: 05/27/20 2 0 Dear, RE: Administrative investigation This letter is to inform you of an administrative investigation that I authorized. I have directed the Of?ce of Professional Standards for the Utah Department of Public Safety to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated in December 2019. Regarding this investigation, you are instructed to make yourself available as needed as part of this investigation. You are further instructed not to discuss the details of this case or the events that lead to the initiation of this case with any witnesses, co-wodcers, other University employees, or other law enforcement of?cers who may potentially be involved with this incident. However, if you need supervisory counsel or guidance, you are instructed to direct your concerns and questions directly to Chief Sa?ey Of?cer Marlon C. Upon the conclusion of this investigation, my of?ce will inform you of the completed status of the case. The Department of Public Safety?s Of?ce of Professional Standards will give their report to me for review and for ?nal determinations and ?ndings. Every attempt will be made to ?nish this investigation The Of?ce of Professional Standards will contact you soon to make arrangements to interview you. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Lt. D. Troy Denney at (801)558-7752. Sincerely? Chi ney Chatman University of Utah Department of Public Safety 0 University of Utah - Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY 0? UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: I wish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an official investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. if you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subsequent internal departmental discipline. Garrity Statement given to: Si nature Garrity Statement given by: Signature (hf; Print 47?? Date #7 Time 30 . Witnessed by: Signature - lm/ 7/ Print {Pt?)1 7/ . Date 5/2 7/70 70/ Time (0730 TH UNIVERSITY OF UTAH . Department of Public Safety 1735 South Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Uta'i 84112 801-585-2677 Fax 801-581-7193 Date: 5/28/2020 RE: Administrative investigation This letter is to inform you of an administrative investigation that] authorized. I have directed the Of?ce of Professional Standards for the Utah Department of Public Safety to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated in December 2019. Regarding this investigation, you are instructed to make yourself available as needed as part of this investigation. You are further instructed not to discuss the details of this case or the events that lead to the initiation of this case with any witnesses, co-workers, other University employees, or other law enforcement officers who may potentially be involved with this incident. However, if you need supervisory counsel or guidance, you are instructed to direct your concerns and questions directly to Chief Sa?ey Of?cer Marlon C. Upon the conclusion of this investigation, my of?ce will inform you of the completed status of the case. The Department of Public Safety?s Of?ce of Professional Standards will give their report to me for review and for ?nal determinations and ?ndings. Every attempt will be made to ?nish this investigation The Of?ce of Professional Standards will contact you soon to make arrangements to interview you. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Lt. D. Troy Denney at (801) 558-7752. Sincerely, Chi ney Chatman University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah - Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: I wish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an official investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subsequent internal departmental discipline. Garrity Statement given to: Garrity Statement given by: Sinature Print By?! (A a Date {25" 7437'" Time Witnessed by: Signature r1) rm, Print I to Jim-J; r/ Date 9/28/2111) Time TH NIVERS ITY OF UTAH Department of Public Safety 1735 South Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 801-585-2677 Fax 801-581-7193 Date: 5/28/2020 Dear. Det? RE: Administrative investigation This letter is to inform you of an administrative investigation that authorized. I have directed the Of?ce of Professional Standards for the Utah Department of Public Safety to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated in December 2019. Regarding this investigation, you are instructed to make yourself available as needed as part of this investigation. You are further instructed not to discuss the details of this case or the events that lead to the initiation of this case with any witnesses, co-workers, other University employees, or other law enforcement of?cers who may potentially be involved with this incident. However, if you need supervisory counsel or guidance, you are instructed to direct your concerns and questions directly to Chief Saftey Of?cer Marlon C. Upon the conclusion of this investigation, my of?ce will inform you of the completed status of the case. The Department of Public Safety?s Of?ce of Professional Standards will give their report to me for review and for ?nal determinations and ?ndings. Every attempt will be made to ?nish this investigation The Of?ce of Professional Standards will contact you soon to make arrangements to interview you. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Lt. D. Troy Denney at (801)558-7752. Sincerely, Chi ney Chatman University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah ?mu Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY or UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: wish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an official investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. YOU will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. Ifyou do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subsequent internal departmental discipline. Garrity Statement given to: Garrity Statement given by: Signature Print )i Date 5: ?.903" Time 31 . . Witnessed by: Signature Iml/ Print 1 rL~~1 (Lu. Date @3213 Time [337 UNIVERSITY 01? UTAH .. Department of Public Safety 1735 South Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 801-585-2677 Fax 801-581-7193 Date: May 20, 2020 Dear, Rick Mclenon RE: Administrative investigation This letter is to inform you of an administrative investigation that I authorized. I have directed the Of?ce of Professional Standards for the Utah Department of Public Safety to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated in December 2019. Regarding this investigation, you are instructed to make yourself available as needed as part of this investigation. You are further instructed not to discuss the details of this case or the events that lead to the initiation of this case with any witnesses, co-workers, other University employees, or other law enforcement of?cers who may potentially be involved with this incident. However, if you need supervisory counsel or guidance, you are instructed to direct your concerns and questions directly to Chief Saftey Of?cer Marlon C. Upon the conclusion of this investigation, my of?ce will inform you of the completed status of the case. The Department of Public Safety?s Of?ce of Professional Standards will give their report to me for review and for ?nal determinations and ?ndings. Every attempt will be made to ?nish this investigation The Of?ce of Professional Standards will contact you soon to make arrangements to interview you. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Lt. D. Troy Denney at (801) 558-7752. Sincerely,@ Chi R0 ney Chatman University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah TH . Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: wish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an official investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. i further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or ?tness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subsequent internal departmental discipline. Garrity Statement given to: Signature WV 5? . Print Date Time [0 YO Garrity Statement given by: Signature Print Gov '3 Date Time .77 Witnessed by: Signature Print In. mm 1 7 3/ Date 51/2 y/zom Time 10:40 TH UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Department of Public Safety 1735 South Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 801-585-2677 Fax 801-581-7193 Date: $410). Roz, RE: Administrative investigation This letter is to inform you of an administrative investigation that I authorized. 1 have directed the Of?ce of Professional Standards for the Utah Department of Public Safety to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated in December 2019. Regarding this investigation, you are instructed to make yourself available as needed as part of this investigation. You are further instructed not to discuss the details of this case or the events that lead to the initiation of this case with any witnesses, co-workers, other University employees, or other law enforcement of?cers who may potentially be involved with this incident. However, if you need supervisory counsel or guidance, you are instructed to direct your concerns and questions directly to Chief Sa?ey Of?cer Marlon C. Upon the conclusion of this investigation, my of?ce will inform you of the completed status of the case. The Department of Public Safety?s Of?ce of Professional Standards will give their report to me for review and for ?nal determinations and ?ndings. Every attempt will be made to ?nish this investigation The Of?ce of Professional Standards will contact you soon to make arrangements to interview you. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Lt. D. Troy Denney at (801) 558-7752. Sincerely,@" Chi fR ney Chatman University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah - Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY or UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: I wish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an official investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subsequent internal departmental discipline. Garrity Statement given to: Garrity Statement given by: Signature X) 6w Date 53 Time Witnessed by: Signature .. . Print mm wt, 1 4 Date g. /15; A029 Time IV TH UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Department of Publlc Safety 1735 South Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 801- 585- 2677 Fax 801-581-1193 Date: 6 . l. 2094 RE: Administrative investigation This letter is to inform you of an administrative investigation that authorized. have directed the Of?ce of Professional Standards for the Utah Department of Public Safety to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated in December 2019. Regarding this investigation, you are instructed to make yourself available as needed as part of this investigation. You are further instructed not to discuss the details of this case or the events that lead to the initiation of this case with any witnesses, co-workers, other University employees, or other law enforcement of?cers who may potentially be involved with this incident. However, if you need supervisory counsel or guidance, you are instructed to direct your concems and questions directly to Chief Sa?ey Of?cer Marlon C. Upon the conclusion of this investigation, my of?ce will inform you of the completed status of the case. The Department of Public Safety?s Of?ce of Professional Standards will give their report to me for review and for ?nal determinations and ?ndings. Every attempt will be made to ?nish this investigation The Of?ce of Professional Standards will contact you soon to make arrangements to interview you. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Lt. D. Troy Denney at (801)558-7752. Sincerely?" Chi ney Chatman University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: wish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an official investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. lfyou do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subsequent internal departmental discipline. Garrity Statement given to: Si nature Garrity Statement given by: Signature? Print (DOW 6-0? 4 Date 6? l' :02" Time 09:3; Witnessed by: Signature . 7 a Print Mb; "ff/g; I Date 0 Time 0 ?7 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Department_ of Public _Saf_ety 1735 ESouth Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 801- 585? 2677 Fax 801- 581- 7193 Date: (er 2- 62020 RE: Administrative investigation This letter is to inform you of an administrative investigation thatl authorized. 1 have directed the Of?ce of Professional Standards for the Utah Department of Public Safety to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated in December 2019. Regarding this investigation, you are instructed to make yourself available as needed as part of this investigation. You are further instructed not to discuss the details of this case or the events that lead to the initiation of this case with any witnesses, co?workers, other University employees, or other law enforcement of?cers who may potentially be involved with this incident. However, if you need supervisory counsel or guidance, you are instructed to direct your concerns and questions directly to Chief Saftey Of?cer Marlon C. Upon the conclusion of this investigation, my of?ce will inform you of the completed status of the case. The Department of Public Safety?s Of?ce of Professional Standards will give their report to me for review and for ?nal determinations and ?ndings. Every attempt will be made to ?nish this investigation The Of?ce of Professional Standards will contact you soon to make arrangements to interview you. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Lt. D. Troy Denney at (80 558-7752. Sincerely?1 Chi fR ney Chatman University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah rm: Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: wish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an official investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent iminal proceedings. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subsequenlernal departmental discipline. Ga rrity Statement given to: Garrity Statement given by: SignatureD? Print (3 Date 208) Time a9}! Witnessed by: Signature A Print I Date 4/1/2aau Time 077/ UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Department of Public Safety 1735 South Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 801- 585-2677 Fax 801- 581- 7193 Date: Dear, RE: Administrative investigation This letter is to inform you of an administrative investigation that I authorized. have directed the Of?ce of Professional Standards for the Utah Department of Public Safety to conduct an independent administrative investigation into how this police department handled and responded to questions regarding sensitive digital evidence related to the Lauren McCluskey homicide. The focus of this inquiry is to review departmental policies or procedures, issues related to training and or supervision, as well as the administrative investigation processes that were in place at the time this issue was investigated in December 2019. Regarding this investigation, you are instructed to make yourself available as needed as part of this investigation. You are further instructed not to discuss the details of this case or the events that lead to the initiation of this case with any witnesses, co-workers, other University employees, or other law enforcement of?cers who may potentially be involved with this incident. However, if you need supervisory counsel or guidance, you are instructed to direct your concerns and questions directly to Chief Saftey Of?cer Marlon C. Upon the conclusion of this investigation, my of?ce will inform you of the completed status of the case. The Department of Public Safety?s Of?ce of Professional Standards will give their report to me for review and for ?nal determinations and ?ndings. Every attempt will be made to ?nish this investigation The Of?ce of Professional Standards will contact you soon to make arrangements to interview you. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Lt. D. Troy Denney at (801) 558-7752. Sincerelya~ ney Chatman University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah rm: - Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY 0? UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: wish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an official investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subsequent internal departmental discipline. Garrity Statement given to: Garrity Statement given by: Signature /gj Print 6; 4' ?ii 20% Time i Witnessed by: Signature lm.? . Print hay nn/ Dateir/lsj/ 1010 Time 0930?] Date University of Utah - Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY 0? UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: I wish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an official investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subsequent internal departmental discipline. Ga rrity Statement given to: Garrity Statement given by: Signature Print lat/:4 Iron Date I. 1511) Time N306, Witnessed by; Signature 6% Print A 1 '1 Date 6'9? 7030 Time University of Utah Department of Public Safety UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Garrity Rule Case Number: lwish to advise you that you are being questioned as a part of an official investigation for the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This investigation is being conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards at the request of Chief Rodney Chatman. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office. You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to answer questions, intentionally omit any factual information, evade or misrepresent the truth as it relates to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you may be subject to departmental discipline, up to and including dismissal from the department. If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence, which is gained by reason of such statements, can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings. However, these statements may be used against you in relation to subse uent internal de artmental discipline. Garrity Statement given to: /k Date /1 7/207? Time (Glob Witnessed by: Signature Print Ea? Date 525' Time IA Investigation 12/13/2019 Introduction This investigation is being conducted as a result of a GRAMA request that was sent to the Department of Public Safety which is as follows: 4) Any and all correspondence (records) sent between UUPD officers Miguel Deras and? between the following two date ranges: Oct. 10 Nov. 5, 2018, and August 12 19, 2019; including but not limited to: e-mails, text messages, handwritten notes, and any and all messaging applications including but not limited to iMessages, Whatsapp, Signal, Facebook Messenger, Instagram, Twitter, etc. This investigation is being conducted specifically with Officer?only at this time, Officer Miguel Deras is no longer employed by the University Department of Public safety. Synopsis Upon receiving direction from Deputy Chief Rick McLenon to conduct a formal Internal Affairs Investigation I reached out to Officer-nd scheduled him in to discuss this request. I met with Officer?on December 13, 2019 in my office located in building 301, 1735 South Campus Dr. SLC, Utah 84112. Upon Meeting with Officer audio recorded the meeting, prior to discussing the information requested read the Garrity Warning to Officer-which he said he understood and signed the document, I also signed at the same time. I began the meeting explaining the GRAMA request to Officer -nd then proceeded the information requested including any correspondence between he and Miguel Deras during the dates in question.-responded that he was not aware of any and he does not have a Facebook account, or text messages from that long ago. Officer-said that there may be that were communicated between the two during the time in question. Officer-ould not recall anything specific being communicated between he and Miguel during this time but said there could have been some communication between them. I asked Officer-if he had ever received a text or had been shown pictures involving the Lauren McCluskey case. Officer-said that Miguel did show a picture of Lauren McCluskey in a briefing. When asked to further describe the incident officer-said that Miguel showed a picture on his phone during briefing which was of Lauren McCluskey? Officer -said that the picture was not sent butjust viewed on Miguel?s phone. He said that the picture was viewed by other officers but he could not recall who was present at the time the picture was shown. I asked if showed more than 1 picture and he said he believes it was just one picture. Officer-aid that to the best of his memory this incident took place at the time Lauren was initially reporting the extortion incident. I asked again if at any time did Officer-eceive any text or other correspondence from Miguel regarding the McCluskey case and he said no. Officer-said that he never communicates with Miguel via social media but has communicated periodically via text. Evidence I viewed Officer-s personal and department issued cell phone and did not find any pictures sent between Officer?nd Miguel During the dates requested. Officer-did produce some text messages between them outside the dates requested which were not work related. Officer-did tell me that after thinking about the situation that there may be an IM from back around the time this case initiated in which Officer-ent saying something to the effect of heard you had an interesting case? or hear you have good pictures? After reviewing the from in/around the dates in question, there was nothing found in regards the statements by Officer- Conclusion After discussing this matter with Officer-and viewing his cell phones, I have determined that there is no evidence that any pictures were electronically transferred from Miguel Deras to Officer?wring the dates in question being October 10, 2018 November 5, 2018 or August 12, 2019 August 19, 2019. Exhibits Email from Rick McLenon 12/10/2019 6:35 PM If you read the Grama request it mentions about 2/3 of the way down theerequest for information related to texts or other digital means between Miguel and- it talks about the possible date. Please formally conduct an 1A based on the Grama request. Forwarded messa From: Date: Dec 10, 2019 3:45 PM Subject: GRAMA Request R001923-l 1819, prepayment estimate (rile al .utah.edu> To: Rick Melcnon tad Jason llinojosa Rick, I am following up on the below GRAMA request. We will be asking the requestor to prepay the costs before providing responsive records. We need to know your department?s estimated search and retrieval time. Our office will be doing a preliminary search for emails, so at this time we need you to focus on the non-email correspondence (highlighted below). Please let us know who will likely be searching and how much time you think it will take. We will wait to gather the responsive documents until we receive prepayment. For request we already have the emails between Lauren and Deras and the emails Deras forwarded to Dallof. We will need to know if there are any additional emails or texts within the given timeframes that would be responsive. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, !emor Para ega Office of General Counsel, University of Utah 201 S. Presidents Circle, Room 309 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Phone: 801-585-7002 Email: le al.utah.edu From: University of Utah Public Records Center Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 3:50 PM No Reply Subject: GonA New Request Created - R001923-111819 R001923-111819 Please respond above this line A request has been created: GRAMA Request R001923-111819 Request Assigned Staff: Status: Received Create Date: ll/l8/2019 3:48:18 PM Type of Reeord(s) Requested: Other/Multiple Types Record(s) Requested: Nicole Producc?s?E}? 1021 Milpas St Apt. Bat; Ph: 860-983-9196 University of Utah Records October 18, 2019 RE: RECORDS REQUEST Dear Records Officer: This is a request under the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act. Pursuant to that law, I request access to and copies of the following: 1) The chronological log (or ?sign in? sheet) for the University of Utah Police Forensic Dept. on the days ofAugust 12 19, 2019. Specifically, I am looking for the list ofpublic safety officials who performed forensic downloads and forensic analysis on those days, and what evidence they were having forensically analyzed. -mai1s, notes, texts, or other types of written or verbal correspondence between to/from an 'of the followin West Valle Police Dc or 2) Any and all UUPD of?cial staffers between the dates of August 12 -l9, 2019. 3) Any and all correspondence (records) created, collected and/or maintained by, sent to/from, any of the following Universit of Utah Police De artment staffers - Dale Broph Rick McLenon, Brian Wahlin, mama nerds, and_ between the dates August 12 19, 2019 - which contain any ofthc following phrases: West Valley, WVPD, WVCPI), forensic download, mobile hone, cell hone, Lauren, McCluske photos, pornography, Miguel Deras, Beast The records 1 would like searched include, but not limited to: e-mails, text messages, handwritten notes, incident report logs, case notes, evidence logs, Spillman logs, cell phone forensic downloads, and any and all messaging applications including but not limited to iMessagC, WhatsApp, Signal, Ii?accbook Messenger, lnstagram, Twitter, etc. 4 An and all correspondence (records) sent between UUPD officers Miguel Deras and - Hbetween the following two date ranges: Oct. 10 Nov. 5, 2018, and August 12 19, 2019; including but not limited to: c-mails, text messages, handwritten notes, and any and all messaging applications including but not limited to iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, Facebook Messenger, lnstagram, Twitter, etc. 5) Any and all e?mails and texts/messages between Lauren McCluskey and Miguel Deras between the dates Oct. 13 22, 2018, as well as any and all e?mails and messages in which Deras forwarded Lauren McCluskey?s e-mails and texts/messages TO ANYONE between the time frame ofOct. l3 - Nov. 5, 2018. In August 2019, Miguel Derasmvere state employees working for the UUPD using eir persona ce ones an a personal e-mail account (see attached PDF for ?s campus directory info), in their of?cial capacity as state of?cials, so therefore their correspondence and phone/text records on these accounts is subject to GRAMA. Also, any records in which state employees are discussing matters relating to former UU student (Lauren McCluskey) are not protected under GRAMA and FERPA due to the fact that she is deceased. As stated in the GRAMA archives ?Investigation records by themselves are not protected; they are protected only if the other specific conditions stated in the law exist. (Subsection 63G-2-305. Protected Recordsis}; . . 0) records created or maintained for civil, criminal, or administrative enforcement purposes or audit purposes, or for discipline, licensing, certi?cation, or registration purposes, if release of the records: - reasonably could be expected to interfere with investigations undertaken for enforcement, discipline, licensing, certi?cation, or registration purposes; reasonably could be expected to interfere with audits, disciplinary, or enforcement proceedings; - (0) would create a danger of depriving a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial hearing; reasonably could be expected to disclose the identity of a source who is not generally known outside of government and, in the case of a record compiled in the course of an investigation, disclose information fumished by a source not generally known outside of government if disclosure would compromise the source; or - reasonably could be expected to disclose investigative or audit techniques, procedures, policies, or orders not generally known outside of government if disclosure would interfere with enforcement or audit efforts; Miguel Deras is no longer employed by the UUPD, so there is no active internal investigation into his conduct, so therefore none of the above conditions apply in this request for records. I am respectfully requesting an expedited response and ful?llment within ?ve business days, as is mandated under GRAMA for members of the media. We are willing to pay for costs associated with searching and/or duplication, as we typically would do with the retrieval of other education records. If my request is denied in whole or part, please justify all withholdings by reference to speci?c exemptions. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Nicole Noren Customer Name: Nicole Noren Company Name: Login to the system and view your request by clicking PERE. This is an auto-generated email and has originated from an unmonitored email account. Please DO NOT REPLY Powered by Gon'-\ Suhjucl's Name Cusc Natm-e of i on: UNIVERSITY OF UTAH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Internal Affairs Imewiew ADVICE Ul" RIGHTS (Carrity \Vnmilg} I wish tn mlviwc you that you are belng mmtlunml .5 pm of an of?cial investigulim the University of Utah ul? Public Sulcly. You will be asked questions directed and related to the pett?ummucr ol'ymn- of?cial duliu. job related conduct or I'm duly. This is Int a criminal invatiga?on] Ynu In: cnlillcd to all the riglus mid privilcgu; by law and by dig wumiluliun ul' Ulnh and 01. [110 United suites. 'Ihis includes ?yuur Fi right nor to be compelled to incn?minalc It? you answer my ?Fatima. nci1hor your statements nor any information or evidence which is gained by such can he used against you in relation to hubscqucm cn'minnl However, may he used against you in relation to subuuqucnl departmental charges. I further Wish to advise you that you are rcquimi all questions completely Ind hones?y- IF you rul?mc to answer questions. withhold in relevant: to the questions askcd of you. lie or give misleading answem lo quunlims asked by me or my other official involwd with Ms im'cstigation. mu will be charged with Jnsubanllnatlnn. This can mun in your dlunissal from the University ul' liluh Tkparu'nunt ot?l?ublic Safely. Sn llecr?s Signalun: nterviewer?s Signature Intervie_o IA Follow-up Pictures 2/6/2020 I am doing additional follow-up on the IA investigation involving the GRAMA request of pictures being sent from Miguel Deras to Officer_ 2 6 2020 Officer- Today I met with Officer-n trying to determine the extent of officers who viewed the photograph in the briefing during shift change. As the photograph was obtained on 10/13/2018 by Officer Deras and viewed by Of?cer-the earliest briefing that would have occurred would be Monday 10/15/2018. Officer-aid that he did not see the picture in any briefing however on 10/13/2018 (Saturday) when Officer Deras took the call involving Lauren McKluskey he was the OIC, Officer Deras came to him with questions regarding information he received that needed to be put into evidence. Officer?aid that Officer Deras did show him a photo he received from Lauren McKluskey but it was for business purposes in getting information as to how to upload it to the case properly. i asked Officer-f he recalled what the photograph contained, he said that he remembers it being a photograph of Lauren OfficerIaid that it was never a situation of ?hey check this out" but simply a procedure question. Officer-was unaware of any other persons viewing the photograph. Officer? I met with Officer_ I asked him if he had ever seen pictures from the Lauren McKluskey case and specifically in a briefing where other officers were present. Officer aid that he had not seen any photos of the case and did not see or know of anything being seen in any briefing that he has attended. I met with Officer- I asked him if he had ever seen pictures from the Lauren McKluskey case and specifically in a briefing where other officers were present. Officer-aid that he has never seen any photos from the Lauren McKluskey case in a briefing or any other setting. I met with Officer-l asked him if he had ever seen pictures from the Lauren McKluskey case and specifically in a briefing where other officers were present. Officer-said that he had not seen any photos from the case at any time. Officer-said that he did remember something being said of photos related to the case but at no time did he ever view them. NOTE Officer who may have witnessed the photo but are no longer employed by the UUPD: (These officers all worked shifts that may have participated in a briefing during the week following the initial report taken by Officer Miguel Deras) NELSON JONES PLLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW May 19, 2020 News Media For Immediate Release Via Email Re: Response to Tribune Story on Of?cer Miguel Deras To Whom It May Concern: The story recently run by Courtney Tanner of the Salt Lake Tribune does disservice to Laruen McCluskey, her family, Utah law enforcement, and Mguel Deras. Of?cer Deras did nothing wrong, and he has already been investigated and cleared. A photo was raised in a routine brie?ng meeting for a law enforcement purpose, speci?cally, to determine how to properly include the evidence as part of the case. Miguel Deras did not, and would not, brag about a photo like that and the account that has been so irresponsibly reported is inconsistent with the recollections of everyone else involved. Ms. Tanner?s story is, at a minimum, reckless and improperly sourced. At worst, it is unabashed tabloid journalism. Its disregard for the facts revictimizes Lauren and her family by creating a false narrative. That narrative targets and victimizes an of?cer without basis and has caused the public to become unjustly enraged over something that never happened. The story references public records to relay the account of an unnamed of?cer who made troubling claims about Of?cer Deras. What the story fails to mention is that other public records demonstrate that those claims were investigated and dismissed as unfounded. First, Of?cer Deras received the photos via his department email and they were accessed on his personal phone because of?cers did not have department?provided phones at the time. He never shared the photos in question, and certainly not in the manner described. The photos were raised within the context of a routine investigatory brie?ng. Of?cer Deras inquired with his chain of command regarding how the photos should be handled and stored. Those directives were followed. After Lauren?s awful and untimely death, an independent investigation was performed into not only her murder but how the University of Utah Police Dep?t handled the case. That investigation uncovered no wrongdoing on Of?cer Deras? part, and certainly did not indicate that he shared any photos in the salacious and inappropriate manner described. Further, and perhaps most importantly, a second investigation revealed that nobody else in the room at the time of the alleged incident substantiated the narrative of the unnamed of?cer. Indeed, the second of?cer referenced in the article con?rmed only that he was aware the photo had been raised in the brie?ng. No other of?cer reported that Of?cer Deras made an inappropriate comment. The story fails to question why these troubling allegations were not reported at the time they occurred. The story also ignores that when the allegations were ?rst raised, long after the original investigation had been closed, a separate investigation was performed speci?cally to determine if the claims had merit. They did not. It?s also odd that this story would come just before a major mediation between the University and the McCluskey family. 8941 S. 700 E., Ste. 203, Sandy, UT 84070 Telephone: (801) 981?8779 Fax: (801) 505?0360 'Neisoannesi?galmoni News Media For Immediate Release May 19, 2020 Perhaps unsurprisingly, the story does not relay the fact the July 2019 download of Of?cer Deras? personal phone occurred because he cooperated with the investigation in order to clear his name. The story faults the University for seeking assistance from West Valley City despite acknowledging that there was a preexisting channel in place and that such cooperation is common among law enforcement agencies. Far from being a flawed search, as characterized in the article, the investigation uncovered no physical evidence that would corroborate the claim that Of?cer Deras had improperly stored or shared the photos. The claims regarding Of?cer Deras? conversation with the of?cer who drove him to West Valley where the download was performed are similarly misleading. Of?cer Deras had been without his phone for nearly 12 hours, was on duty, and was concerned about missed calls he was receiving. Much like anyone else, he also wanted to ensure that the personal contents of his phone were not shared. The officer in question did not report anything to the University about this interaction because nothing untoward occurred. This investigation was also closed with no ?nding that Of?cer Deras had shared the photos or stored them inappropriately. There was no ?nding that he bragged about the photo or made an inappropriate joke. Of?cer Deras was not disciplined because he had done nothing wrong. The University Police Dep?t did not refer Of?cer Deras to POST because no crime had been committed and there was nothing for POST to investigate. That remains the case today. The story goes on to recount claims allegedly made by Major Scott Stephenson, who oversees POST. Given the rife inaccuracies elsewhere in the story, and the seemingly selective quotes utilized, it appears that Major Stephenson may have been deliberately misquoted or taken out of context. It seems highly unlikely that Major Stephenson would be willing to opine on a case that his team had not investigated because there would be no basis to form an opinion about the facts. It would also be uncharacteristic for the Major to hypothesize about allegations relating to a speci?c of?cer, especially where POST might subsequently perform an investigation. Such statements would call into question independence and undermine its mission of providing impartial oversight of Utah law enforcement. It is possible that Major Stephenson may have spoken generally about training and best practices, but it is dubious, to say the least, that someone in his position would recklessly speculate about a speci?c of?cer and whether an unveri?ed account of that of?cer?s conduct indicated that a violation of law had occurred. Nobody should be prejudged as guilty, much less so by those charged with performing what should be an unbiased investigation into their actions. POST itself recognizes that false or highly exaggerated allegations serve no good purpose for either citizens or peace of?cers and that they tend to thwart the complaint investigation process. That guidance should speak loudly here. Ms. Tanner?s overzealous and reckless reporting directly undermines ability to function in its oversight role. Greg Skordas is also suspiciously quoted. It is hard to believe that an attorney experienced in POST matters would claim that display of the photos would fall under the ?conduct unbecoming rule? and that such is a catchall for lapses by of?cers. Greg knows that ?conduct unbecoming? is reserved for policy violations and has nothing to do with a POST investigation. Greg knows that a lapse in certi?cation is entirely different than a disciplinary suspension or revocation imposed by POST. Greg also knows that a suspension or revocation would only come after a complete POST investigation that afforded the of?cer their due process rights, including to an impartial adjudication 8941 S. 700 E., Ste. 203, Sandy, UT 84070 Telephone: (801) 981-8779 Fax: (801) 505?0360 NelsonJonesLegal.c0m News Media For Immediate Release May 19, 2020 of the allegations. Given as much, it appears that Greg?s words were twisted or offered out of context in order to support Ms. Tanner?s preferred narrative. Ms. Tanner?s story recounts a sordid tale where Of?cer Deras perversely displayed explicit photos of Lauren to a coworker. Such conduct would be shocking and disgusting if it were true, and would raise the ire of right?thinking people. Unfortunately for Lauren?s family, Officer Deras, and the public, based on the facts available, that story is patently false. The Tribune should not abide by reporting that legitimately warrants the moniker ?fake news.? For a paper so quick to claim that the University should be subject to independent investigation over its handling of Lauren?s case, it ought to subject itself to the same scrutiny and investigate the validity of Mr. Tanner?s story. The Tribune should take a hard look at whether it was ever responsible to report these false allegations about Officer Deras and make the right choice by issuing a retraction. Sincerely, JONES, PLLC ii cc: file Encl. (0) 8941 S. 700 E., Ste. 203, Sandy, UT 84070 Telephone: (801) 981?8779 Fax: (801) 505?0360 NelsonJonesLegal.com 6/17/2020 State of Utah Mail - Re: [Ext] of DPS Investigation D. Troy Denney Re: [Ext] of DPS Investigation 1 message Troy Denney To: "Corey Roach Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:53 PM Thanks Corey - need any clarification, I will call you. I appreciate your help on this matterll Lieutenant D. Troy Denney Department of Public Safety Office of Professional Standards 4501 S. 2700 W. Salt Lake City, UT. 84129 (801) 558-7752 On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:18 PM Corey Roach (CISO) wrote: i forgot to mention. here is a list of all of the mailboxes that were searched. Some obviously weren't going to have hits, since the mailbox didn't exist at that time, but they were included for completeness. Brian Wahlin Jason Hinojosa Rodne Chatman Dale Bro Rick Mclenon - Corey 1/5 6/17/2020 State of Utah Mail - Re: [Ext] of DPS Investigation On Jun 17, 2020, at 12:56 PM, Corey Roach (CISO) wrote: Lt. Denny, mm the size of the Microsoft Exchange email environment at the U, it is not feasible to search all mailboxes for keywords. For searches to return in a reasonable amount of time, the search has to be limited to a subset of mailboxes. It's not impossible to search all mailboxes, but it would take a REALLY long time. The address?is a mailing list and as such there is no actual mailbox attached to it. Emails to that list just get copied to all members of that list. Unfortunately, Microsoft Exchange does not keep a history of everyone who was previously on a list, it only shows who the current members are. First, I searched the existing members of the lists for the keywords in the timeframe. This yielded some results, but it also showed that sometimes the Watch emails were sent directly to a group of individuals rather than to the mailing list. So, I added anyone found as a recipient and did a second round of searches. For the keywords, Watch", "U-Watch", and "dps-notices" there were only six unique emails found between 10/12/18 and 10/22/18. I've attached a ZIP ?le containing the emails in HTML format. You should be able to unzip the ?le and then view the "index.html" ?le in a regular web browser. Please let me know if I can assist with an other information. - Corey Corey Roach CISA, CISSP Chief Information Security Of?cer The University of Utah and University of Utah Health 801.213.3397 On Jun 16, 2020, at 1:49 PM, Corey Roach (CISO) wrote: Lt. Denny, Sure, I can look for that for you. It looks like there are 13 recipients on that mailing group. I'll see what I can ?nd and get back to you ASAP. - Corey Corey Roach CISA, CISSP Chief information Security Officer The University of Utah and University of Utah Health 801.213.3397 2/5 6/17/2020 State of Utah Mail - Re: [Ext] of DPS Investigation On Jun 16, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Troy Denney wrote: Corey - This is Lieutenant Troy Denney - We are looking for some help ?nding a particular set of emails that would normally have been sent out during after daily briefings. The shift supervisor would (or was supposed to) send out an email to the administration and it was sent to a group of individuals in the administration. IT was sent to a group titled DPS Notices, and they would attach a short memo called the Watch" We are looking to see if there are any records of email sent between October 12, 2018 to October 22, 2018 that would still be accessible - that was sent to this group or had a Watch memo attached to it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!! Lieutenant D. Troy Denney Department of Public Safety Office of Professional Standards 4501 S. 2700 W. Salt Lake City, UT. 84129 (801) 558-7752 On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:57 PM Corey Roach (CISO) wrote: Don, Things are still influx at the UPD in regards to their IT support, however as a follow-up from our meeting I was able to confirm that the illman system (which is managed is connected to the- database. You will probably want to include verifying whether material propagated to the scope of your investigation. Please let me know if you need any other assistance. - Corey Corey Roach CISA, CISSP Chief Information Security Of?cer The University of Utah and University of Utah Health 801.213.3397 3/5 6/17/2020 State of Utah Mall - Re: [Ext] of DPS Investigation On Jun 5, 2020, at 3:23 PM, Donald Gould wrote: WARNING: Stop. Think. Read. This is an external email. Corey, As per our phone conversation regarding our meeting on June 8th at 0930 hours. We are interested in the e-mail accounts of; Miguel Derra (past employees) andmcurrent employee.) Thanks for your help, Don On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:51 PM Corey Roach (CISO) wrote: Troy and Don, Please feel free to reach out and we'll make arrangements to get you whatever information you need. Currently, the easiest ways to reach me are via email or my cell phone - Corey Corey Roach CISA, CISSP Chief Information Security Of?cer The University of Utah and University of Utah Health 801.213.3397 Sgt. Donald Gould Utah Department of Public Safety Of?ce of Professional Standards (IA) 4501 S. 2700 W. Salt Lake City, UT. 84129 donaldgould@utah.gov 4/5 6/17/2020 State of Utah Mail - Re: [Ext] of DPS Investigation 5/5 Swing watch 10-11-18 Subject: Swing watch 10-11-18 From: Date: 10/12/18, 2:58 AM To: "Dalc Brophy" , "Rick dps. Aral Patrol Swing/Graveyard Sergeant: Lancaster 523 Date: Thursday October 11th 2018 Brie?n :2]:00 at 0200 to 0630 Lineup Comments: reason we are holding security at HCH involving patient and-boyfriend who made threats to hospital staff. Daily Log Signi?cant calls Of?cer-184857 suspect who appeared to be on drugs attempted to visit?at HCH. After being denied visitation, became angry and required escort from building by of?cers. Of?crwas working the Emergency room security shift, when -patient who traveled from was seeking medical assistance. Patient presented with of_ The hospital went on divert and closed down ER for deep cleaning. .as quarantined while hospital attended to all patients and staff that were exposed. Lt. Wahlin noti?ed. Assigned area Bravo door check to graves of?cers for camius buildinis. Discussed the None watch 10-11-18-5.html 1/2 6/17/2020 Swing watch 10-11-18 .. ,ju UPD Patch Sergeant 1 735 E. South Campus Dr. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Dispatch: 801 685-26 7 7 watch 10-11-18-5.html 2/2 6/17/2020 Watch 10/14/18 Subject: Watch 10/14/18 From: Date: lO/l5/18, 1:48 AM To: Patrol Sergeant:? Date: Monday 10/14/18 Brie?ng; 21:!!0 Lineup Comments: Discussed completing DTBS. Discussed the mental subject ease. Daily Log Signi?cant calls 18- 870, Information,- 1425 South Campus dr., Identity Eropa posters located on campus. Posters were removed. Lt. Wahlin noti?ed. 18?1873, Mental Subject,_ Guest House, *?ed multiple times before- 0 meta e. was detained and sheeted. Lt. Wahlin noti?ed, se Administratiye Actions: -OIC 0200-0630. Watch 6/17/2020 Watch 10/16/18 Subject: Watch 1.0/16/18 From: Date: 10/16/18, 1:03 AM To:? Patrol Sergeant:? Date: Monday 10/15/18 Brie?ng: 21:00 Lineup Comments: Presented Of?cer-s 10b Well Done letter. Discussed covering patrol shifts. Daily Log Signi?cant calls 18-1877, uv [ma?assaulted? -was cited. 18-1881, Drug Problem,? ()dor of marijuana at was found in possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Student referral. Administrative Actions: 1c 0200-0630.-and-given job well done letters for mail theft case 18-1780. Watch 6/17/2020 October 17th Swing Watch Subject: October 17th SwinO Watch From: Date: 10/18/18 2:33 AM To: "Dale Biophy" , "Rick Mclenon? <1ick. mclenon/aDd s. utah. edu>. "Brian Patrol Swing/Graveyard Date: Wednesday October 17"1 2018 Briefin 21:00 i!lC at 0200 to 0630 Lineup Comments: Reviewed todays cases taken by patrol. We spoke about reckless 1n0t01cycic and accident that occurred on South cam_.pus Reviewed 8010 put out by investigations on- Made assignments for a1ca building checks. Daily Log Signi?cant calls Case 18-1892 0f?cer-and - ocated?whi e conducting a foot patrol of the Gardner common. Investigations noti?ed and citation issued for trespassing. It was determined that .was not a danger to?elf or others and-was assisted to-vehicle and directed off campus. Case 18- 1890 Of?cer ook wareport of lewdness where- -comp ainant believed a- subject while at Marriot Library. Review of video surveillance showed subject did not was unaware of the subject? 5 disability Administrative Actions: None 17th Swing Watch-14.htm 1/2 6/17/2020 October 17th Swing Watch EBUUPD Patch Sergeant 1735 E. South Campus Dr. Salt Lake City, UT 84] 12 Dispatch: 801 685-26 77 17th Swing Watch-14.html 2/2 6/17/2020 U-V?Jatch Subject: U-Watch From: Date: 10/19/18 4:00 PM 1' {a 11,} Patrol Dayshift Sergeant: Date: Thursday 10/19/18 Brie?ng: 0630 Lineup Comments: Discussed Grave calls Game Assignments BOLOS from Detectives Daily Log Significant calls 18-1903 Of?cer: - Location: 50 Mario Capecchi Dr. ity trespassed Ffrom the hospital after and the patient ett Wit tout incident. Call Type: Threats We stood by while Hospit making threats last week. Administrative Actions: shift coverage 0700-1400 Talked to- Chair of- and let-know what we have done in regards to 6/17/2020 U-Watch Brie?ng; [400 Lineup Comments: Discussed Days calls Game Assignments BOLOS from Detectives 2/2 7/10/2020 State of Utah Mail - Re: [Ext] of DPS Investigation D. Troy Denney Re: [Ext] of DPS Investigation 1 message Corey Roach (CISO) Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:56 PM To: Troy Denney Lt. Denny, With the size of the Microsoft Exchange email environment at the U, it is not feasible to search all mailboxes for keywords. For searches to return in a reasonable amount of time, the search has to be limited to a subset of mailboxes. It's not impossible to search all mailboxes, but it would take a REALLY long time. The address is a mailing list and as such there is no actual mailbox attached to it. Emails to that listjust get copied to all members of that list. Unfortunately, Microsoft Exchange does not keep a history of everyone who was previously on a list, it only shows who the current members are. First, I searched the existing members of the lists for the keywords in the timeframe. This yielded some results, but it also showed that sometimes the Watch emails were sent directly to a group of individuals rather than to the mailing list. So, I added anyone found as a recipient and did a second round of searches. For the keywords, Watch", "U?Watch", and "dps?notices" there were only six unique emails found between 10/12/18 and 10/22/18. I've attached a ZIP file containing the emails in HTML format. You should be able to unzip the file and then view the "index.html" file in a regular web browser. Please let me know if I can assist with an other information. - Corey Corey Roach CISA, CISSP Chief Information Security Of?cer The University of Utah and University of Utah Health 801.213.3397 On Jun 16, 2020, at 1:49 PM, Corey Roach (CISO) wrote: Lt. Denny, Sure, I can look for that for you. It looks like there are 13 recipients on that mailing group. I'll see what I can ?nd and get back to you ASAP. - Corey 1/4 . 7/10/2020 State of Utah Mail - Re: [Ext] of DPS Investigation Corey Roach CISA, CISSP Chief Information Security Of?cer The University of Utah and University of Utah Health 801.213.3397 On Jun 16, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Troy Denney wrote: Corey - This is Lieutenant Troy Denney - We are looking for some help finding a particular set of emails that would normally have been sent out during after daily briefings. The shift supervisor would (or was supposed to) send out an email to the administration and it was sent to a group of individuals in the administration. IT was sent to a group titled DPS Notices, and they would attach a short memo called the Watch" We are looking to see if there are any records of email sent between October 12, 2018 to October 22, 2018 that would still be accessible - that was sent to this group or had a Watch memo attached to it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!! Lieutenant D. Troy Denney Department of Public Safety Office of Professional Standards 4501 S. 2700 W. Salt Lake City, UT. 84129 (801) 558-7752 On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:57 PM Corey Roach wrote: Don, Things are still in flux at the UPD in regards to their IT support, however as a follow-up from our meetin I was able to confirm that the Spillman system which is managed by_ is connected to the?atabase. You will probabli want to include verifying whether material propagated to the scope of your investigation. Please let me know if you need any other assistance. - Corey Corey Roach CISA, CISSP 2/4 .?7/10/2020 State of Utah Mail - Re: [Ext] of DPS Investigation Chief Information Security Officer The University of Utah and University of Utah Health 801.213.3397 On Jun 5, 2020, at 3:23 PM, Donald Gould wrote: WARNING: Stop. Think. Read. This is an external email. Corey, As per our phone conversation regarding our meeting on June 8th at 0930 hours. We are interested in the e- mail accounts of; Mi uel Derras, Kayla Dallof (past employees) and hourrent employee.) Thanks for your help, Don On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:51 PM Corey Roach (CISO) wrote: Troy and Don, Please feel free to reach out and we'll make arrangements to get you whatever information you need. Currently, the easiest wa to reach me are via email or my cell phone i Corey Corey Roach CISA, CISSP Chief Information Security Of?cer The University of Utah and University of Utah Health 801.213.3397 Sgt. Donald Gould Utah Department of Public Safety Office of Professional Standards (IA) 4501 S. 2700 W. Salt Lake City, UT. 84129 donaldgould@utah.gov 3l4 ?7/10/2020 State of Utah Mail - Re: [Ext] of DPS Investigation . 141 . .. 4/4 6/11/2020 State of Utah Mail FW: D. Troy Denney FW: 1 message Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 3:52 PM To: "tdenney@utah.gov" From: Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:49 PM To: 'tdenney@utah.gov' Subject: Sergeant? The University of Utah Police Department ecu:? Dispatch: 801-585-2677 1/2 6/11/2020 State of Utah Mail - FW: 3 attachments Watch Oct 15 2018.docx 28K Watch Oct 14 2018.docx 28K Watch Oct 20 2018.docx 28K . .. 212 WATCH Patrol Date: Monday 10/14/18 Brie?noz 21:00 Lineup Comments: Discussed completing Discussed the mental subject case. Daily Log Signi?cant calls 18-1870, Information,- 1425 South Campus dr., Identity liropa posters located on campus. Posters were removed. Lt. Wahlin noti?ed. 18-1873, Mental Subject, Guest House, - Fried multiple times before-was detained and sheeted. It. Wahlin noti?ed, see nota e. Administrative Actions: 0200-0630. WATCH Patrol Sergeant:? Date: Monday 10/15/18 Briefing: 21:00 Lineup Comments: Presented Of?cer-s Job Well Done letter. Discussed covering patrol shifts. Dailv L02 /Si2nil?icant calls 18-1877, UV Assault,- -was cited. 18-1881, Drug Problem,? ()dor of marijuana at was found in possession ot? marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Student referral. Administrative Actions: 0700-1600, -01c 0200-0630. -and-given job well done letters for mail theft ease l8-l780. Patrol Sergeant:? Datc: Saturday 10/20/18 Brie?ng: 21:00 None Lineup Comments: Not held due to football game Daily Log Significant calls None Administrative Actions: 7/22/2020 Oct 13 2013.an Tomorrow Saturda OdOberB' 2018 Mm? 0.: gig/5r: 1s'r/syvr 33m 4 5 6 7 8 9 mm: IMMH LU AddnulmKl- 10 tun-uh Uptymul - La?erfar 11 12 pm 1/1 7/22/2020 Oct 14 2018.png Tod 53 OCtOber14.2013 mm? nc. cry/5r: 71:33:5mdiy.0:10ter 14. Sh!" Covet area "00) E3 Add a (damn an Hm! (dud. 12pm 1 1/1 7/22/2020 Oct 15 2018an Today Tomonow Sunday a . . . October 15, 2018 Irma: 71-; 9. semovsmol cam ?Moody, odobu Is, 201' m? - ma . cum (0.. 1/1 7/22/2020 Oct 16 2018.png today Iomouow 4} Saturday October 16, 2018 Washington. or. arr/5r; (mum Sam Ynouhy Odour 16 20'! my . (damn 1/1 7/22/2020 Oct 17 2018an 1 5 October 17' 2018 Whitman, ac . 9 CI) :tu?gmw Sam ons von-cuudar Wed-usual. October 17. me 095de COMM LJJ Add .1 ?mm 1/1 7/22/2020 Oct 18 2018an . Toda lomoucw Salmon 5 October 18, 2018 Wumngton, *4 m. 79'F/6yl'F Snalde-uf?lul oucber 13. huh Coverage (7700 IZOOI - a?o Ll. Add a (a'cnce' (CL 7/22/2020 . October 19, 2018 Wm M- 3327/5" 6 am 7 9 10 may, ogohn 19, 2010 95.211194 IIH am a (ac-Mar to Oct 19 2018.png <3 Tomotrow Salutday 11 17 pm .m -V Fn?Ml?l PEI 11ml Cam I 1/1 7/22/2020 Oct 20 2018.png . October20,2018 mum ?9 ?3 33may. amour 20. 2010 Such 0931mm - (mm 12pm 1 1/1 1 7/22/2020 Oct 21 2018an Today Iomonou Saturday . . October21, 2018 mm nc. err/50's 11-rmSunday. own. 2010 ELJ . (man 1/1 7/22/2020 Oct 22 2018.png Today C3 Yomorrow October22,2018 Mm? art/53?s Search 0953on calmdm 45m 5 6 7 8 10 11 12pm 1 2 Moodgy Odnbu 27. 20? Add a (dumb)! 1/1 Date Start Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM 10/12/2018 6:21:41 PM 10/12/2018 6:39:04 PM 10/12/2018 7:35:1/ PM 10/12/2018 8:01:11 PM 10/12/2018 8:34:31 PM 10/12/201810:40:14 PM 10/12/201810:48:54 PM 10/12/201810151254 PM 10/12/2018 11:45:18 PM 10/12/2018 11:50:07 PM 10/12/201811:50:59 PM PW 1 of- Door Name Person Name Access Usage Report 10/13/201812:00:00 AM 0301201 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 9000 System Activity 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) LL West Ent 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent lnfoms?bn . Re'Cum Renortln o-A "Recure' - To arrive at; to reach: to attain CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAd mitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted A.43.43 ?at Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM 10/12/2018 11:52:06 PM 10/13/2018 12:29:05 AM 10/13/2018 12:49:20 AM 10/13/201812:57:15 AM 10/13/20181102243 AM 10/13/20181:18201 AM AM 10/13/2018 1:40:45 AM 10/13/20181:48:10 AM 10/13/20181252215 AM 10/13/2018 2:22:45 AM 10/13/2018 5:25:02 AM 2 of- 0301101 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301301 (EX) Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) 1 1 Police East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent Door Name Person Name Access Usage Report Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 0/o 880?? 3 azmuumstuye? -. . Re?Cure Recon!" Smm-mO 'Recure' - To arrive at: to reach: to attai't. CardAdmitted CardAdmittcd CardAd mitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmItted CardAdmitted CardAd mitted CardAdmitted ?7,1202? ?23:49 Access Usage Report GlGServkes. Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent . . ?Recure' . arrive at; :o reach: to attain. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/13/2018 5:45:04 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 6:25:11 AM 0301201 (EX) 1 1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 6:29:03 AM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 6:30:00 AM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 6:31 :44 AM 0301101 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 11:18:25 AM 0301201 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 11:29:19 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 11:37:44 AM 0301:01 (EX) Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 12:58:41 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 1:37:04 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 1:56:44 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 2:07:11 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police Fast Ent CardAdmitted 3 of- Sec 'Senr'" ?on ""7/202? "23:43 Access Usage Report wwmmaaz - 7 GIGServkes- Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent . ?Recure' - To arrive at: to reach; to attain. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/13/2018 2:14:14 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Main Fast Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 2:53:19 PM 0301101 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 3:06:22 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 3:29:15 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 5:42:54 PM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 5:55:50 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 8:36:03 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 9:08:50 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 9:26:56 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 10:53:31 PM 0301301 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/13/2018 11:42:42 PM 0301101 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 3:05:32 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Fm CardAdmitted 4 of, Sens?: - Info'mc?on "ma/202?- 3:42 .. Access Usage Report Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent Gifsuvkes- .-Rle:nnenm5vsmm. ?Remit" - f0 arr?ve at; to reach; to attain. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/14/2018 4:22:17 AM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 5:49:51 AM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 5:54:32 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 6:18:00 AM 0301101 (EX) LL West Ent Card/\dmitted 10/14/2018 6:23:56 AM 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 6:24:55 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 6:30:24 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 6:38:44 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmItted 10/14/2018 7:01:54 AM 0301101 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 8:39:50 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 8:57:59 AM 0301101 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 9:39:31 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmittcd Piano 5 of Sec- :rHu Information 41343 n! a Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM 10/14/2018 11:47:49 AM 10/14/201811249107 AM 10/14/201812:19:50 PM 10/14/20181236229 PM 10/14/201812z57151 PM 10/14/20181:25:48 PM 10/14/20181:55:35 PM 10/14/20181:59:59 PM 10/14/2018 3:16:18 PM 10/14/2018 4:07:44 PM 10/14/2018 5:12:36 PM 10/14/2018 5:40:55 PM Pmo 6 of 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0:301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 0301301 (PX) LL West Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police Fast Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police Fast Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) 1 1 Police East Ent 0301101 (EX) L1 Police East Ent Door Name Person Name Access Usage Report Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM 0301201 (EX) L1 Main East Ent Sec' vri?h- Sen?o-H?n\ Inform/50:0? Stuntman}: 0 3?!!an Qv:f?un? ?Recure? . To arrive at; to reath; to atta?n. CardAdmitted Card/\dmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted Card/\dmitted CardAdmitted Ca rdAdmitted Card/\dmitted Ca rdAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted ?2 HR- x. Access Usage Report Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent . . 'Recum' - To arrive at; to reach; to atta'n. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/14/2018 5:45:16 PM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent Card/\dmitted 10/14/2018 5:47:26 PM 0301 :01 (EX) L?l Police East Ent Card/\dmitted 10/14/2018 6:00:22 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 8:44:10 PM 0301:01 (EX) Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 8:59:07 PM 0301 :01 (FX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 9:01:27 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 9:04:11 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 11:07:04 PM 0301101 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 11:32:03 PM 0301101 (EX) L1 Police Fast Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/2018 11:42:14 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/14/201811z43z19 PM 0301201 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 1:08:14 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted PM0 7 of Sensm?? Informa?on ?-43:43 Access Usage Report Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/15/2018 2:47:53 AM 10/15/2018 5:24'44 AM 10/15/2018 5:40:25 AM 10/15/2018 5:44:08 AM 10/15/2018 5:48:11 AM 10/15/2018 5:50:45 AM 10/15/2018 5:55:28 AM 10/15/2018 6:02:12 AM 10/15/2018 6:06:45 AM 10/15/2018 6:14:54 AM 10/15/2018 6:17:52 AM 10/15/2018 6:22:41 AM Peoe 8 of. 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301;01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301 :01 (EX) Police East Ent 0301 :01 (EX) Police East Ent 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent 0301 :01 (EX) LL West 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent Informo?on 0301201 (EX) L1 Main East Ent - musk ?Recum' - To arrive at; to reach: to attai'. CardAdmitted Ca rdAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted Ca rdAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted Ca rdAdmitted CardAdmitted Access Usage Report v' Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent G'fSOkaeh ?Recure" - To arrive at: to reach: to attain. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/15/2018 6:29:18 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 6:30:26 AM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 6:55:13 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 7:28:40 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 7:30:36 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 7:31 :22 AM 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 7:35:46 AM 0301 :01 (EX) 1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/1 512018 8:06:04 AM 0301201 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 8:11:58 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 8:30:17 AM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 8:34:41 AM 0301201 (EX) 1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 8:48:07 AM 0301 :01 (EX) LL West CardAdmitted Pace 9 of.- Sec Infor'M?on ??202? "13:43 Access Usage Report ?Newman Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 6165mm? . 'Recure' - To arrive at; to reach; to attai't. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name n/o 10/15/2018 8:57:38 AM 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 8:58:14 AM 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 9:06:22 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 9:07:09 AM 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 9:46:34 AM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 9:48:25 AM 0301101 (EX) Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/?2018 9:50:47 AM 030101 (EX) L1 Police Fast Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 9:53:32 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/?2018 10:04:03 AM 030101 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 10:39:58 AM 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 10:43:29 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 11:15:05 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted Pam 10 0? ?93:43 c" Access Usage Report Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent . . Re?Cum Renown: Svstom? 'Recure' - To arrive at; to reach; to attain. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/15/2018 11:17:58 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 12:18:51 PM 0301101 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 12:18:55 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 12:23:31 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Main Fast Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 12:33:33 PM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 1:01 :17 PM 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 1:02:50 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 1:26:20 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 1:50:08 PM 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 1:51 :06 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 1:52:41 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 1:57:43 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted POHO 11 of Elfij/ZOZ" A 43.43 PSI A Access Usage Report Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent . ~822wm?em'm?vden? 'Recure" - To arrive 31:20 reach; to attain. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/15/2018 2:04:47 PM 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 212:48 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 2:50:31 PM 0301201 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 2:57:16 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 3:01 :06 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 3:02:54 PM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 3:03:13 PM 0301201 (EX) Ll- West Ent Card/\dmitted 10/15/2018 3:06:42 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 3.14231 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 3:20:25 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 3:28:54 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police Fast Ent Cart/Admitted 10/15/2018 4:03:09 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 12 0? Seciiri?hl Sens?i?un Informal-Ion "inn Access Usage Report -- GIG Services. Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent . .. 32?03". ?Return? - To arrive at; Date End 10/16/201812:00:00 AM Person Name 10/15?2018 4:15:43 PM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 4:17:51 PM 030101 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 4:30:19 PM 0301 :01 (EX) Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 4:48:05 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 4:52:38 PM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 5:02:34 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 5:47:52 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 5:52:40 PM 0301201 (EX) 1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 6:04:12 PM 0301101 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 7:27:09 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 8:39:33 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 8:42:53 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted P??b 13 of Sen??uhln InformgHon . Access Usage Report Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301201 (EX) L1 Main East Ent .7 . 'Recure?- To arrive at; to reach; to attal". Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/15/2018 8:56:01 PM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 9:01 :23 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 9:01 :51 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 9:33:43 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 9:35:36 PM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 9:36:38 PM 0301201 (EX) 11 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 11:20:32 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 11:33:57 PM 0301:01 (EX) Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/15/2018 11:50:58 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 12:02:08 AM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 2:09:52 AM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 3:09:10 AM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted Pane 14 0? Sensimm ?13:43 Access Usage Report ?WW-mam Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent ?isn't?. . Re:ure ?was?: 'Recure'- To arrive at: to reach: to attain. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/16/2018 4:20:39 AM 030101 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 5:46:04 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 5:50:08 AM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 6:06:18 AM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 6:22:22 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 6:29:11 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 6:29:25 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 6:34:54 AM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 6:46:10 AM 0301101 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 6:52:25 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 6:56:56 AM 0301101 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 7:07:54 AM 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted Pane 15 0? Sensm?m Informe?bn Access Usage Report GIG Sonia-s 7? Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301;01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent . . mm. ?Huang?um? ?Recure" - To arrive at; to reach to attar?. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/16/2018 7:28:43 AM 10/16/2018 7:32:18 AM 10/16/2018 7:49:39 AM 10/16/2018 7:54:25 AM 10/16/2018 7:59:19 AM 10/16/2018 8:07:37 AM 10/16/2018 8:08:38 AM 10/16/2018 8:18:04 AM 10/16/2018 8:37:43 AM 10/16/2018 8:45:37 AM 10/16/2018 8:55:31 AM 10/16/2018 8:58:08 AM 16 o? 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police Fast Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301101 (EX) LL West Ent 0301101 (EX) LL West Ent 0301101 (EX) LL West Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent Secwih Senrm?m Informe?on CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted Ca rdAdmitted CardAdmitted A.43.43 DIE. Access Usage Report Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/16/2018 8:58:16 AM 0301201 (EX) LL West Ent 10/16/2018 9:06:19 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 10/16/2018 9:07:17 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 10/16/2018 9:08:20 AM 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent 10/16/2018 9:17:35 AM 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent 10/16/2018 9:19:44 AM 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent 10/16/2018 9:22:36 AM 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent 10/16/2018 9:27:09 AM 0301:01 (EX) Ll. West Ent 10/16/2018 9:28:49 AM 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent 10/16/2018 9:31:02 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 10/16/2018 9:31 :17 AM 0301:01 (EX) Main East Ent 10/16/2018 9:31 :29 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent Perm 17 of Secnr?tv Sensitive Informe'hn 61M Went-Cuba GIG Services. . Reporting Svstem? 'Recure" - To arrive at: to reach: to attam. CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted Ca rdAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted Ca rdAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted m2/202n ?-13:43 Access Usage Report GIG Services. . . Re?Cune Remain: Svstem? 'Recure" - To arrive at; to reach; to attain. Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/16/2018 9:43:56 AM 0301 :01 (EX) West Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 10:02:09 AM 0301 201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent Card/\dmitted 10/16/2018 10:13:08 AM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 10:23:35 AM 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 10:35:11 AM 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 10:45:10 AM 0301 201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 10:47:32 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 11:03:05 AM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 11:07:23 AM 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 11:57:10 AM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 12:00:20 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent Card/Admitted 10/16/201812:07:29 PM 0301101 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted Perm 18 of Securitv Sensitive lnformetion PM Access Usage Report Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent . Mmkepms?lmm. ?Recure? - To arrive at: to reac to atta?n. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/16/2018 12:32:39 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmittod 10/16/2018 12:51 :57 PM 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 1:01 :02 PM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/1612018 1:06:49 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 1:12:47 PM 030101 (EX) Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 1:18:30 PM 030101 (EX) L1 Main East Ent Card/\dmitted 10/16/2018 1:21 :33 PM 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 1:24:48 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent Card/\dmitted 10/16/2018 1:43:37 PM 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 1:45:06 PM 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardRejected 10/16/2018 1:45:10 PM 030101 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 1:53:26 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted Piano 19 of Sec-Irih/ Sengih?uo Information A .4 3-43 Access Usage Report mwmw-w Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent cfsm?m. 'Recure" - To arrive at; to rum; to atta'n. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/16/2018 1:56:01 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 2:05:35 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 2:06:21 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 2:09:23 PM 0301201 (EX) LL West CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 2:11:15 PM 030101 (EX) Ll. West Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 2:12:09 PM 0301:01 (EX) LL West Ent Card/\dmitted 10/16/2018 2:19:42 PM 030101 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 2:21 :58 PM 0301:01 (EX) Police Fast Ent Card/\dmitted 10/16/2018 2:25:51 PM 0301201 (EX) LL West Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 2:36:00 PM 0301101 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 2:43:01 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 2:50:25 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted Pqno 20 of Securih/ Sens?fiuo Informafion Access Usage Report Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent Re.mreR on] sue-1? 0 ?Recure' - To arrive at: to reach; to attain. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/16/2018 3:09:56 PM 10/16/2018 3:13:51 PM 10/16/2018 3:16:10 PM 10/16/2018 3:25:27 PM 10/16/2018 3:26:24 PM 10/16/2018 327.7235 PM 10/16/2018 3:36:41 PM 10/16/2018 3:37:16 PM 10/16/2018 3:52:04 PM 10/16/2018 4:00:01 PM 10/16/2018 4:04:23 PM 10/16/2018 4:07:25 PM Pom 21 c? 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent 0301:01 (EX) Ll West Ent 0301201 (EX) L1 Police East Ent 0301:01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent Sec: urih: Senpi?uo Information Ca rdAdmitted Ca rdAd mitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted Ca rdAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted CardAdmitted ?107/2020 DM Access Usage Report 6??me GlGServkes. '3 4? Date Start 10/13/2018 12:00:00 AM Door Name 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Main East Ent . oBe'Cure "Rea/re" - To arrive at; to reach; to atta-?n. Date End 10/16/2018 12:00:00 AM Person Name 10/?16/2018 4:12:52 PM 030101 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 4:22:01 PM 0301:01 (EX) 1. West Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 4:32:25 PM 0301201 (EX) LL West Ent Card/\dmitted 10/16/2018 4:36:48 PM 0301 :01 (EX) LL West Ent Card/\dmitted 10/16/2018 4:37:28 PM 0301:01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 5:23:04 PM 0301 :01 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmitted 10/?1612018 5:39:31 PM 0301101 (EX) L1 Main East Ent CardAdmitted 10/16/2018 5:50:04 PM 0301101 (EX) L1 Police East Ent CardAdmittod 10/16/2018 5:54:17 PM 0301:01 (EX) 1 1 Police East Ent Piano 22 0? Sec-Irihl Infornwn?bgn 5/07/2020 34? 03 ll 001 13664 10l01/2018 - 10/30/2013, Selected range of dates Date Schedule In Transfer Out Pay Code Amount Shift Daily Period Mon 10/01 Tue 10/02 10:00 10:00 10:00 Wed 10/03 SPE EVENT 3:00 . 10:00 13:00 23:00 Thu 10/04 10:00 10:00 33:00 Fri 10/05 SPE EVENT 4:30 9 10:00 14:30 47:30 Sat 10/06 47:30 Sun 10/07 SPE -SPECIAL EVENT 4:00 . 4:00 51 :30 Mon 10/08 . 7:00 7:00 58:30 Tue 10/09 10:00 10:00 68:30 Wed 10/10 SPE EVENT 6:00 4:31 PM 13:00 19:00 87:30 Thu 10/11 SPE EVENT 4:30 9 10:00 14:30 102:00 Fri 10/12 SPE EVENT 9:00 . 9:30 18:30 12030 Sat 10/13 120230 Sun 10/14 SPE-SPECIAL EVENT 6:00 9 SPE EVENT 4:00 . 10:00 130:30 Date Schedule In Transfer Out Pay Code Amount Shift Daily Period Mon 10/15 SPE -SPECIAL EVENT 6:00 6:00 136230 Tue 10/16 10:00 10:00 146:30 Wed 10/17 SPE-SPECIAL EVENT 3:30 10:00 13:30 160:00 Thu 10/18 SPE-SPECIAL EVENT 3:00 10:00 13:00 173:00 Fri 10/19 SPE -SPECIAL EVENT 3:00 3:00 176200 Sat 10/20 SPE -SPECIAL EVENT 9:00 SPE-SPECIAL EVENT 3:00 . 12:00 188200 Sun 10/21 188:00 Mon 10/22 9 16:00 204:00 Tue 10/23- 16:00 204:00 Wed 10/24 SPE -SPECIAL EVENT 3:30 9 10:00 13:30 217:30 Thu 10/25 SPE -SPECIAL EVENT 3:00 10:00 13:00 230:30 Fri 10/26 SPE EVENT 3:30 9 10:00 13:30 244200 Sat 10/27 244:00 Sun 10/28 244:00 Mon 10/29 244:00 Tue 10/30 10:00 10:00 254200 Donald Gould West Valley City records 4 messages wvc-ut.gov> Wed, May 27. 2020 at 3:37 PM To: "donaldgould@utah.gov" Cc: Mr. Gould, please reply with any information you have about the records you are seeking and I?ll attempt to locate them. Thank you! Donald Gould Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:55 PM To: wvc-ut.gov> 800: Troy Denney Thank you for your help. The Utah Department of Public Safety is conducting an administrative investigation on the behalf of the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. I am looking for all documentation regarding the attached phone download conducted by_m August 15. 2019. We do not want the actual download but are looking for documents to identify; Who requested the download. who approved the download. all reports created regarding the download. all forms ?lled out by the owner of the phone, all receipts given. who the download was given to. If you need any more information please let me know. Thanks again, Don [Quoted text hidden] Sgt. Donald Gould Utah Department of Public Safety Of?ce of Professional Standards (IA) 4501 S. 2700 W. Salt Lake City, UT. 84129 donaldgould@utah.gov a WVC Download.pdf 944K HMO-ungow Wed, May 27, 2020 at 9:54 PM o: onald ould Thank you for your message Mr. Gould. I got some clari?cation and this will need to be an of?cial records request. You can submit a records request online using this form Or, you could complete the attached form and send it to the City Recorder. Nichole Camac. Here is her contact information: Desk: 801 -963-3203 E-mail: Thank you. From: Donald Gould Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 3:55 PM To: Subject: Re: West Valley City records [Quoted text hidden] a WVC GRAMA Records Request Form.pdf 103K Donald Gould Wed, May 27. 2020 at 10:02 PM To: Rachel White Thanks for your help. I will follow up with our request tomorrow. [Quoted text hidden] UTAH GOVERNMENT RECORDS REQUEST FORM To. West Valley City Police Records (Name of government of?ce holding the records and/or name of agency contact person.) 3575 Market St Address of government office: WVC, UT 84119 Description of records sought (records must be described with reasonable specificity): All documentation regarding the attached phone download conducted by _n August 15. 2019. to identify; Who requested the download, who approved the download, al reports created regarding the download. all forms ?lled out by the owner of the phone. all receipts given, who the download was given to. I would like to inspect (view) the records. I would like to receive a copy of the records. I understand that I may be responsible for fees associated with copying charges or research charges as permitted by UCA 630-2-203. I authorize costs of up to UCA encourages agencies to ful?ll a records request without charge. Based on UCA I am requesting a waiver of copy costs because: releasing the record primarily bene?ts the public rather than a person. Please explain: This information is needed for an administrative investigation ordered by the Commissioner of the Utah DPS regarding of?cer/department misconduct of a local agency. I am the subject of the record. I am the authorized representative of the subject of the record. My legal rights are directly affected by the record and I am impoverished. (Please attach information supporting your request for a waiver of the fees.) CIDLJ If the requested records are not public, please explain why you believe you are entitled to access. I am the subject of the record. am the person who provided the information. I am authorized to have access by the subject of the record or by the person who submitted the information. Documentation required by UCA 636-2-202, is attached. Other. Please explain: Information is needed for an ongoing administrative investigation Into police officer] department misconduct. I am requesting expedited response as permitted by UCA (Please attach information that shows your status as a member of the media and a statement that the records are required for a story for broadcast or publication; or other information that demonstrates that you are entitled to expedited response.) Requester?s Name: Sgt- Don Mailing Address: 3 Email Address: ?*qk Daytime telephone number? Date: ?ag 3 9r a 0 Signature: POLICE West Valley City Police West Valley City, UT, US Document generated: 21 Nov 2019 - 14:00:08 -07:09 by West Valley City Poiice(N/A} A AXON EVIDENCE AUDIT TRAIL dcwn'oad link sent to wvc-ut.gov. Evidence Source Evidence ID Agency Assist UUPD IA Device Type Categories Restricted Access Device Name litlo Agoncy Assist UUPD IA XRY Phone Extraction Serial Number Other Evidence Upload XT Windows ShaZ- 319820b347f Recorded 15 Aug 2019 14:30:22 Uploaded 19 Nov 201916:10:19 Usage Unquo lD Page views 1 File downloads Video playbacks L85t Viewed Or 21 Nov 2019 1413003 Downloaded On Date Time User Activity 1 19 Nov PO19 16:102? 9 (-072C0) System Evidence Recorc Created 2 19 Nov 20? 9 16:10:19 (-07:00) Category Restricted Access' Added Deal on. is now unscheduled 3 19 Nov 2019 16:10:19 (-07:00) External ID 'Agc?lcy Assist UUPD added 4 ?9 Nov 2019 16:10:19 (-07:00) System Evidence access was restricted. 5 19 '\lov 2019 16:10:19 (-07:00) System as granted Role-based 6 20 Nov 2019 07:08:49 (-07:00) 03 download linlt including this evidence to wvc-uLQOV: including addit trai 5. Op iona essage not included. 7 7.0 Nov 2019 07:00) System Successtull ce download link including this evidence to wvc-ut.gov. Download linn expires on . - 0: 831900800). 8 20 Nov 2019 09:35:10 (-01:00) Client IP Address:_ Evidence downloaded in - package 1 01? via download ink sent to wvc-ut.gov. 9 20 Nov 2019 00:35:12 (-07:00) Client IP Address: Evidence downloads package 1 via - download ink sent to vc-ut.gov. 10 70 Nov 2019 13:42:50 (-07:00) Evioonoo Record Accessed. Client 1P Access:? 11 20 Nov 2019 13:44:24 (01:00) Evidence downloaded in ble ev'donoe package 1 oi 1 via Activity Date Time 12 21 Nov 2019 11:38:12 (-372C0) was granted Kore-based access. Access expires: no expiralion 13 21 Nov 2019 11:44:14 (-0 initiated bulk evidence download link inclucing evidence to robon.payne@ic: aiulahcdu: including audit l'aJS. Included Optional ll. essage: Robert. Here is the XRY file. I will be sending you an .exe lhe XRY readet shonly. Open the .cxe. run lhe file, agree to the terms. then open lhis file and you should be able to arm lhe download. Thanks. 16 Jun?202016237 FILES PICT RLS File Name Type Jpeg File Size 11819?8 Path Created 9:25:20 PM (Device) . Modified 7/?9/2019 9:25:32 PM UTC (Device) Hash (SHA1) 1080a02496e47975 febO9e3265 d2332d92f7fd 16 Jun-209.0 16:58 FIIES PICTURES File Name 5" Type Jpeg File Size 924356 Path Created 7/29/2019 9:94:44 PM (Device) Modified 7/29/2019 9:24:51 PM (Device) Hash (SHA1) 152e 16-Jun?2020 16:54 FILES PICTURES File Name EO9C8A41 137E Type Jpeg File Size 1988597 Path Created 7/29/2019 9:25:11 PM UTC (Dov'ce) Modified 1/29/2019 9:25:19 PM UTC (Dcv'ce) Hash (SHA1) 905.2: 039m?83.3.3 3790.4, 3 mm.? ..IAMP UH Eta 1.. xniu ?Khaki.? ?v mama4.4.. .. So . ..tuwalru 555.3 .L A A .. ?Son Ju?? 3:91ufmncu.? 3 tn .. Unhnri 2 .. . .. I luxh 053m. .3 mp1; tn u. nu 9n 3. 1._u amplul Stu} .. SH Ink.? ?at .35 5.2.95; . . :3.qu 3). 14x 5.9? 1: .92 9.1. . .3qu. >593 3.3530 nbui 55.5%: taunt: ~u ..run 32mg (025 GMQA one 0' Raquwor Met-J Dnrip?an SIMS 74 3 a Sam317 {2545 Tyre.- l? .1 w, . wrunn -. - I . 7- ,74 A 'IlLl -3'Mama .. framm Ions Dub! uzuy E. 2? 1/2519 1 1777* i 7 (may Mr"- :z-?tec I. - dispetth?. and57%: A kneadii. ?szp . . VII 1.5011.. .pgluc"Lcn Pugh. .vrii 1.12M: WM Dam ?mm-t! ?oat-12116! Mndix 0011139le 197?- 62548.10; 22/19/5119 ELL Inn-(1" PAM) Rr?utvom?ua ruordz. anon swam "k4 by Jufe.? 1975 5296.135 Em- L?ucUcl?.' 2AM) ?rm-onus: Cacao-ahon 2 ?23151. chc?v." Comm In: r'crvm ?hon recc'n Hum 'a-Hc' :93 3'53? Lure S- 1995 68332 2223."? m'a'vtc 5x :atemc c' 501.. o1 Dom Hm: I. a {he-f 1/231). 3335 - 2465302: {ah ha: 'cr33'90 :I-on rm a? 62348 :.a'poalc? 'vus'nt. :rfu'l'ff't' a! ?our: a'u Re: ant.? Emmi 3.- 2333 (-2543 12 I ?1;th Auu'v" .otoo'mcn abo.: ra'xs?mmL suit-Hg, c1 (Herttf' 32?: . Oman 2) Hum: Inn; Mum? Moran "131mg rvy Itcues: wkerr xmvaduz- or dcmmu xncgucmg mum 1132 623;: 1:6 13/320 ?hcoie Von-1 ESFH Azania vac-cs sum :29 5.1mm 909 nm' Emu-mm Imwoomlely audit] Maud" nuance Adnm rem er the mmaw r; R1238 $2343.12 5-391'203 {survey ??ber 33': min Thaw! mural ~er n.uzg3u3r an 013;? w?ud Dar: cucdx: round :u News (g1 7 52548 22.: 5.192220 Mum-2w Damon-s 3mm: \?Nn on Ct?ur Mlg?ut?. Stras' :onnuc? mun: I: he chm-A 0' Lauren McCain .- \5/20/2020 Logan City Mail - Re: DS File for Internal Investigation Deras 2ODL1135 >2 LOG A Re: D8 File for Internal Investigation Deras 200L1135 1 message loganutah.org> Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:08 AM To: loganutah.org> Logan City Police GRAMA Records Request: On May 20, 2020, the Logan City Police Department was contacted by Sergeant Donald Gould from the Utah Department of Public Safety, Office of Professional Standards. Sergeant Gould is conducting an official investigation into the alleged actions taken by Officer Miguel Deras during his employment with the University of Utah Police Department, specifically regarding the Lauren McCluskey case. Due to allegations made against Officer Miguel Deras, the Logan City Police Department interviewed Officer Deras on May 18, 2020, regarding said allegations (Logan City Internal Investigation Case 200L1135). This interview was conducted in a room that was audio and video recorded. Sergeant Gould has requested a copy of this recorded interview. The interview was copied to a portable device and provided to Sergeant Gould. Lt- Logan City Police Department On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:50 AM?loganutahory wrote: Stuff in here any thing that you dispersed. With each, have an email or postal copy scanned into this as to what you sent to whom you gave it. LCPD GRAMA Spec/ Records CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This email and any documents, files or attachments to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are NOT the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, dissemination, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission, is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and delete the message. Do NOT open or view any attachments. 1/1 7/22/2020 State of Utah Mail - FW: Final statement D. Troy Denney FW: Final statement 1 message Jason Hinojosa Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM To: Troy Denney Here is the ?nal draft email. ~Jason From: Christopher Nelson Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 8:55 AM To: Jason Hinojosa Cc: Cathy Anderson Rick Mclenon Robert Payne (OGC) Marlon Subject: Final statement Jason below is what I believe is the ?nal draft. We can handle this however you'd like, but one option would be for me to send this directly to the reporter and then follow up with a phone call to confirm this closes out her open appeal. Or, you can send directly to her and I can follow up with her separately. I suspect she?ll ask for a name to attribute this statement to an I think it probably makes the most sense for it be under your name, if needed. She may have additional questions which she can certainly pose, and then you can decide how/if to answer. Chris Statement from University of Utah Department of Public Safety After a review, we can con?rm that in October 2018 during a shift-change brie?ng a former police of?cer with the department showed an image on his phone of Lauren McCluskey while discussing and reporting on her extortion case. This event took place after Lauren?s initial reports to police about being extorted and before her tragic death. We have no evidence to indicate the image was transferred electronically to anyone other than the detective investigating the case. 1I2 7/22/2020 State of Utah Mail - FW: Final statement It was determined during the review that it was unnecessary for our former officer to show this image during the brie?ng. As a consequence, the department has provided training to our of?cers and is implementing new policies to make clear best practices for information sharing. This includes how to receive digital files (including video and photographic information) from a complainant in secure ways rather than through email or text. The department is committed to the respectful treatment of all of its complainants. This incident was not re?ective of current policy or the culture the department has worked to improve for more than a yean 3 Chris Nelson Communications Director University of Utah Office 801681-5180? has. .J 2/2 Jason below is what I believe is the final draft. We can handle this however you?d like, but one option would be for me to send this directly to the reporter and then follow up with a phone call to confirm this closes out her open appeal. Or, you can send directly to her and I can follow up with her separately. I suspect she?ll ask for a name to attribute this statement to an I think it probably makes the most sense for it be under your name, if needed. She may have additional questions which she can certainly pose, and then you can decide how/if to answer. Chris Statement from University of Utah Department of Public Safety After a review, we can confirm that in October 2018 during a shift-change briefing a former police officer with the department showed an image on his phone of Lauren McCluskey while discussing and reporting on her extortion case. This event took place after Lauren's initial reports to police about being extorted and before her tragic death. We have no evidence to indicate the image was transferred electronically to anyone other than the detective investigating the case. It was determined during the review that it was unnecessary for our former officer to show this image during the briefing. As a consequence, the department has provided training to our officers and is implementing new policies to make clear best practices for information sharing. This includes how to receive digital files (including video and photographic information) from a complainant in secure ways rather than through email or text. The department is committed to the respectful treatment of all of its complainants. This incident was not reflective of current policy or the culture the department has worked to improve for more than a year. Chris Nelson Communications Director University of Utah Office 801-581-5180? University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Personal Communication Devices 701.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the use of mobile telephones and communication devices, whether issued or funded by the Department or personally owned, while on-duty or when used for authorized work-related purposes. This policy generically refers to all such devices as Personal Communication Devices (PCD) but is intended to include all mobile telephones, personal digital assistants (PDA) and similar wireless two-way communications and/or portable Internet access devices. PCD use includes, but is not limited to, placing and receiving calls, text messaging, blogging and microblogging, e-mailing, using video or camera features, playing games and accessing sites or services on the Internet. 701.2 POLICY The University of Utah Department of Public Safety allows employees to utilize department-issued or funded PCDs and to possess personally owned PCDs in the workplace, subject to certain limitations. Any PCD used while on?duty, or used off-duty in any manner reasonably related to the business of the Department, will be subject to monitoring and inspection consistent with the standards set forth in this policy. The inappropriate use of a PCD while on-duty may impair officer safety. Additionally, employees are advised and cautioned that the use of a personally owned PCD either on?duty or after duty hours for business-related purposes may subject the employee and the employee?s PCD records to civil or criminal discovery or disclosure under applicable public records laws. Employees who have questions regarding the application ofthis policy orthe guidelines contained herein are encouraged to seek clarification from supervisory personnel. 701.3 PRIVACY POLICY Employees shall have no expectation of privacy with regard to any communication made with or stored in or through PCDs issued by the Department and shall have no expectation of privacy in their location should the device be equipped with location detection capabilities. The use of any department-provided or -funded PCD, computer, Internet service, telephone service or other wireless service while on-duty is without any expectation of privacy that the employee might othenNise have in any communication, including the content of any such communication. Communications or data reception on personal, password?protected, web-based e-mail accounts and any other services are subject to monitoring if department equipment is used. In accordance with this policy, supervisors are authorized to conduct a limited administrative search of electronic files without prior notice, consent or a search warrant, on department- issued or personally owned PCDs that have been used to conduct department-related business. Administrative searches can take place for work?related purposes that may be unrelated to investigations of employee misconduct and, as practicable, will be done in the presence of the Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020102/?10, All Rights Reserved. Personai Communication Devices 1 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Personal Communication Devices affected employee. Prior to conducting any search of personally owned devices, supervisors shall consult with the Chief of Police. All such searches shall be fully documented in a written report. 701.4 DEPARTMENT-ISSUED PCD Depending on an employee?s assignment and the needs of the position, the Department may, at its discretion, issue or fund a PCD. Department-issued or funded PCDs are provided as a convenience to facilitate on-duty performance only. Such devices and the associated telephone number shall remain the sole property of the Department and shall be subject to inspection or monitoring (including all related records and content) at any time without notice and without cause. All personnel who are issued a PCD by the department must comply with the following: (0) Must have PCD turned on and answer while working in any capacity (training, special events, OT, etc.). Must maintain PCD in good working order and report damage immediately. If the POD becomes damaged as a result of negligence, the person assigned to the PCD may be responsible for the cost of repairs or replacement. 701.5 PERSONALLY OWNED PCD Employees may carry a personally owned PCD while on-duty, subject to the following conditions and limitations: (8) (C) (9) Permission to carry a personally owned PCD may be revoked if it is used contrary to provisions of this policy. The Department accepts no responsibility for loss ofor damage to a personally owned PCD. The PCD and any associated services shall be purchased, used and maintained solely at the employee?s expense. The device should not be used for work-related purposes except in exigent circumstances unavailability of radio communications). Employees will have a reduced expectation of privacy when using a personally owned PCD in the workplace and have no expectation of privacy with regard to any department business-related communication. 1. Members may use personally owned PCDs on-duty for routine administrative work as authorized by the Chief of Police. The device shall not be utilized to record or disclose any business-related information, including photographs, video or the recording or transmittal of any information or material obtained or made accessible as a result of employment with the Department, without the express authorization of the Chief of Police or the authorized designee. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/02/10. All Rights Reserved. Persona Communication Devices - 2 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Personal Communication Devices Use of a personally owned PCD constitutes consent for the Department to access the POD to inspect and copy data to meet the needs ofthe Department, which may include litigation, public records retention and release obligations and internal investigations. If the POD is carried on-duty, employees will provide the Department with all telephone access numbers of the device. All work-related documents, emails, photographs, recordings or other public records created or received on a member?s personally owned PCD should be transferred to the University of Utah Department of Public Safety and deleted from the member's PCD as soon as reasonably practicable but no later than the end of the member?s shift. Except with prior express authorization from their supervisor, employees are not obligated or required to carry, access, monitor or respond to electronic communications using a personally owned PCD while off-duty. If an employee is in an authorized status that allows for appropriate compensation consistent with policy or existing collective bargaining agreements, or if the employee has prior express authorization from his/her supervisor, the employee may engage in business-related communications. Should employees engage in such approved off-duty communications or work, employees entitled to compensation shall document the time worked and communicate the information to their supervisors to ensure appropriate compensation. Employees who independently document off-duty department?related business activities in any manner shall provide the Department with a copy of such records to ensure accurate record keeping. 701.6 USE OF PERSONAL COMMUNICATION DEVICES The following protocols shall apply to all PCDs that are carried while on-duty or used to conduct department business: A PCD shall not be carried in a manner that allows it to be visible while in uniform, unless it is in an approved carrier. All PCDs in the workplace shall be set to silent or vibrate mode. A PCD may not be used to conduct personal business while on-duty, except for brief personal communications informing family of extended hours). Employees shall endeavor to limit their use of PCDs to authorized break times, unless an emergency exists. Employees may use a PCD to communicate with other personnel in situations where the use of the radio is either impracticable or not feasible. PCDs should not be used as a substitute for, as a way to avoid or in lieu of regular radio communications. Officers are prohibited from taking pictures, video or making audio recording or making copies of any such picture or recording media unless it is directly related to official department business. Disclosure of any such information to any third party through any means, without the express authorization of the Chief of Police or the authorized designee, may result in discipline. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/02/10, All Rights Reserved. Persona Communication Devices 3 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Personal Communication Devices Employees will not access social networking sites for any purpose that is not official department business. (9) Using PCDs to harass, threaten, coerce or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct with any third party is prohibited. Any employee having knowledge of such conduct shall notify a supervisor. 701.7 SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES Supervisors should ensure that members under their command are provided appropriate training on the use of PCDs consistent with this policy. Supervisors should monitor, to the extent practicable, PCD use in the workplace and take prompt corrective action if an employee is observed or reported to be improperly using a PCD. An investigation into improper conduct should be initiated when circumstances warrant. If, when carrying out any provision of this policy, the need to contact an employee who is off-duty arises, supervisors should consider delaying the contact, if practicable until the employee is on? duty as such contact may be compensable. 701.8 USE WHILE DRIVING The use of a PCD while driving can adversely affect safety, cause unnecessary distractions and present a negative image to the public. Officers operating emergency vehicles should restrict the use of these devices to matters of an urgent nature and should, where practicable, stop the vehicle at an appropriate location to use the POD. Except in an emergency, employees who are operating non-emergency vehicles shall not use a PCD while driving unless the device is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free use (Utah Code 41-6a-1716). Hands-free use should be restricted to business-related calls or calls of an urgent nature. 701.9 OFFICIAL USE Employees are reminded that PCDs are not secure devices and conversations may be intercepted or overheard. Caution should be exercised while utilizing PCDs to ensure that sensitive information is not inadvertently transmitted. As soon as reasonably possible, employees shall conduct sensitive or private communications on a land?based or other department communications network. The following situations are examples of when the use of a PCD may be appropriate: Barricaded suspects Hostage situations (0) Mobile Command Post Catastrophic disasters, such as plane crashes, earthquakes, floods, etc. Major political or community events Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/02/10, All Rights Reserved. Personal Communication Devices - 4 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Personal Communication Devices Investigative stakeouts Emergency contact with an allied agency or allied agency field unit When immediate communication is needed and the use of the radio is not available or appropriate and other means are not readily available Copyright Lexipol. LLC 2020/02/10. All Rights Reserved. Personai Communication Devices 5 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety Policy University of Utah Department of Public Safety 8 0 6 Law Enforcement Services Manual Computers and Digital Evidence 806.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy establishes procedures for the seizure and storage of computers, personal communications devices (PCDs) digital cameras. This includes digital recorders and other electronic devices that are capable of storing digital information. This policy also provides guidelines for the preservation and storage of digital evidence. All evidence seized and/or processed pursuant to this policy shall be done so in compliance with clearly established search and seizure provisions set forth by this department. 806.2 SEIZING COMPUTERS AND RELATED EVIDENCE Computer equipment requires Specialized training and handling to preserve its value as evidence. Officers should be aware of the potential to destroy information through careless or improper handling, and therefore they should utilize the most knowledgeable available resources. When possible enlisting the help of a computer forensics examiner. The examiner will make an exact copy, or mirror image, of the computer's hard drive. The original device (computer or hard- drive) will be stored as evidence. This eliminates the possibility of altering or destroying any evidence on the original source. The examiner and/or officer will then search the copy of the hard drive for evidence. Officers should never request a copy of any digital data, images, video, that could potentially have evidentiary value be sent to them by cell phone or e-mail when practicable. If not practicable authorization from department supervisors shall be obtained. When seizing a computer and accessories the following steps should be taken: Photograph each item, front and back, specifically including cable connections to other items. Look for a phone line or cable to a modem for Internet access. Do not overlook the possibility of the presence of physical evidence on and around the hardware relevant to the particular investigation such as fingerprints, biological or trace evidence and/or documents. lfthe computer is off, do not turn it on. If the computer is on, do not shut it down normally and do not click on anything or examine any files. 1. Photograph the screen, if possible, and note any programs or windows that appear to be open and running. 2. Disconnect the power cable from the back of the computer box or if a portable notebook style, disconnect any power cable from the case and remove the battery. Label each item with case number, evidence sheet number, and item number. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/02/10, All Rights Reserved. Computers and Digita Evidence ?1 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Computers and Digital Evidence Handle and transport the computer and storage media tape, discs, memory cards, flash memory, external drives) with care so that potential evidence is not lost. Lodge all computer items in the Property Room. Do not store computers where normal room temperature and humidity may not be maintained. At minimum, officers should document the following in related reports: Where the computer or device was located and whether it was in operation. Who was using the potential evidentiary device at the time. (0) Who claimed ownership of the potential evidentiary device. 4. If it can be determined, how was the potential evidentiary device was being used. (I) In most cases when a computer is involved in criminal acts and is in the possession of the suspect, the computer itself and all storage devices (hard drives, tape drives and disk drives) along with all media should be seized. Accessories (printers, monitors, mouse, scanner, keyboard, cables, software and manuals) should NOT be seized unless as a precursor to forfeiture. 806.2.1 BUSINESS OR NETWORKED COMPUTERS If the computer belongs to a business or is part of a network, it may not be feasible to seize the entire computer. Cases involving networks require specialized handling. Officers should contact a certified forensic computer examinerfor instructions or a response to the scene. It may be possible to perform an on-site inspection, or to image the hard drive only of the involved computer. This should only be done by someone specifically trained in processing computers for evidence. 806.2.2 FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF COMPUTERS If an examination of the contents of the computer's hard drive, floppy disks, compact discs or any other storage media is required, an exact duplicate of the hard drive or disk will be made using a forensic computer and a forensic software program by someone trained in the examination of computer storage devices. the officer will then fonNard the following items to a computer forensic examiner: Copy of report(s) detailing how the computer was used in what criminal activities. Copy of a signed consent to search form, by the computer owner or the person in possession of the computer. Or a copy of a search warrant authorizing the search of the computer and data devices for the evidence relating to the investigation. (0) A listing of the items to search for photographs, financial records, e-mail, documents). An exact duplicate of the hard drive or disk will be made using a forensic computer storage device for evidence. 806.3 SEIZING DIGITAL STORAGE MEDIA Digital storage media including hard drives, floppy discs, CDs, DVDs, tapes, memory cards or flash memory devices should be seized and stored in a manner that will protect them from damage. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/02/10, All Rights Reserved. Computers and Digital Evidence 2 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Computers and Digital Evidence If the media has a write-protection tab or switch, it should be activated. Do not review, access or open digital files prior to submission to a computer forensic examiner. If the information is needed for immediate investigation create a copy the contents on an appropriate form of storage media. (0) Many kinds of storage media can be erased or damaged by magnetic fields. Keep all media away from magnetic devices, electric motors, radio transmitters or other sources of magnetic fields. Do not leave storage media where it would be subject to excessive heat, such as in a parked vehicle on a hot day. Use plastic cases designed to protect the media, or other protective packaging, to prevent damage. 806.4 SEIZING PCDS Personal communication devices such as cell phones, PDAs or other hand?held devices connected to any communication network must be handled with care to preserve evidence that may be on the device, which includes messages, stored data and/or images. Officers may review the contents on a cell phone or other device with proper consent or a search warrant. Officer shall not alter or delete and content they review. Photographs may be taken of the material, data, or images as it is reviewed for official use only. Photographs should include front and back of the phone or device and any identifying numbers associated with the device. Officers should document all actions taken in a police report. A copy of the signed consent form by the device owner or a copy of the search warrant authorizing the search of the device should be submitted by the investigating officer and provided to the forensic examiner. And/or attached to the report if the examination is handled internally. The cell phone or other device should be placed in ?airplane mode" if feasible. If the device is already turned off, an officer may turn the phone back on to review the content with proper consent or a search warrant. In this case, turn the device on, put the device in ?airplane mode", and review the content. When seizing the devices, the device should be turned off in "airplane mode" and placed into a ferity bag (signal blocking) if practicable. The device will be booked into evidence with the charger for each device. If possible. The officer will make attempts to gather all pass codes or passwords for the device and document appropriately. The PCDS shall be handled in accordance with the latest "best practices" guidelines. 806.5 DIGITAL EVIDENCE RECORDED BY OFFICERS Officer's handling and submitting recorded and digitally stored evidence from digital cameras and audio or video recorders will comply with these procedures to ensure the integrity and admissibility of such evidence. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020i02l10, All Rights Reserved. Computers and Digita Evidence - 3 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Computers and Digital Evidence 806.5.1 COLLECTION OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE Once evidence is recorded it shall not be erased, deleted or altered in any way prior to submission. All photographs taken will be preserved regardless of quality, composition or relevance. Video and audio files will not be altered in any way. 806.5.2 SUBMISSION OF DIGITAL MEDIA Photographs, audio or video digital media that are recorded pursuant to a police investigation do not necessarily have evidentiary value. Such digital media may be informational only. If the digital media are informational only, the officer who created them may attach the digital media files to the police report using the records management system. Digital media that is created pursuant to police investigations of serious offenses (death investigations, aggravated felonies, sexual offenses, incidents that may result in significant liability to any of the involved parties to the incident or whenever the reporting officerfeels it is prudent to do so) and has evidentiary value, shall be handled as follows. Procedures for the submission of digital media used by cameras or other recorders that have evidentiary value: The recording media (smart card, compact flash drive or any other medium) shall be brought to the Evidence Room as soon as possible for submission into evidence. All images and or digital data such as video or audio recordings should be attached to the records management system and/or placed into evidence under the case. (0) As soon as possible flash drives, thumb drives, or memory cards containing evidence should be booked into evidence in accordance with the latest best practices techniques and current evidence booking procedures. Officers are not authorized to review or copy media that has been recorded without previous supervisor permission. The evidence technicians should be the only employees authorized to copy and/or distribute digital media made from any digital media sources. Evidence technicians will generate a hash value for each file of digital media submitted to secure the media?s unique identity. This hash value will be stored with the media file in the records management system. Digital evidence that is attached to the electronic copy of the related police report as evidence may be restricted as circumstances dictate. 806.5.3 DOWNLOADING OF DIGITAL FILES Digital information such as video or audio files recorded on devices using internal memory must be downloaded to storage media. The following procedures are to be followed: Files should not be opened or reviewed prior to downloading and storage. Where possible, the device should be connected to a computer and the files accessed directly from the computer directory or downloaded to a folder on the host computer for copying to the storage media. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/02/10, All Rights Reserved. Computers and DigitaI Evidence 4 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Computers and Digital Evidence (0) The original storage device will be photographed and serial and model number will be documented in the officer?s report. 806.5.4 PRESERVATION OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE Only evidence technicians are authorized to copy original digital media that is held as evidence. The original digital media shall remain in evidence and shall remain unaltered. Digital images that are enhanced to provide a better quality photograph for identification and investigative purposes must only be made from a copy ofthe original media. If any enhancement is done to the copy of the original, it shall be noted in the corresponding incident report. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/02/10. All Rights Reserved. Computers and Digita Evidence - 5 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Personnel Complaints 1009.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidelines for the reporting, investigation and disposition of complaints regarding the conduct of members of the University of Utah Department of Public Safety. This policy shall not apply to any questioning, counseling, instruction, informal verbal admonishment or other routine or unplanned contact of a member in the normal course of duty, by a supervisor or any other member, nor shall this policy apply to a criminal investigation. 1009.2 POLICY The University of Utah Department of Public Safety takes seriously all complaints regarding the service provided by the Department and the conduct of its members. The Department will accept and address all complaints of misconduct in accordance with this policy and applicable federal, state and local law, municipal and county rules and the requirements of any memorandum of understanding or collective bargaining agreement. It is also the policy of this department to ensure that the community can report misconduct without concern for reprisal or retaliation. 1009.3 PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS Personnel complaints include any allegation of misconduct or improper job performance that, if true, would constitute a violation of department policy or of federal, state or local law, policy or rule. Personnel complaints may be generated internally or by the public. Inquiries about conduct or performance that, iftrue, would not violate department policy orfederal, state or local law, policy or rule may be handled informally by a supervisor and shall not be considered a personnel complaint. Such inquiries generally include clarification regarding policy, procedures or the response to specific incidents by the Department. 1009.3.1 COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATIONS Personnel complaints shall be classified in one of the following categories: Informal A matter in which the Shift Sergeant is satisfied that appropriate action has been taken by a supervisor of rank greater than the accused member. Formal - A matter in which a supervisor determines that further action is warranted. Such complaints may be investigated by a supervisor of rank greater than the accused member or referred to the Internal Affairs Unit, depending on the seriousness and complexity of the inves?ga?on. Incomplete - A matter in which the complaining party either refuses to cooperate or becomes unavailable after diligent follow-up investigation. At the discretion of the assigned supervisor or the Internal Affairs Unit, such matters may be further investigated depending on the seriousness of the complaint and the availability of sufficient information. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/02110, All Rights Reserved. Personne Complaints 1 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Personnel Complaints 1009.3.2 SOURCES OF COMPLAINTS The following applies to the source of complaints: Individuals from the public may make complaints in any form, including in writing, by email, in person or by telephone. Any department member becoming aware of alleged misconduct shall immediately notify a supervisor. Supervisors shall initiate a complaint based upon observed misconduct or receipt from any source alleging misconduct that, if true, could result in disciplinary action. Anonymous and third-party complaints should be accepted and investigated to the extent that sufficient information is provided. Tort claims and lawsuits may generate a personnel complaint. 1009.4 AVAILABILITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLAINTS 1009.4.1 COMPLAINT FORMS Personnel complaint forms will be maintained in a clearly visible location in the public area of the police facility and be accessible through the department website. Forms may also be available at other University Police Department facilities. Personnel complaint forms in languages other than English may also be provided, as determined necessary or practicable. 1009.4.2 ACCEPTANCE All complaints will be courteously accepted by any department member and given to the appropriate supervisor. Although written complaints are preferred, a complaint may also be filed orally, either in person or by telephone. Such complaints will be directed to a supervisor. If a supervisor is not immediately available to take an oral complaint, the receiving member shall obtain contact information sufficient for the supervisor to contact the complainant. The supervisor, upon contact with the complainant, shall complete and submit a complaint form as appropriate. Although not required, complainants should be encouraged to file complaints in person so that proper identification, signatures, photographs or physical evidence may be obtained as necessary. 1009.5 DOCUMENTATION Supervisors shall ensure that all formal and informal complaints are documented on a complaint form. The supervisor shall ensure that the nature ofthe complaint is defined as clearly as possible. All complaints and inquiries should also be documented in a log that records and tracks complaints. The log shall include the nature of the complaint and the actions taken to address the complaint. On an annual basis, the Department should audit the log and send an audit report to the Chief of Police or the authorized designee. 1009.6 ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS Allegations of misconduct will be administratively investigated as follows. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/02/10, All Rights Reserved. Person ne Complaints 2 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Personnel Complaints 1009.6.1 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES In general, the primary responsibility for the investigation of a personnel complaint shall rest with the member's immediate supervisor, unless the supervisor is the complainant, or the supervisor is the ultimate decision-maker regarding disciplinary action or has any personal involvement regarding the alleged misconduct. The Chief of Police or the authorized designee may direct that another supervisor investigate any complaint. A supervisor who becomes aware of alleged misconduct shall take reasonable steps to prevent aggravation of the situation. The Chief of Police or any supervisor who is aware of circumstances where an officer?s certification as a peace officer may be subject to suspension or revocation by Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), based on a violation or condition described in Utah Code has an affirmative responsibility to investigate the matter and report to POST, ifthe allegation is found to be true (Utah Code 53-6-21 1 The responsibilities of supervisors include but are not limited to: (3) Ensuring that upon receiving or initiating any formal complaint, a complaint form is completed. 1. The original complaint form will be directed to the Shift Sergeant of the accused member, via the chain of command, who will take appropriate action and/or determine who will have responsibility for the investigation. 2. In circumstances where the integrity of the investigation could be jeopardized by reducing the complaint to writing or where the confidentiality of a complainant is at issue, a supervisor shall orally report the matter to the member's Division Commander or the Chief of Police, who will initiate appropriate action. Responding to all complainants in a courteous and professional manner. (0) Resolving those personnel complaints that can be resolved immediately. 1. Follow-up contact with the complainant should be made within 24 hours of the Department receiving the complaint. 2. lfthe matter is resolved and no further action is required, the supervisor will note the resolution on a complaint form and forward the form to the Shift Sergeant. Ensuring that upon receipt of a complaint involving allegations of a potentially serious nature, the Shift Sergeant and Chief of Police are notified via the chain of command as soon as practicable. contacting the Department of Human Resources and the Shift Sergeant for direction regarding the supervisor?s role in addressing a complaint that relates to sexual, racial, ethnic, or other forms of prohibited harassment or discrimination. Forwarding unresolved personnel complaints to the Shift Sergeant, who will determine whether to contact the complainant or assign the complaint for investigation. (9) Informing the complainant of the investigator?s name and the complaint number within three days after assignment. Copyright Lexipol. LLC 2020/02/10, All Rights Reserved. Personne Comp aint5 - 3 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Personnel Complaints Investigating a complaint as follows: 1. Making reasonable efforts to obtain names, addresses, and telephone numbers of witnesses. 2. When appropriate, ensuring immediate medical attention is provided and photographs of alleged injuries and accessible uninjured areas are taken. Ensuring that the procedural rights of the accused member are followed. Ensuring interviews of the complainant are generally conducted during reasonable hours. 1009.6.2 ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES Whether conducted by a supervisor or a member of the Internal Affairs Unit, the following applies to employees: (8) Interviews of an accused employee shall be conducted during reasonable hours and preferably when the employee is on-duty. If the employee is off-duty, he/she shall be compensated. Unless waived by the employee, interviews of an accused employee shall be at the University of Utah Department of Public Safety or other reasonable and appropriate place. No more than two interviewers should ask questions of an accused employee. Prior to any interview, an employee should be informed of the nature of the investigation. All interviews should be for a reasonable period and the employee's personal needs should be accommodated. No employee should be subjected to offensive or threatening language, nor shall any promises, rewards or other inducements be used to obtain answers. Any employee refusing to answer questions directly related to the investigation may be ordered to answer questions administratively and may be subject to discipline for failing to do so. 1. An employee should be given an orderto answer questions in an administrative investigation that might incriminate the member in a criminal matter only after the employee has been given a Garrity advisement and after the investigator has consulted with the prosecuting agency. Administrative investigators should consider the impact that compelling a statement from the employee may have on any related criminal investigation and should take reasonable steps to avoid creating any foreseeable conflicts between the two related investigations. This may include conferring with the person in charge of the criminal investigation discussion of processes, timing, implications). 2. No information or evidence administratively coerced from an employee may be provided to anyone involved in conducting the criminal investigation or to any prosecutor. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/02/10. All Rights Reserved. Personnej Compjajnts 4 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Personnel Complaints The interviewer should record all interviews of employees and witnesses. The employee may also record the interview. If the employee has been previously interviewed, a copy of that recorded interview shall be provided to the employee prior to any subsequent interview. All employees subjected to interviews that could result in discipline have the right to have an uninvolved representative present during the interview. However, in order to maintain the integrity of each individual?s statement, involved employees shall not consult or meet with a representative or attorney collectively or in groups prior to being interviewed. All employees shall provide complete and truthful responses to questions posed during interviews. No employee may be compelled to submit to a polygraph examination, nor shall any refusal to submit to such examination be mentioned in any investigation. 1009.6.3 ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION FORMAT Formal investigations of personnel complaints shall be thorough, complete and essentially follow this format: Introduction - Include the identity of the members, the identity of the assigned investigators, the initial date and source of the complaint. Synopsis - Provide a brief summary of the facts giving rise to the investigation. Summary - List the allegations separately, including applicable policy sections, with a brief summary of the evidence relevant to each allegation. A separate recommended finding should be provided for each allegation. Evidence - Each allegation should be set forth with the details of the evidence applicable to each allegation provided, including comprehensive summaries of member and witness statements. Other evidence related to each allegation should also be detailed in this section. Conclusion A recommendation regarding further action or disposition should be provided. Exhibits A separate list of exhibits recordings, photos, documents) should be attached to the report. 1009.6.4 DISPOSITIONS Each personnel complaint shall be classified with one of the following dispositions: Unfounded When the investigation discloses that the alleged acts did not occur or did not involve department members. Complaints that are determined to be frivolous will fall within the classification of unfounded. Exonerated - When the investigation discloses that the alleged act occurred but that the act was justified, lawful and/or proper. Not sustained - When the investigation discloses that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the complaint or fully exonerate the member. Copyright Lexipol. LLC 2020/02l10, All Rights Reserved. Personne Comp aints 5 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Personnel Complaints Sustained - When the investigation discloses sufficient evidence to establish that the act occurred and that it constituted misconduct. If an investigation discloses misconduct or improper job performance that was not alleged in the original complaint, the investigator shall take appropriate action with regard to any additional allegations. 1009.6.5 COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATIONS Every investigator or supervisor assigned to investigate a personnel complaint or other alleged misconduct shall proceed with due diligence in an effort to complete the investigation within one year from the date of discovery by an individual authorized to initiate an investigation. 1009.6.6 NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT OF INVESTIGATION STATUS The member conducting the investigation should provide the complainant with periodic updates on the status of the investigation, as appropriate. 1009.7 ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES Assigned lockers, storage spaces and other areas, including desks, offices and vehicles, may be searched as part of an administrative investigation upon a reasonable suspicion of misconduct. Such areas may also be searched any time by a supervisor for non-investigative purposes, such as obtaining a needed report, radio or other document or equipment. 1009.8 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE When a complaint of misconduct is of a serious nature, or when circumstances indicate that allowing the accused to continue to work would adversely affect the mission of the Department, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee may temporarily assign an accused employee to administrative leave. Any employee placed on administrative leave: May be required to relinquish any department badge, identification, assigned weapons and any other department equipment. Shall be required to continue to comply with all policies and lawful orders of a supervisor. (0) May be temporarily reassigned to a different shift, generally a normal business-hours shift, during the investigation. The employee may be required to remain available for contact at all times during such shift, and will report as ordered. 1009.9 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION Where a member is accused of potential criminal conduct, a separate supervisor or investigator shall be assigned to investigate the criminal allegations apart from any administrative investigation. Any separate administrative investigation may parallel a criminal investigation. The Chief of Police shall be notified as soon as practicable when a member is accused of criminal conduct. The Chief of Police may request a criminal investigation by an outside law enforcement agency. Copyright Lexipol. LLC 2020/0210. All Rights Reserved. Personne Complaints 6 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Personnel Complaints A member accused of criminal conduct shall be provided with all rights afforded to a civilian. The member should not be administratively ordered to provide any information in the criminal investigation. The University of Utah Department of Public Safety may release information concerning the arrest or detention of any member, including an officer, that has not led to a conviction. No disciplinary action should be taken until an independent administrative investigation is conducted. 1009.10 POST-ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES Upon completion ofa formal investigation, an investigation report should be forwarded to the Chief of Police through the chain of command. Each level of command should review the report and include their comments in writing before forwarding the report. The Chief of Police may accept or modify any classification or recommendation for disciplinary action. 1009.101 DIVISION COMMANDER RESPONSIBILITIES Upon receipt of any completed personnel investigation, the Division Commander of the involved member shall review the entire investigative file, the member's personnel file and any other relevant materials. The Division Commander may make recommendations regarding the disposition of any allegations and the amount of discipline, if any, to be imposed. Prior to forwarding recommendations to the Chief of Police, the Division Commander may return the entire investigation to the assigned investigator or supervisor for further investigation or action. When forwarding any written recommendation to the Chief of Police, the Division Commander shall include all relevant materials supporting the recommendation. Actual copies of a member's existing personnel file need not be provided and may be incorporated by reference. 1009.102 NOTICE OF FINAL DISPOSITION TO THE COMPLAINANT The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should ensure that the complainant is notified of the disposition sustained, not sustained, exonerated, unfounded) of the complaint. 1009.11 CORRECTIVE ACTION AND TERMINATION POLICY FOR STAFF EMPLOYEES See University of Utah Rule 5-111 1009.12 IMPLEMENTATION OF STAFF CORRECTIVE AND DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS See University of Utah Rule 1009.13 STAFF APPEALS See University of Utah Policy 5-203 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020102/10. All Rights Reserved. Personnel Complaints 7 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety University of Utah Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Services Manual Personnel Complaints 1009.14 PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES AND OTHER MEMBERS At-will and probationary employees and members other than non-probationary employees may be disciplined and/or released from employment without adherence to any of the procedures set out in this policy, and without notice or cause at any time. These individuals are not entitled to any rights under this policy. However, any of these individuals released for misconduct should be afforded an opportunity solely to clear their names through a liberty interest hearing, which shall be limited to a single appearance before the Chief of Police or the authorized designee. Any probationary period may be extended at the discretion of the Chief of Police in cases where the individual has been absent for more than a week or when additional time to review the individual is considered to be appropriate. 1009.15 RETENTION OF PERSONNEL INVESTIGATION FILES All personnel complaints shall be maintained in accordance with the established records retention schedule and as described in the Personnel Records Policy. 1009.16 EGREGIOUS BEHAVIOR EXAMPLES See University of Utah Rule 5-111C 1009.17 REMOVING WRITTEN WARNINGS See University of Utah Rule 5-111D 1009.18 COMPLAINTS OF DISCRIMINATION AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT See University of Utah Policy 5-210 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/02/10. All Rights Reserved. Personnel Complaints - 8 Published with permission by University of Utah Department of Public Safety