The Penn Police completed their investigation yesterday into the mistaken apprehension of a College sophomore, finding that the actions of the involved police officers were "within the parameters of departmental policy."
The executive summary of the report, submitted by Vice President for Public Safety Maureen Rush, said that the handcuffing of Warith Deen Madyun could have been avoided if "communications and additional resources had been utilized more effectively."
For his part, Madyun, who is black, believes the report is vague and does not answer some of the underlying questions related to his apprehension.
In reference to the Nov. 21 incident, which led to a protest in College Hall on Monday, Madyun claimed that police exercised excessive violence in apprehending him by slamming him to the ground and shoving him against a flyer kiosk.
The executive summary stated that Madyun identified himself to police officers as a Penn student and when "not immediately released ... became increasingly upset."
"The officer attempted to control the situation by handcuffing Mr. Madyun in order to prevent physical harm to anyone at the scene," the executive summary said.
Madyun called the summary "vague," noting that its language failed to specify who would cause the "physical harm" and upon whom it could have potentially been inflicted.
"The whole document, to a large degree, is abstract," Madyun said. "Should I have been handcuffed, or shouldn't I?"
The investigation revealed that after a short period of time the victim of the original crime was brought to the scene in order to determine whether or not he recognized Madyun and his companions as the males who had stolen his phone.
When Madyun and company were identified as innocent, they were immediately released and received apologies, the summary said.
Finally, the investigation concluded that Madyun and his three companions fit the description of the suspects wanted for stealing the cell phone.
Madyun agreed on this point, saying, "If the officer had treated us with respect, [the incident] wouldn't have been a big deal."
However, he said he believed that racial profiling and police misconduct in general remain a serious concern.
"What happened to me was a catalyst for [the protest]," Madyun said, stressing that the protest was about broader issues.
Rush disputed claims of racial profiling at Penn, citing police statistics that contradict Madyun's assertion.
She did say, however, that student perception on campus is as an important concern.
"If the word on the street," she said, "is that black male students are being stopped a couple of times a week and we don't have paperwork to substantiate that, there's a schism here, and we need to figure out how to bridge that schism."
The executive summary's conclusion stated, "As a result of these findings the Division of Public Safety is redoubling its efforts to address the underlying concerns raised in Mr. Madyun's complaint."
Madyun called that statement "rhetoric and fluff."
Rush said that the Division of Public Safety continues to meet with various organizations, including minority student groups, in an effort to improve relations between the Penn Police and the community.
The investigation was based on police audio and closed-circuit television recordings, police patrol logs and 12 interviews with Madyun, police personnel and other witnesses.
Event timeline
Nov. 21: Penn Police mistakenly apprehended College sophomore Warith Deen Madyun. Police said he and those accompanying him fit the profile of a group of juveniles wanted for the theft of a cell phone. He was later released when the phone's owner identified him as not being the culprit.
Dec. 6: Madyun asserted that he was not a subject of racial profiling. He cited police misconduct in exercising excessive violence.
At least 80 students silently protested outside Gutmann's College Hall office starting 9 a.m.
Three members of the group met with Gutmann, Interim Provost Peter Conn and Chaplain William Gipson in Gutmann's office. In addition to the creation of an ad hoc committee composed of students, senior staff and faculty to "develop concrete recommendations," Gutmann prepared a public response to the incident, and University officials agreed to find a venue through which further discussions could take place.
Dec. 8: Gutmann's public response came in the form of a letter to the editor published in the DP stating, "The complaint that was filed raises serious issues, and I have been assured that it is being treated with the care and seriousness that each and every member of our community deserves."
Dec. 9: Penn Police completed their investigation, finding that the actions of the involved police officers were "within the parameters of departmental policy."
