Youtube users Simsim Tube & Michael Myers commented on the Fullerton College Campus Security Harassment video claims that Fullerton College Campus Safety Officers had the authority to arrest Louis Munoz because they were protected under Section 830.32 of the California Penal Code under the provision of the education code 72330.
Section 830.32 of the California Penal Code states as follows;
“830.32. The following persons are peace officers whose authority extends to any place in the state for the purpose of performing their primary duty or when making an arrest pursuant to Section 836 as to any public offense with respect to which there is immediate danger to person or property, or of the escape of the perpetrator of that offense, or pursuant to Section 8597 or 8598 of the Government Code. Those peace officers may carry firearms only if authorized and under terms and conditions specified by their employing agency.
(a) Members of a California Community College police department appointed pursuant to Section 72330 of the Education Code, if the primary duty of the police officer is the enforcement of the law as prescribed in Section 72330 of the Education Code.
(b) Persons employed as members of a police department of a school district pursuant to Section 38000 of the Education Code, if the primary duty of the police officer is the enforcement of the law as prescribed in Section 38000 of the Education Code.”
But according to North Orange County Community College District as well as Fullerton College, enforcement of the law is not the primary duty of Campus Safety nor are they peace officers and therefore are not protected by Section 830.32 of the California Penal Code under the provision of the education code of 72330 and are instead subject to Section 837 of the California Penal Code which covers citizen arrest.
North Orange County Community College District Policy (NOCCCD AP 7600, based on Education Code 72330.5 and Government Code 3300) clearly states Campus Safety’s main role;
“The District’s safety officers are non-sworn and unarmed. Their primary role, within the limits of the law and the authority granted by the Board, is to protect the persons and property of the District, primarily through prevention, observation and reporting. Other authorized functions may include monitoring safety standards established by the District, issuing parking citations on District premises pursuant to Section 21113(a) of the California Vehicle Code, enforcing District rules and regulations, monitoring facility access control, and providing assistance with special events.
2.1.2 The District’s safety officers are not peace officers and are not empowered with police authority to enforce laws. No District safety officer shall impersonate a police officer or use a title, wear a uniform or badge, use an insignia or identification, or make any statement with the intent to give an impression that the safety officer is a peace officer.”
The first paragraph, Pg. 35 of the 2016 Fullerton College Catalog states “Fullerton College is a safety department and not a police department.”
The Clery Annual Security Report 2016 prepared by the Fullerton College Campus Safety Department states “Campus Safety officers are not sworn peace officers. Campus Safety officers enforce parking regulations and college regulations and board policy. Campus Safety officer’s complete incident reports on crime incidents and violation of college regulations or board policy.”
The Students Right to Know Info on the Fullerton College Campus Safety page states “Campus Safety Department is NOT a POST (Peace Officers Standards and Training) approved police department.”
With that said, although Campus Safety are not peace officers they still have a right as a citizen to make an arrest.
North Orange County Community College District (NOCCCD AP 7600, based on Education Code 72330.5 and Government Code 3300) states Campus Safety are allowed to make a citizen’s arrest on district property under these conditions subject to Section 837 of the California Penal Code;
“2.3.1.1 District safety officers are authorized to make a citizen’s arrest where a public offense has been committed or attempted in the officer’s presence on District property and detention of the suspect is reasonably necessary to defend or regain District or personal property or to defend the officer or another from bodily harm.
2.4.1 District safety officers are authorized to use the amount of force reasonable and necessary, within the limits of established District procedure, to accomplish the lawful and authorized security objectives of the District.”
Section 837 of the California Penal Code states;
“837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.”
When Officer Dino Skokos decided to arrest Louis Munoz, he did so under one of these three reasons.
On page 30 of the catalog, 13th paragraph there is a statement about smoking on campus “Fullerton College is a smoke-free campus. (NOCCCD AP 3570, based on Government Code 7697)”
The Standards of Student Conduct and Discipline Policy on pages 30-31 in the Fullerton College Catalog 2016 state;
“The standards of student conduct and disciplinary action for violation of Board Policy 5500 were approved by the NOCCCD Board on January 28, 2003, were revised on October 23, 2007, and were drawn in compliance with Sections 66300, 66301, 76030, 76033, 76034 and 76036 of the State Education Code.
Students are expected to respect and obey civil and criminal law and shall be subject to the legal penalties for violation of the city, county, state, and national law(s).
Student conduct must conform to Board Policy and college regulations and procedures. As cited in BP5500, “A student who violates the standards of student conduct shall be subject to disciplinary action including, but not limited to, the removal, suspension or expulsion of the student.”
According to these guidelines, while Munoz was not a student he was in violation of two acts of misconduct;
2. Failure to identify oneself when requested to do so by District officials acting in the performance of their duties.
12. Willful or persistent smoking in any area where smoking has been prohibited by law or by regulation of the District.
The next step is for the citizen to inform the person that they are about to arrest that they are about to be arrested under Section 841 of the California Penal Code;
“841. The person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest, and the authority to make it, except when the person making the arrest has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the commission of or an attempt to commit an offense, or the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after its commission, or after an escape.
The person making the arrest must, on request of the person he is arresting, inform the latter of the offense for which he is being arrested.”
Skokos is heard at the beginning of the video stating to Munoz, “If I cannot verify who you are, I’m just going to hook you up. I can do that” right before he begins to detain Munoz.
There is the possibility of Skokos believing Munoz was resisting arrest, which would fall under Section 148 of the California Penal Code.
“148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.”
If it is found that the officers followed citizen arrest procedures listed above the true question of legality rests in if the use of force by campus safety officers was “excessive.”
North Orange County Community College District (NOCCCD AP 7600, based on Education Code 72330.5 and Government Code 3300) states Campus Safety are allowed to use force under these conditions;
“2.4.2 Where control of a situation cannot be accomplished through advice, warnings and persuasion, District safety officers shall use only the amount of force reasonable and necessary, given the facts and circumstances known at the time of the event, to accomplish the lawful and authorized security objectives of the District.”
The level to which they can use this force goes as followed;
“2.4.3 District safety officers are authorized to use low to intermediate levels of force, defined as follows:
2.4.3.1 Low force is calculated to gain compliant behavior with no expectation of injury and includes the physical presence of the officer, verbal commands, request for additional personnel, gesturing and physical contact involving a firm grip.
2.4.3.2 Intermediate force is calculated to control or overcome resistance with no expectation of great bodily injury or death, but with some possibility of injury and includes physical control tactics such as holding, pulling, pushing, the application of handcuffs, and the use of pepper spray.
2.4.4 The highest level of force approved is the use of a District issued pepper spray or similar products authorized by the District. Pepper spray will not be used at any time except as a defensive measure when there is an immediate threat of personal injury to the officer or another person.
2.4.5 District safety officers are authorized to use reasonable and necessary force, within the limitations prescribed above, to make a citizen’s arrest, to defend or regain District or personal property, or to defend the officer or another from bodily harm.”
While it appears as excessive in the video, Skokos pushing Munoz into the wall and then pushing him on to the floor might constitute intermediate force which could be labeled as authorized. The more problematic use of force would be the knee on the head of Munoz, a knee into his back and what appears to be a separate officer pushing a way an onlooker by his neck.
If it is found that the alleged use of force was in fact excessive, the officer(s) could possibly face a greater consequence beyond merely termination or suspension under Section 149 in California Penal Code which states;
“149. Every public officer who, under color of authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment.”
