Academically, what I learned participating in undergraduate research is how to write a literature review using the Harvard citation style. Although I have taken a research methods course, writing a literature review was something I did not excel in, and having to use a new citation style made it much more challenging.
However, after several revisions, I eventually improved and grew more confident writing a literature review and using that citation style. UC Merced has a lot of opportunities for experiential learning. What would you say to a future student who wants to be involved? To any student who would like to be involved in experiential learning, just do it! During my sophomore year, I was offered an opportunity to be involved in experiential learning and despite doubting myself in the beginning I chose to take this risk.
As a result, many opportunities have opened up where I have made connections with professors, undergraduate students and graduate students both inside and outside of UC Merced. It has allowed me to present at conferences remotely in California and has provided me with a support system such as UROC-H. Therefore, to any student who is planning to be involved in experiential learning, just do it because it can open many opportunities for you.
Shortly before the fall semester kicked off in person, 11 students were wrapping up their first summer on campus as part of the FACTS summer bridge Cognitive and Information Sciences Ph. Merced, CA Telephone: See our Campus Ready site for the most up to date information about instruction. Directory Apply Give Enter your keywords. Major Patrick W.
Lisowski, Army Litigation Div. Army, Arlington, Va. Lieutenant Colonel Michael Aquino, formerly of the U. Army Reserves, filed suit under the Privacy Act of , 5 U. He also sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. The district court entered summary judgment for the Secretary, concluding that criminal investigatory files are exempt from the provisions of the Privacy Act that were invoked by Aquino and that the Secretary's decision not to amend was not arbitrary or capricious.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Army Criminal Investigation Division Command CID began investigating charges that Gary Hambright had sexually molested several of the children entrusted to his care as an employee at the Child Development Center on the Army base known as the Presidio.
On August 12, , Army Captain Larry Adams-Thompson reported to the authorities that his three-year-old daughter, who had attended the Child Development Center during the period of Hambright's alleged crimes, had become visibly frightened upon seeing LTC Aquino and his wife at the Army's post-exchange that day and called them "Mikey" and "Shamby.
Gary" in the sexual molestation of her and other children at "Mr. Gary's house. Although the SFPD discontinued its investigation of the Aquinos in September for lack of sufficient evidence, the CID continued and in August issued a report of investigation designating both Aquinos in the "title block" of the report and describing the various child-abuse and related criminal offenses investigated. The report concluded that the investigation was closed because all further leads involved adults who refused to cooperate, and the applicable threeyear statute of limitations had expired in June Thereafter, on January 31, , the Aquinos requested that the CID remove their names from the title block of the report.
While the CID deleted Mrs. Aquino's name entirely, on the ground that the identifications of her by the children interviewed were inadequate, it did not delete LTC Aquino's name. All the child-abuse charges remained, because " [t]he evidence of alibi offered by LTC Aquino [was] not persuasive. Aquino filed suit in the district court under the Privacy Act, 5 U.
On cross motions for summary judgment the district court granted the Army's motion and denied Aquino's, holding that the files sought to be amended by Aquino were exempt from the Privacy Act provisions under which Aquino sued.
On its review of the Army's action under the Administrative Procedure Act, the court concluded that " [t]here was sufficient evidence from which the Army decision maker could determine that probable cause existed to believe that [Aquino] committed the offenses" and that therefore the Army's decisions to create the report and not amend it were not arbitrary or capricious.
The Privacy Act of was enacted to "protect the privacy of individuals identified in information systems maintained by Federal agencies" by giving the individuals information about and access to records about them and permitting them "to have a copy made of all or any portion thereof, and to correct or amend such records.
The Act authorizes civil actions in federal court to compel compliance with the Act and, in the case of "intentional or willful" violations, to award damages.
See 5 U. Aquino contends that evidence collected by the Army CID did not justify its creating an investigation report titled under his name and that those involved with the investigation were motivated to remove him from the Army because he is the founder of the Temple of Set, a satanist religion.
Because, he argues, the Army did not have probable cause to link him with the crimes described in the report, the report should be amended and his name deleted from its caption because the information is not "accurate, relevant, timely, or complete," as required by 5 U.
The Secretary contends that Aquino cannot proceed under the Privacy Act because the records that Aquino seeks to amend are criminal investigation records which are exempt from the Act under 5 U. The Privacy Act authorizes agencies to exempt from many of its provisions, including those applicable here, criminal investigative record systems maintained by the agency or a "component" thereof. The record systems must be "maintained by an agency or component thereof which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws" and must consist of "information compiled for the purpose of a criminal investigation.
To implement its election to exempt criminal investigative record systems, the agency must promulgate rules to do so and give reasons why the systems are to be exempted. The Army has promulgated a rule, 32 C. The rule applies to " [a]ll portions of this system of records which fall within 5 U. Aquino argues that the exemption may be given effect only if the Army promulgates rules which would require it to give, on a case by case approach, reasons for exempting each document or set of documents which it chooses to include within the exemption.
In short he argues that documents must be processed individually in a manner specified by rule such that each time an exemption is invoked, an authorized reason for the exemption must be given. In support of his argument he cites Doe v.
FBI, F. In that case the court was presented with the problem, not present here, of providing a method by which the FBI could protect exempt records which were contained in non-exempt files. The FBI had an employment application file with respect to Doe, which contained criminal investigation records of Doe. The court stated, "The critical question, then, is whether the FBI's investigatory information on Doe lost its exempt status when it was subsequently used, in altered form, for a non-law enforcement purpose," i.
The court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the cumulative burden to the FBI from processing amendment requests, one of the FBI's reasons for exemption, applied to non-law enforcement records containing law enforcement information as a class.
We are not presented with any of those issues in this case. While we can understand that Aquino would want a more individualized evaluation of his file to justify the CID's claim of exemption, particularly when he believes that an investigatory report is inaccurate, we do not think that the Privacy Act was intended to provide an amendatory procedure for records about investigations into violations of the criminal laws.
The Army effectively promulgated rules to exempt criminal investigatory files, and Aquino makes no contention that his records are not contained within the "system of records" exempted.
Section a j provides that any agency may promulgate rules "to exempt any system of records within the agency" from specified Privacy Act provisions if the agency. This the agency has done. Aquino does not suggest that the rule-making process was defective. Nor does he contend that the reasons stated by the rule are not adequate. Aquino's principal complaint centers on his contention that the investigation itself was improperly motivated and that information reported was in some respects false, but he does not controvert the authenticity of the records or the fact that a criminal investigation was conducted.
In these circumstances, we cannot conclude that a statute aimed at protecting the privacy of records can be made the vehicle to challenge whether an underlying criminal investigation was properly motivated. It is sufficient for the Privacy Act exemption that the records are authentic and were generated in connection with the CID's investigation into a possible violation of the criminal law based on information sufficient to support at least "a colorable claim" that the subject committed the violation.
Pratt v. Webster, F. Aquino also sued under the Administrative Procedure Act to review the Secretary's decisions to title an investigatory report with his name and refuse to amend it.
0コメント