Police investigating U-M graduate student in 3 sexual assaults
- Previous story: 3 U-M students tell police about sexual assaults during parties in same Ann Arbor apartment
This story was updated after 5 p.m. with clarification from Diane Brown on the reporting process of the alleged sexual assaults.
Police have questioned a 31-year-old University of Michigan graduate student who three women said sexually assaulted them inside his off-campus Ann Arbor apartment.
Police said the sexual assaults were reported to have taken place at a Zaragon Place apartment.
From Facebook
The three women are students at the University of Michigan and are over the age of 18. Police would not release any other information about the suspect or victims.
The suspect was described in a U-M crime alert as an Asian male, 31 years old (but looks younger), 5'6"-5'7", 140 pounds, short black hair, brown eyes.
One incident is reported to have happened on Feb. 15, with the others dating back to September. U-M police spokeswoman Diane Brown said one of the previous incidents was reported to university officials, but not to police until the latest student stepped forward.
The first assault was reported to a university official in mid-October. The official reported it to police per university protocol, but the woman did not want to file a police report, Brown said. Investigators cannot proceed without the willingness of the person reporting the crime.
The second woman did not report an assault to either university officials or police, Brown said, though investigators were made aware of an incident involving her and the 31-year-old.
The third woman reported an assault to university officials, who once again notified police per school protocol, Brown said. The university staff worked with the woman to make her aware of her options and she filed a report with the Ann Arbor Police Department Wednesday, which is when a crime alert was issued.
At this time, investigators were able to determine the 31-year-old man may have been involved in all three, according to police.
“We were able to conclude that there was a common suspect,” Brown said, adding that the allegations amount to "a disturbing pattern of behavior.”
The assaults were said to have occurred at the man's residence in the Zaragon Place Apartments on East University Avenue in the jurisdiction of the Ann Arbor Police Department. The department was notified of the assaults Wednesday, Pfannes said.
Police identified and questioned the man that night and were continuing efforts to question the students who reported the assaults Thursday.
The three students told police they drank alcohol in the apartment and were subsequently assaulted, according to a U-M crime alert issued late Wednesday. In two cases, the victims reported passing out then waking up during the assault.
"A third student reported she had been inappropriately grabbed by the suspect," according to the crime alert.
There have been several sexual assaults reported on or near U-M campus since August. Crime alerts were issued for assaults Aug. 21, Sept. 1, Sept. 3., Sept. 8 and Jan. 13, when a suspect was arrested and released by U-M police pending investigation.
Police said the suspect being questioned in the Zaragon assaults is not the same man arrested and released pending investigation for a reported assault at West Quad in January. Brown said police and prosecutors still are waiting for lab results to come back in that case.
Whether the 31-year-old was involved in any of the other sexual assaults, however, is not clear.
“We are reviewing incidents from the fall to see if they're related,” Brown said.
Anyone with information is asked to call U-M police at (734) 763-1131 or AAPD's tip line at (734) 794-6939 or tips@a2gov.org.
John Counts covers cops and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at johncounts@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
Ypsi.Support
Sun, Mar 3, 2013 : 12:53 a.m.
News flash: One supspected incident= issue. Two supsected incidents-same man= threat to the community. Do something, fast.
LXIX
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 3:18 p.m.
As policy, if the UM adheres to the Clery Handbook to deal with campus crime then there should be a "Memorandum of Understanding" with Ann Arbor Police Department. Below is a Clery Handbook sample MOU. (DCS as UM. PD as A2). "B. Date/acquaintance rapes or sexual offenses reported to the DCS will be handled in a manner consistent with the victim's wishes. Should the victim wish not to make a formal police report, the DCS will execute a declination of prosecution form with the victim which reflects her/his unwillingness to cooperate with a criminal investigation. The DCS will provide the PD CID Commander (or the Commander's designee) with the specifics of the allegation, but will not reveal the identity of the victim unless permission is provided by the victim to do so." Does the UM have a similar Clery MOU agreement with the AAPD? If so, was it followed per UM policy ?
LXIX
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:39 a.m.
@Matt Cooper Did you read article? The part that says updated at 5PM ? Postings.you replied to were made prior to that updare so the information they discuss did in fact change..
LXIX
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 11:38 a.m.
Thanks. Here is what is amiss with the UM account. University "protocol" is one key word. Another key word is "police". "U-M police spokeswoman Diane Brown said one of the previous incidents was reported to university officials, but not to police until the latest student stepped forward." A. "not reported to police" - which "police" the AAPD or UMPD? The question I posed only concerned AAPD notification. When did that occur? B. "until the latest student stepped forward" - that means Feb. 15th. Taken together that says no police were notified until Feb. 15th. Here is the updated UM statement. "The first assault was reported to a university official in mid-October. The official reported it to police per university protocol," A. "per university protocol" - That is a qualifier. The statement implies the time of police notification was "mid-Oct" but does not actually specify when "the official reported it to police". If the University is not waffling then for both statements to be true the "police" (which police?) were not notified until Feb. 15th. That timeframe then brings the UM "protocol" back into question. What is that "protocol". If notified in mid-Oct. the AAPD will certainly have a record of that UM converstaiton.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 3 a.m.
I did read the article. Did you? The update details Diane Brown commenting on the PROCESS of reporting crimes, not the CONTENT of such reports. "This story was updated after 5 p.m. with clarification from Diane Brown on the reporting process of the alleged sexual assaults." Secondly, the U of M did in fact follow proper protocols right down the line. You seem to not understand that point.
John Counts
Thu, Feb 28, 2013 : 11:25 p.m.
At about 5 p.m., I spoke with Diane Brown from U-M police about reporting procedures in general and with this particular case and updated the story here accordingly. The university officials did in fact follow protocol per the Cleary Act. An official -- Brown did not what to go into what type of position the official held -- reported the first assault to police in mid-October as soon as the woman informed the official of it. The woman did not wish to file a report, which meant police could not investigate the matter. The second woman never told officials or police about an assault and did not wish to file a report. In the third instance, the university official notified police per university protocol and a police report was eventually filed. The first two students still may not wish to file a report. That remains to be seen.
TaylorB
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 2:26 a.m.
Trespass, in this case the jurisdiction is with AAPD. UM has no jurisdiction. They could only file an assist other agency report and turn it over to AAPD if they knew where the assault occurred and that should be part of the info turned over by the "official" who contacted the police with scant information.
Eep
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:05 a.m.
The Clery Act only requires "timely notifications" after crimes that occur on the university's campus, at buildings owned by the university that are separated from the campus, and on public property that is immediately adjacent to the campus. If all of these assaults happened at a privately owned apartment building that isn't located on the campus, there would be no requirement for the University to issue a "timely notification" under the Clery Act. That said, there is certainly nothing prohibiting the University from issuing a notification in order to help protect their students - I don't think we have enough facts yet to determine if that was the case here or not.
DBH
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:47 a.m.
Oh, @trespass, I suspect the University DOES understand the DOE guidance as it relates to the Clery Act. I think they understand it very well.
trespass
Thu, Feb 28, 2013 : 11:36 p.m.
The Clery Act is intended to notify other students and staff so that they may be aware and take measures to protect themselves. There is nothing in the Clery Act that says that the victim must be willing to submit a criminal complaint for the public to be notified of the assault. The third victim might have avoided the assault if the public had been warned about the first two reported assaults. The guidance from the Dept. of Education, also says that reports are to be "investigation driven" not "complaint driven". Thus, an investigation is required even if there is no criminal complaint. The University still does not understand the DOE guidance.
Ralph
Thu, Feb 28, 2013 : 10:13 p.m.
U of m: failure of timely notification. Should result in a Cleary act fine!!
lorayn54
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 12:11 a.m.
i am curious about whether the Cleary act was violated in this situation.
trespass
Thu, Feb 28, 2013 : 10:08 p.m.
This is why it is important for the Board of Regents to release the full report of what happened in the child pornography case and stop claiming attorney client privilege. Then the public would have a better understanding of what went wrong and why the university is still not reporting suspected crimes to the police.
TaylorB
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 2:23 a.m.
But they did. The article says the "official" contacted the police.
LXIX
Thu, Feb 28, 2013 : 8:27 p.m.
"Diane Brown said the previous incidents were reported to university officials, but not to police until the latest student stepped forward". Not that that would be clear evidence of UM's obstruction of local justice - again. This loopy State pothole has gotta be fixed. Any opinion on that Mr. Mayor? Kids, if you believe anything illegal has happened anywhere in Ann Arbor - hospital, campus, park, or city - CALL THE ANN ARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT. FIRST. If they can't help you then maybe try UM Safety, Marketing, and Legal Affairs Department or whoever wants to be the sheriff running this town.
LXIX
Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 1:16 a.m.
Not that people who post at 6:20PM would accuse those who post at 3:27PM of failing to have read the complete story - including the little part about the story being updated at 5:00PM after they post. Sheez. A. Was there a crime committed in Ann Arbor jurisdiction against a UM student at Zaragon Place in Oct? Usually the courts decide that answer. So everything is really alleged or suspected crime to begin with. Who decides what/when to report such a "perspective crime" to the AAPD? Aren't records of such incidents made for investigator future reference regardless of any victim desire to file a formal police report? Part of basic police work, court cases, and all that. B. Was the University aware of such an "incident" and report it to the AAPD at that time? Or per some UM policy "investigators cannot proceed without the willingness of the person reporting the crime." There are problems with that official statement - First The U could coerce students into a confused silence about other U people committing crimes to protect its own image. That would not be an issue if these incidents were reported immediately to AAPD - verbatim. Was the youthful student talked out of a (possibly foggy) sexual experience by investigators? That nearly happened once before by UM hospital "investigators" so there is already a UM "policy" precedence here. If this were a robbery or murder would the same UM indifference to information sharing with AAPD apply? Even if the affected student(s) do not want to get involved or file a report or tell mom/dad or become part of public record or have go to court and risk countercharges, cross examination, and/or even physical revenge? AAPD has skilled detectives able to "understand" and help all kinds of victims. Pretty simple solution here. If the UM is aware of any potential criminal activity in Ann Arbor then they must immediately inform the AAPD. Or that is obstruction of justice.
Matt Cooper
Thu, Feb 28, 2013 : 11:20 p.m.
"...but the woman did not want to file a police report, Brown said" Did you even read the article? What should they have reported if the victim didn't even want to report that a crime had happened? "We need to report an incident but we don't know what happened, who it happened to, where it happened or who might be a suspect". Is that what you think they should report? They followed protocol, policy and the law exactly as they should have.
Bob W
Thu, Feb 28, 2013 : 9:50 p.m.
Or file a report to both organizations.
Bob W
Thu, Feb 28, 2013 : 8:25 p.m.
Haven't we heard this before, U.M. fails to communicate with/inform non-university authorities?
Matt Cooper
Thu, Feb 28, 2013 : 11:16 p.m.
"The Ann Arbor man has been interviewed and police continue to investigate the allegations, Ann Arbor police Lt. Robert Pfannes said" "The first assault was reported to a university official in mid-October. The official reported it to police per university protocol, but the woman did not want to file a police report" "The third woman reported an assault to university officials, who once again notified police per school protocol, Brown said." Did you even read the article?