http://reynosoreport.ucdavis.edu/reynoso-report.pdf
These are a little over a month old I think, so maybe they've already been posted. Here's some excerpts:
On the legal basis for dismantling tents
"Indeed, in a January 13, 2012 letter to Kroll investigative staff, Senor Campus Counsel Michael Sweeney noted “several Kroll investigators have asked questions about the laws that apply to camping on the quad, and the laws that were cited in the police arrest citations. I will use this opportunity to briefly clarify this topic. The law that most clearly applies is California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 100005, enclosed, which prohibits non-affiliates [emphasis added] from camping on University property.” Thus, in response to questions about the legal basis for the police action the administration cites legal authority that only applies to non-affiliates. "
"In the course of its investigation, Kroll has been unable to identify the legal basis for the decision of the Leadership Team to act against the protesters and for the operation mounted by the UCDPD. It appears that the UCDPD mounted its operation absent the clarity of legal authority under pressure from the Administration to do something to get rid of the tents. The interviews conducted by Kroll indicate that Chief Spicuzza failed to challenge or question this administrative policy directive at crucial decision points. Indeed, according to Pike’s Supplemental Narrative Report, it was Lieutenants Pike and Officer P who demanded the last-minute call to Campus Counsel to obtain legal guidance. "
On the pepper spray used
"With respect to the pepper spray, the weapon used was a MK-9, First Defense Aerosol Projector. This item is different than the MK-4 product that is generally carried by individual officers. It has a higher pressure, is nitrogen driven, and is intended for crowd dispersal rather than field applications. The recommended minimum distance for the application of the MK-9 is six feet, versus three feet for the more commonly personally carried MK-4 Aerosol Projector."
"No. 559 does not mention or authorize the use of the MK-9. It does authorize pepper spray, specifically the MK-4, but it contains no discussion of the MK-9. Kroll found no indication that any member of the UC Davis Police Department has ever been trained on the MK-9."
TL;DR: It doesn't seem there was any actual legal basis for removing the tents, and the pepper spray used was unauthorized and used incorrectly (he was significantly closer than six feet away).
There's all sorts of ridiculous things in the reports. The operation to remove the tents was pretty much a circus of errors.
--
Ginhyun
http://i.imgur.com/15vH5.gif