asu

Last May, Officer Stewart Ferrin at Arizona State University stopped 33-year-old assistant professor Ersula Ore, Ph.D., for jaywalking, even though others around her were jaywalking as well. In the video recorded, you clearly see Ferrin unnecessarily roughing up Ore and throwing her down to the ground.

 

During ASU’s investigation Ferrin fought to keep his job, even though he was on leave, but he’s officially given up and has resigned,¬†after an independent investigation found fault with his arrest last summer.

The university sent Ferrin a letter in January, notifying him of its intent to terminate him. Ferrin appealed the decision.

“The lack of support, cooperation, and downright bias, coupled with an agenda to ruin my career, has become unbearable and I will not subject my family to this any longer,” he said Monday in a resignation letter sent to ASU.

Boo. Hoo.

“This review was never about a single incident or a single issue. Law enforcement officers in any jurisdiction are given the tremendous responsibility of helping to keep the community safe. They also are expected to exercise good judgment in the performance of their duties and, when given direction after missteps, are expected to follow that guidance,” ASU stated on Monday.

From AZ Central:

Ferrin committed multiple ASU police- and university-policy violations when arresting Ore, including those involving judgment, legal authority, search and seizure, alternatives to arrest and code of conduct.

The officer had no reasonable basis for arresting the professor for obstructing a road when she was walking down the street, and he wrongfully arrested her for refusing to provide ID, according to the report. The investigation says a pedestrian can cross the road as long as he or she yields to vehicles, and evidence suggests Ore yielded to the officer’s patrol car.

There was no evidence that the officer’s actions were racially motivated, as alleged last summer by civil-rights activists.

Five days before Ore’s arrest, an ASU researcher filed a complaint based on Ferrin’s actions in another incident. The officer was directing traffic when he demanded the researcher’s ID and threatened to arrest him for disobeying commands to use another crosswalk. That incident was handled “inappropriately,” the report said, because the researcher had crossed the street legally and posed no hazard to others. Ferrin was counseled to exercise better judgment and good communication. The counseling took place before the incident involving Ore.

Sounds like someone needs to find a new career path, because this one is done.

Tags: , , ,
Like Us On Facebook Follow Us On Twitter
  • John

    He should be suing the school the department and the professor.

    • Anthony

      For what? His arrest had been ruled improper. Ore filed a complaint against him as is her right. ASU had not yet fired him, he quit. Maybe, just maybe, he could argue that ASU has fostered a hostile work environment, but the cop had nothing on Dr. Ire.

    • John

      Really?? Then why did she plead guilty then?? Who did the DOJ (on another witch hunt) find nothing wrong and decide not to attempt to file charges? Why did the states attorney general find the same. Why did his own department find the arrest was made on solid grounds. This is strictly a political move by a hack police chief appointed by a politically correct board and nothing more.

    • Anthony

      As you told me, you should keep up. Her arrest was needless and not legal since she was yielding to traffic. She never said she was right to kick the cop.

    • John

      LOL needless really?? So officer discretion doesn’t matter then. Well she in fact was Jay walking refused to identify herself to the officer so she could be sighted for the violation. Then she made a felony assault and battery on the officer when she was placed under arrest. You could actually say any arrest is unnecessary or as you put it needless. But here is the state law 28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalkA. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.
      B. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.

      C. Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. But who exactly says she was yielding to traffic. Kinda hard to do when you are walking down the center of the road. Oh she still plead out didn’t she LOL.

    • A818

      Oh, John. You can post all the law you want. Your logical viewpoint will be lost on those here who either refuse or lack the intellectual capacity to think rationally.

    • vintage3000

      He and your ilk can post all the garbage you want.

      He arrested and harassed this woman when it was PROVEN she was not jaywalking. Furthermore, there were people around her who WERE jaywalking and they were not stopped and harassed by this THUG.

      You and John are spitting mad because the crimes of people who look like you are being brought to life on a daily basis.

    • A818

      Ok, “people who look like you”? The woman arrested looks like me. I would believe what you say if she had not pleaded out.
      Right or wrong does not matter when you argue with a “thug”. You may end up DEAD right. Resisting and fighting with police precipitated all of the newsworthy (ferguson, NY, etc) deaths by police.

    • Anthony

      Officer discretion does matter in a negative way when dozens of people are doing the exact same thing, but the only person the officer confronts is black. Black people “just happen” to be the person ticketed and arrested when the officer has the option of discretion far too frequently for it to be explained by anything but bias except for those who are willfully blind to the obvious.

    • John

      Really thats a reach I would say. So now there were dozens of people J walking yet the only one the officer decided to confront was black. I suppose you have proof of this right? Please you sound as bad as this women. HE ONLY PICKED ON ME CAUSE I AM BLACK. Funny you know every single black person I have ever arrested of had to deal with in a law enforcement capacity says the same damn thing, even when the officer is black. How about this for a novel approach politely give the officer your information and apologize for what ever the transgression may be. My Grandmother always said you catch more flies with honey. Personally the minute I hear that trash all bets are off.

    • Anthony

      The moment you see a black person arrested all bets are off because you assume the black person is wrong and any complaint that person has is without merit. You came to a black website to troll, not listen to a different viewpoint, or learn something.

      You are selective in your respect for authority. You give all respect to the officer, but you have no respect to the people who supervise him when they ruled he was wrong.

    • John

      Thats a mighty big assumption. If I make an arrest the person I am arresting needs to be arrested. In over 20 years I have never had a single complaint from a civilian in my folder. I did however get a two day suspension for putting a parking ticket on the wrong persons car once, so I know about politics and policing. Keep in mind that once an arrest is made you must have probable cause to make that arrest. And the arguments are for the courtroom not the street. As for respect that is something that is earned. I find it a little hard to respect a boss who was appointed strictly to get rid of this guy. Keep in mind that both the prior chief and his deputy both resigned very suddenly before this officer was forced to resign. The department cleared the officer of any wrong doing as did the DOJ and the State Attorney General. Yet this Chief comes in and says he was wrong. Then you have the suspect pleading guilty. Now if you can explain all of these, lets call them coincidences maybe I would by it. Politics in policing is always a bad mix.

    • Anthony

      You made assumptions, you just said earlier that you tend not to believe black people who claim mistreatment. If you tend to make assumptions, who are you to be commenting about assumptions being made about you? As for you never having had a complaint filed against you, I suppose it means you did your job properly (or else you work in a jurisdiction so hopelessly racist that people don’t waste time complaining.) I other words, you did what you were supposed to do. As Chris Rock once said, you want a cookie for doing what you were supposed to do?

      Respect is indeed a two way street, but too many police confuse compliance with respect. In a street confrontation, the officer has all of the power, and the officer demands compliance, no matter how shaky the circumstances around the encounter are. Even if the officer is needlessly aggressive in language, makes the handcuffs too tight, hits the citizen needlessly, forces her or him to lay face down on the ground in work or church clothes, etc. Too often police use their power to make people feel like they are nothing, and they hide behind concern for their safety. The fact is that no one respects officers who are execessively abusive and who are selective in law enforcement.

      As for politics in policing. Politics is always in policing. Your views reflect your politics, but you act as if your views are the only proper views worthy of respect. Frankly, nothing seems more anti-justice than police unions which never, ever admit the possibility that an officer might be wrong.

    • John

      No I did not say that at all you said that. What I said was that every black person I have ever arrested makes the statement I am arresting them because they are black. White people tend to say that I should be arresting real criminals like rapists and murderers. As for compliance in a street “confrontation” (the framing of the sentence says it all). The officer demands compliance because more often than not the situation will deteriorate, mostly brought on by the fact the suspect wants a “confrontation”. If I use aggressive language there is a reason, normally it’s because either I was addressed aggressively by the suspect or the situation has became dangerous. As for handcuffs being on to tight, sorry they are not made for comfort they are made as a temporary restraining device to keep you under control. If you are in cuffs there is a reason. I stopped worrying about cuffs being uncomfortable when this little white junkie slipped them while I was walking her into the station. I had to chase her for two blocks and she tried to car jack a women and her kids in a minni van. Putting a suspect on the ground is for control and safety. If I take you to the ground it is, as in this case you decided not to comply. Don’t want to end up on the ground comply, better yet don’t do anything that causes interaction with the police. Don’t give me hide behind concern for my safety. I have had 9 surgeries over the years all the result of rolls with suspects. The latest I am out on is a total knee replacement and my be the end of the job. Got that from rolling with another junkie who had just gotten out of the can and had managed to rack up 3 felony warrants in a month. I went to four police funerals while in the academy and have lost three friends in the past 20 years so safety is a real concern. See people don’t like to get arrested and they tend to fight when it happens. Politics should not be in policing it should be strictly about law and order. I am basing my views of this case on the facts that have been presented. No assumptions. She was J walking got stopped and refused to co-operate with the officer. While the officer was handcuffing her she became actively aggressive coming off the car forcing the officer to take her to the ground and control her. A second officer was required to assist in securing her. Then when they stood her up she kicked the officer. Had nothing to do with race and it was a legitimate arrest, albeit a lousy one but still legit. Had she co-operated none of this would have happened. A full investigation took place involving the DOJ (that in an of it’s self is pure P/S) and the states AG and they found nothing. The Chief and the Deputy Chief both unexpectedly retire and the new Chief is appointed and he moves to fire the officer even after two separate investigations found he did nothing wrong. Look if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it’s a safe bet it’s a duck. And mark my words he will be filing suit very soon.

    • John

      You do understand that an illegal arrest is in fact a violation of civil rights correct? Had her rights been violated I do believe Holder’s DOJ would pardon the expression been on it like white on rice. But instead both Holder and the States Attorney General found no grounds for a case. Clearly this is a case of blind justice