UVU cops detained me for OCing on campus

[Jon]

I really wish they would just pass something that stops all of the bogus disturbing the peace and disruption of school activities charges these dumb officers and even their chiefs try to use to stop what is perfectly legal. Next time i'm in the cafeteria at UVU i'm going to call the police and demand that they arrest someone and confiscate their sandwich because their loud chewing is disrupting my peaceful studying. His response to your letter was such a joke.

[itsasecret]

Notice that what you posted says the cop needs reasonable suspicion before demanding more info than your name? The AG has already stated that simply open carrying a firearm is not grounds in and of itself for reasonable suspicion.

I'm not sure exactly which AG's quote you refer to. To be technical, they can't demand even your name without reasonable suspicion, but I suspect that a great many judges would side with the cops if they offered a suspected violation of 76-10-505.5 as the reason for the stop. Same is probably true for OCing on a public street and stops initiated under the guise of a suspected violation of 76-10-505. A tangentially-related case in Indiana recently didn't go the cops' way, but I'd note that there's a great deal of difference between getting evidence thrown out and something more severe like say ... seeking civil damages (apologies for the hijack).

[cablecutter]

Didn't know you had to get approval for exercising a right????

[cablecutter]

His response to your letter was such a joke.

Seriously, He didn't even inform him how to file a complaint when he specifically asked him. In a way he just blew him off... I would like to see that policy he speaks of. And again the cheif threatens him by saying "you may be subject to possible UVU administrative sanctions for policy violation"

[cablecutter]

Chief Brewer,

How does one get written permission to open carry at UVU in light of
Friday's "incident"? Also where can I found "UVU policy" ?

Thanks
Scott

His reply:

Get on the UVU on line homepage and look for policies. It will be detailed under student responsibilities.

[Scott]

How does the "Chief" respond to the question: Since when, and by what statutory authority, does a Utah state public university policy trump Utah State Law?

[UnderratedF00l]

76-8-710 reads:

76-8-710. Disruption of activities in or near school building -- Failure to leave or re-entry.
Any person who comes into any school building or upon any school ground, or street, sidewalk, or public way adjacent to any school building or ground and whose presence or acts interfere with the peaceful conduct of the activities of any school or disrupt the school or its pupils or school activities, and who remains there, or who re-enters or comes upon the place within 72 hours, after being asked to leave by the chief administrative official of that school or his representative or agent is guilty of an offense and shall be punished as provided in Section 76-8-717.

Looks to me like another catch-all type of law. All that they have to prove is that you're disrupting school activities and they can charge you. You could be open carrying a bright pink balloon in the shape of a gun in a holster on your hip and they could charge you under this statute.

Ridiculous.

[Jon]

Maybe he has been hanging out up at the U... someone needs to help the poorly mistaken chief understand his place.

[Scott]

The ones causing "Disruption of activities in or near school building" are clearly the callers reporting the MWAG because they are "nervous" or "scared" and the LEO's for making such a big deal out of a legal and lawful citizen obeying the law.

[UnderratedF00l]

Hmm. Wait just a gol' darn sec.

It sounds like "Chief Brewer" has already been through these ropes once before.

viewtopic.php?f=33&p=82673#p82681


Interesting. It's starting to sound as though "Chief Brewer" has an agenda, not just an opinion.

[itsasecret]

I'd say that it looks like Chief Brewer is bucking to get 76-8-10 repealed (or (1)(a)(ii) struck from 76-3-203.2) because that is the likely result if they try to use it to punish gun owners. I don't know what's so difficult to grasp about 53-5a-102 (5). It doesn't matter if they call their policy "Frankenstein" or "No underwear Thursdays" or if it refers ambiguously to disrupting school activities, if it "in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property" then it's in violation of state law.

[Daeyel]

Whats the fastest way to get this kind of activity stopped? Get a 'name' to be stopped for OC on campus. I'm guessing a Stephen Clark or Margaret Dayton being harassed is gonna result in:
A: Media involvement
B: a call to both President Holland and Chief Brewer from said member of state legislature
C: an end to harassment
D: AG Shurtleff issuing a not to be ignored statement on the issue to Law Enforcement.
E: Possible clarification in next years legislature.

[Jon]

When you have a police chief that is told in person by the AG that something is legal and who then continues to try and restrict it... he needs to be done being chief in my opinion.

[cablecutter]

has anyone contacted the AG yet?

[MajorNickmo]

Whoa, I just got off the phone with KSL, The Daily Herald, and FOX 13.
FOX took the initiative to call BCI.... AND BCI TOTALLY BACKED ME UP!!!

Should I get on camera guys? I can't afford legal representation right now...and I don't want to upset the UVU administration, they've always been really good to me...