March 7, 1995
It took only a few seconds for the University Police Department to lose control of the situation.
As soon as Detective Ron Lam dialed the telephone number of Jason "Quddus" Archie's parole agent, Archie's fate was out of their hands.
Neither the teacher involved in the original confrontation, nor the UPD expected or intended for Archie to end up in prison for an incident dealt with and resolved within the university. But the UPD gave up jurisdiction over Archie just hours before a resolution could come about.
The UPD could have decided not to make the call that led to Archie's arrest, according to Ron Chun, regional parole director for Northern California.
Archie, 26, a black studies major and Associated Students legislator, was arrested for a parole violation on Feb. 21 during a women studies class after a verbal confrontation with English lecturer Virginia Elliott on Feb. 16. Archie was on parole for a 1987 conviction of voluntary manslaughter in which a man died from a stab wound to the head.
Two days after Archie's arrest, UPD Chief Kim Wible said she did not understand why he was arrested. "There was no crime," she said.
Crime or not, because of one man's decision, Archie is now marking time in San Quentin State Prison.
James Quen, Archie's parole agent, has declined to speak to the Gater on this issue, but the police report states it was he who decided to take Archie into custody. According to the report, Quen said Archie violated the conditions of his parole by behaving in a manner which caused Elliott to feel uncomfortable enough to contact the student discipline office and then UPD.
Despite UPD officers' apparent efforts to diffuse the situation and avoid Archie's arrest, once Quen knew of the incident, Archie was "under the jurisdiction of state parole," Quen said, according to Wible.
---
Why, by calling Archie's parole agent, would the UPD give up control over an incident that could have, and many believe should have, been handled within the university?
Wible said the CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) printout on Archie (which has not been released to the press) "contained written direction to contact a parole officer." She said, "failure to do so is a felony or misdemeanor."
But, according to Chun, there is no legal requirement that police departments contact a parole officer, and he said he has not heard of CLETS giving directions like that.
Police departments have discretion in deciding to contact a parole agent, Chun said, adding: "It's not uncommon that police don't call."
Chun estimated that parole agents are only called about 50 percent of the time when someone on parole is arrested for an unrelated offense.
He explained it is conceivable that a person could be arrested, charged with a crime, tried and convicted without the parole agent even knowing about it.
According to Chun, only when there is a warrant for arrest, or a request to detain an offender, are police departments required to contact another agency. Neither of these conditions applied in Archie's case, Chun said.
Wible contends that there is another factor involved in the decision to call Archie's parole officer: liability.
"We could be sued," she said.
Wible explained that Archie was convicted of a violent offense -- "He was charged with murder and plead down to voluntary manslaughter," she said -- and the UPD could have been held liable if Archie had retaliated.
"We will never know what we prevented (by calling Archie's parole agent)," she said.
The fact that Archie was convicted of a violent offense "guided all the decisions we made," she said, "especially out of concern for the faculty member."
---
Why then, was Quen not contacted until five days after the original incident?
According to the police report, UPD did not know of Archie's parole status until Feb. 21, the morning of the arrest.
Elliott called Lt. Stephen McLain late in the afternoon on Feb. 16. An appointment was made for her to meet an officer early Tuesday morning before her class with Archie, Wible said.
Lam, assigned to the investigation, conducted the background check, and left a message for Quen minutes before meeting with Elliott, according to the report.
From that point, Quen, instead of the UPD or the university, was in control of what many saw as a student-teacher discipline problem rather than a criminal case.
Elliott said it was during the Feb. 21 meeting with Lam that he suggested to her that she write an informational statement describing the initial confrontation with Archie.
The English lecturer said she did not want to file a criminal complaint, but agreed to the informational statement, saying, "It might be a good idea, just in case he (Archie) acted out again later on." Elliott was not told of Archie's parole status at that time.
"We ask reporting parties to write statements as a matter of routine," Wible said.
After the meeting with Lam, Elliott met with Archie to discuss his behavior. Later, Elliott told Lam that the situation had been resolved and that she wanted no further action on the part of the police, according to the report.
Lam later relayed the situation to Quen, and Quen told him that he would come by the station to discuss Archie's case file, the report said.
---
It was Elliott's informational statement that Quen used to asses the situation when he arrived on campus, Wible said.
She said that neither she nor any other officer believed that Archie would be arrested as a result of the confrontation.
After Quen made the decision to arrest Archie, McLain reminded him that Elliott only requested information and wanted no police contact with Archie.
Wible was also hesitant to see Archie arrested.
"I told Quen I thought the case was weak," Wible said.
But indications were that, by then, Elliott's wishes and the situation's resolution were irrelevant in Quen's mind. By law, so were the opinions of the UPD officers.
According to Wible, Quen said: "It's my decision. ... It's out of your hands."