Penn conducted a surveillance operation using phone records, digital data, and CCTV footage to investigate the vandalism of the Benjamin Franklin statue on College Green in September 2024, according to search warrants obtained by The Daily Pennsylvanian.

Three search warrants served by the Penn Police Department culminated in the search of an off-campus student residence on Oct. 18, 2024, during which officers seized a Penn student’s cell phone. The warrants, the first of which was served on Sept. 24, 2024 and the other two on Oct. 18, 2024, list violations of criminal mischief and conspiracy. 

“Pursuant to University policy, Public Safety makes use of this data on rare occasions, limited to criminal investigations and public safety emergencies,” a spokesperson for Penn’s Division of Public Safety wrote in a statement to the DP.

A request for comment was left with the student named in the warrant and a University spokesperson.

Following the vandalism of the statue on Sept. 12, 2024 — which was described in the affidavit from a Penn Police detective sergeant as a “frequent target of vandalism by Pro-Palestinian protestors” — Penn Police examined CCTV footage to identify two suspects.

“Because the suspects were the only individuals present at the time of the crime, investigative personnel were able to ascertain through the [Penn Office of Information Security] any person(s) logged onto the private Wi-Fi router specific to that area,” the affidavit read.

According to Penn’s policy on Closed Circuit Television Monitoring and Recording of Public Areas for Safety and Security Purposes, the “purpose of CCTV monitoring of public areas by security personnel is to deter crime and to assist the Penn Police in protecting the safety and property of the University community.”

“Information obtained through video monitoring will be used exclusively for security and law enforcement purposes,” the policy continues. “Information obtained through video monitoring will only be released when authorized by the Vice President of Public Safety according to the procedures established in this policy.”

---

---

According to the warrant, Penn Police then used this information to identify one individual logged into the router at the time of the crime by their Penn ID number, enabling them to obtain the individual’s cell phone number, name, and address.

On Sept. 24, 2024, Penn Police electronically served a search warrant to T-Mobile — the student’s cell phone carrier — requesting access to “call detail records,” location data, subscriber information, and cloud storage associated with the student’s phone number.

“[Y]our Affiant is requesting records from Sept. 1, 2024, to Sept. 15, 2024, in order to potentially identify other suspects/co-conspirators who may have been discussing the details of the crime via phone calls and/or messages,” the detective sergeant wrote in the affidavit for that warrant.

The phone registration and “large” cellular activity in the vicinity of the off-campus residence obtained through the T-Mobile warrant were later cited as evidence that — along with Wi-Fi router data and Penn records — helped Penn Police confirm the suspect’s identity.

Former New York Police Department detective and John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor Michael Alcazar told the DP that “canvassing” for video surveillance, CCTV footage, and cell phone videos was a typical aspect of “investigating to hopefully identify a suspect.”

He added that it is “pretty standard” to use the location of phones in the vicinity of a crime scene to identify a suspect.

William Owen, communications manager for nonprofit advocacy organization Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, told the DP that “this level of surveillance, tracking down a student based on use of the Wi-Fi network, shows just how far schools like Penn will go in surveilling their own students.”

“These sorts of tactics can sweep up data from students who really have nothing to do with these sorts of incidents, or maybe weren’t involved, to lead to more of a dragnet surveillance of campus protesters and campus organizers, and put students who are from marginalized communities at increased surveillance,” he added.

---

---

Alcazar said that in his experience, most of the data being searched “is more narrowly related to the investigation” but noted that if “the investigation revealed that there might be more actors involved in the case … an agency might expand the search.”

In the affidavits, Penn Police wrote that it was unable to identify an additional individual involved in the vandalism incident.

Alcazar added that if past protests have led to vandalism, university police forces like Penn’s “might employ digital technology to record the protesters so that they are more proactive in their investigation.”

A second search warrant acquired by Penn Police on Oct. 16, 2024 stated that an off-campus student residence was searched at 6:05 a.m. on Oct. 18, 2024 by about a dozen officers without forced entry. The warrant also confirmed that the house was located outside of the Penn patrol zone, which stretches from 30th Street to 43rd Street east to west and Market Street to Baltimore Avenue north to south.

Alcazar said that decisions on how many officers to send to execute a warrant are most likely made by a commanding officer and that this number of officers was “not unusual.”

Andrew Vaughan, a Penn School of Veterinary Medicine professor and member of Penn’s Faculty Senate who was briefed by a Division of Public Safety representative in November, told the DP that DPS confirmed police were “wearing tactical gear, SWAT team-style,” during the execution of the warrant.

He added that at the time, a DPS spokesperson stated that there were no procedural inconsistencies between how the warrant was served and “how any other search warrants are served by Penn Police.”

A third search warrant also served on Oct. 18, 2024 confirmed that police seized a phone from the off-campus property and turned it over to a Philadelphia Police Department homicide detective for examination at 1:20 p.m. that day. The warrant permitted the “complete extraction” of information from the device — including all location data, email content, stored messages, third-party app data, and call logs — and for it to be “forensically” examined.

---

---

A Philadelphia Police Department spokesperson declined to comment on the department’s involvement in the case.

In a Jan. 14 statement to the DP, a spokesperson for Philadelphia City Councilmember Jamie Gauthier — who represents the district that includes Penn — wrote that “Councilmember Gauthier is still waiting for Penn Police to take accountability for their inappropriate use of force outside of the Penn Patrol Zone.”

“The Councilmember understands that UPPD may have to operate outside of the patrol zone to investigate crimes on their campus,” the spokesperson wrote. “At the same time, we cannot forget that the West Philadelphia community has a long and tense history with the University of Pennsylvania, and UPPD's actions on October 18th are a direct echo of this dynamic.”

The spokesperson added that “since the encampment” on Penn’s campus during the spring 2024 semester, Gauthier “has urged every party to deescalate when possible.”

“UPPD sending a dozen police officers armed in full tactical gear to seize a cell phone tied to a nonviolent crime is disproportionate and runs counter to this goal,” they wrote.

In a statement to the DP on Oct. 22, 2024 — one day after news of the raid was publicized by a post from pro-Palestinian student organizers — Gauthier’s office wrote that it was “seriously concerned” by the “extreme manner in which” the search warrant was executed. The search drew widespread criticism from faculty, politicians, and nonprofit organizations.

Penn’s chapter of Faculty for Justice in Palestine started a petition demanding an investigation into the search, a repeal of new protest guidelines, and a vote of no confidence in University administrators. The Executive Committee of Penn’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors also condemned the University’s actions in a statement published Oct. 26, 2024.

In a statement to the DP on Oct. 24, 2024, DPS confirmed that Interim Penn President Larry Jameson is “not involved in decisions around criminal investigations.”

As Penn continued to face criticism, a University spokesperson defended Penn’s actions in an Oct. 30, 2024 statement to the DP, writing that “a small group of individuals, some of whom may be students, continue to take disruptive and at times illegal actions against the University community.”

“[The individuals] continue to flout policies and laws that they do not think apply to them, and then blame their own institution when they encounter consequences,” the spokesperson wrote. “Laws must be enforced uniformly and fairly and are not designed to be waived when they do not suit a particular viewpoint. Ignoring inconvenient rules or wildly mischaracterizing facts weakens our whole community.”