With Regard to the Meramec Campus and District Police Departments

• The campus and district police chiefs lack knowledge of basic police procedures.
• The district chief expressed his policy of not intervening in campus police cases, even when said intervention may have been necessary to prevent mistakes in both judgment and procedure.
• The Chief of the Meramec Campus Police mischaracterized and mishandled the assault and, thereby, confused and delayed poorly prepared administration and communications staff at the campus and at the district from issuing campus-wide  safety alerts.
• The Meramec Campus Police Chief downplayed the injuries suffered by the assaulted student and withheld vital information about the assailant’s self-described intent from the St. Louis County Prosecutor as well as others both on the campus and off. The District Chief failed to correct these errors when he learned of them.
• On the day of the attack, the Campus police chief did not follow the St. Louis County prosecutor’s instructions about seeking an “in-custody” warrant. In spite of the potential danger to the victim and others, the campus police chief released the assailant with a verbal warning not to return to campus of extremely questionable efficacy.
• Even if he misunderstood the directions of the prosecutor, the Meramec Chief did not thereafter call her back to inform her of the most critical evidence in the case, which would have still allowed sufficient time to obtain a warrant before the 24-hour period lapsed.
• Instructed separately to report to the vice president of student affairs at Meramec five (5) days following the assault, the assailant instead returned to the scene of the crime hours before the appointment with student affairs. While he was apprehended at that point, he was taken to the student affairs office rather than removed from campus and taken to processing.
• The Meramec Campus Chief of Police, with the concurrence of the District chief, did not seek a warrant from the prosecutor until five (5) days after the assault under circumstances wherein it appeared probable that a warrant for a serious felony could have been obtained on the day of the attack, if only they had followed the prosecutor’s advice and/or had conveyed accurate information as to the critical evidence in the case on April 18 or the day thereafter.

With Regard to the Administration

• Despite the fact that one Meramec administrator (Crawford) knew of the gravity of the assault by Thursday evening, campus administrators would not start reacting appropriately until Monday morning. Rather than taking responsibility and seizing control of the situation, they delayed taking action.
• The campus as well as district administrators at the highest level, even though not being fully advised of the assault and its seriousness until after it occurred, nonetheless failed to display prompt and comprehensive initiative to deal with the ramifications and consequences of the attack in the days after their notice. More would reasonably have been expected of the campus and district leaders in this critical time.
• The Meramec Behavioral Intervention Team, primarily through Crawford and Banta, failed to fully investigate and appropriately handle prior BIT incidents regarding Mallory.

With Regard to Communications

• The communications functions at both the campus and district levels did not attempt to take responsibility or advocate strongly for a campus wide alert or to focus the administrators’ attention of the communications needs of the students, faculty and staff.

Read the report.

Related Articles:

• Timely Warning vs. Emergency Notification: What’s the Big Difference?
• Lack of Training, Policies Prevent Clery, Title IX Compliance

If you appreciated this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our FREE digital newsletters!

Related Content