David Snyder, a junior researcher who allegedly caused the Jan. 17 explosion at the Russell Park Apartments, will be tried today in Yolo Superior Court. Snyder was released on a $2 million bail after he was arrested on Jan. 19 in connection to the explosion, according to a UC Davis News press release.

Under the conditions of his release, Snyder is not allowed to return to UC Davis without notifying the UC Davis Police Department (UCDPD), said Claudia Morain, UC Davis spokesperson, in an email interview.

After Snyder was arrested, he was placed on leave from his junior specialist appointment, which ended on Jan. 31. He is not currently employed at the university.

Snyder was also charged with felony violations of California Penal Code 18715, custody of an explosive, California Penal Code 18720, possession of substances or materials used for making destructive devices or explosives, and two counts of holding a firearm on campus, according to a press release. The UCDPD is conducting a criminal investigation of the case, and further charges may be made.

Several agencies are handling the case, including Yolo County Bomb Squad, FBI, UC Davis Fire Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), according to Matthew Carmichael, UC Davis Police Department Chief of Police.

Carmichael also said the explosive materials and substances that were in Snyder’s apartment were destroyed by bomb squad experts close to the scene of the incident. The volatile items were destroyed in a field on the Student Farm using a process called thermal treatment. Explosive items were also destroyed on the southwest side of campus on another open space of land.

“This was a critical incident that was handled the first night without injury to anyone other than Mr. Snyder,” Carmichael said in an email interview.

Morain said that though the public may be curious to know more details regarding the incident, the University is protecting Snyder’s privacy rights and the integrity of the investigation.

Some residents of Russell Park Apartments were disturbed to learn what Snyder was doing in his apartment.

Carmichael said a meeting was held for all of the residents who were affected by the incident, including inhabitants of The Colleges, Russell Park Apartments and Baggins End Domes. Residents expressed a combination of frustration for the inconvenience of being dislocated from their homes, as well as concerns about the well-being of Snyder.

“Tandem has done an excellent job ensuring displaced residents had lodging and were kept informed as best as possible. [UC Davis] Student Affairs also supported the effort by providing meals at the dining commons,” Carmichael said.

The University has launched a review to recognize how to appropriately control the use of explosive materials on campus, Morain said.

“Our policies are already extensive regarding appropriate use of materials, but cannot eliminate all risk of criminal acts,” she said.

Carmichael said he does not know of any previous incidents where a UC Davis researcher was arrested for an incident involving the possession of explosive materials or substances.

According to the news release, Snyder received a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from UC Davis in 2004 and a doctorate in chemistry in 2011.

KELLEY DRECHSLER can be reached at campus@theaggie.org.

Last week, Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi announced new developments in the 2020 Initiative — a strategy she has been working on to improve the university, announced Sept. 21, 2011 during her fall convocation address.

As one of the main components of the initiative, there is a plan to increase the student population by 5,000 — international, in-state and out-of-state students — in order to increase the school’s excellence and create a more diverse campus by 2020.

To offset the increase in student population, there will also be an increase in faculty by about 300 and additional classrooms to support the growing campus.

While these changes are major, they will be occurring gradually.

“We are going to start slowly,” Katehi said.

Katehi said that she, along with her advisors, will be working to ensure they address every need of current and future students.

“We need more TAs, better advising, more advisors and a better environment for mentoring our students,” she said. “The most critical thing is to make sure we do it right … We are not going to allow ourselves to fail.”

Students, who fear that the increase in student population may lead to a decrease in access to services offered on campus, should not worry, Katehi said. According to her March 7 announcement, revenue generated by this initiative will support staff and services.

Rahim Reed, associate executive vice chancellor for Campus Community Relations and member of the chancellor’s cabinet, assures that this initiative will be focusing heavily on the needs of the students.

He also conducted the Campus Community Survey earlier this school year, which assists with the goals of the initiative.

“The survey is designed to give us feedback on what kind of campus climate we have, what it’s like to be a student, to be a faculty member and staff here, to teach here and to learn here. Knowing this kind of information will help us to address, and be proactive in addressing, some of these issues and concerns to make our campus a more welcoming and supportive environment,” Reed said. “We ought to think of it not from just what we, the institution, want, we also have to think of it in terms of what the students want and need, and what kind of experience they’re looking for.”

Irtqa Ilyas, a member of the Chancellor’s Undergraduate Advisory Board and a third-year neurobiology, physiology and behavior major believes that this initiative will be a positive influence on campus, but that improvements must also be made aesthetically as well.

“We need to invest in our university. We have the [Sciences Lecture Hall], we have the SCC [and] all the newer buildings, but we also need to maintain the older buildings,” she said.

Implementation if the initiative will begin in May. For more information on the 2020 Initiative, visit chancellor.ucdavis.edu.

SASHA COTTERELL can be reached at campus@theaggie.org.

Question: You said a few weeks ago that “ladies nights” are illegal in California. But if we have the right to free speech, can’t a bar just say that its “ladies night” is part of a religion? Would anyone still be able to sue for giving discriminatory benefits in favor of women?

— Faiq S., Davis, Calif.

Answer: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution indeed protects the “free exercise” of religion. California’s Constitution has a similar clause establishing a similar right to religious freedom. But this right is not unlimited.

Way back in 1996, the California Supreme Court considered this question in Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission. A landlord tried to ban unmarried couples from living in her apartment complex, which violates California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. When an unmarried couple sued, arguing that the landlord was discriminating against them, the landlord fought back. She said her religion forbade couples to live together unless they’re married, and she didn’t want to encourage such behavior.

The Supreme Court rejected the landlord’s position. Although her religion may not permit her to rent to unmarried cohabitants, the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a “valid and neutral law of general applicability.” In other words, the First Amendment will not defeat a law that applies to everyone regardless of religion.

The Court held that the statutory prohibition against discrimination because of marital status was a law both generally applicable and neutral toward religion.

The law is generally applicable in that it prohibits all discrimination without reference to motivation. It doesn’t say “religious people are banned from discriminating” or “you can go ahead and discriminate, but not if you’re discriminating because your religion told you to.” It just says, “you can’t discriminate.”

The law is “neutral” because its goal is to prohibit discrimination regardless of reason. Its goal is not to punish religious people; its goal is to stop discrimination.

If the law unduly burdened religion without a good reason, then the free exercise clause might defeat the law. But the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in businesses, does not unduly burden religion.

Imagine a world where the free exercise clause allowed people to get out of laws by claiming their religion made them do it.

Rastafarians could smoke pot. Jonestown cultists could murder people. And I’d sign up as the first Pope of the new religion, “Destroy-all-leaf-blowers-ism.”

Question: Unitrans buses can get pretty cramped to the point of pretty awkward discomfort. When the bus is at what a normal person would figure is total capacity, the bus pulls up to yet another stop with 10 people, and we have to get even more packed. The driver will yell that we can’t keep going unless every person gets on the bus. Is there a legal capacity to how many people they can shove into one bus?

— Ibram G., Davis, Calif.

Answer: Though it might not seem like it, there’s a legal limit to how many people you can cram on a bus. According to California Code of Regulations § 1217(a), no driver shall drive a vehicle transporting passengers in violation of the following rule:

“…The number of passengers (excluding infants in arms) shall not exceed the number of safe and adequate seating spaces, or for school buses, school pupil activity buses, youth buses and farm labor vehicles, the number of passengers specified by the seating capacity rating set forth in the departmental Vehicle Inspection Approval Certificate.”

That sounds like the capacity is determined by seating spaces, not square footage. If some weird party bus had only two seats — but a huge dance floor — the maximum capacity would be based on those two seats, not the dance floor.

The only question is whether Unitrans is a school bus. If it’s a school bus, the “number of safe and adequate seating spaces” doesn’t matter. School buses must comply with the Vehicle Inspection Approval Certificate, which is usually issued by the California Highway Patrol.

It’s kind of like the “max seating capacity” signs you see in restaurants; the actual physical capacity doesn’t matter. What matters is the opinion of a state inspector.

And what did a state inspector say about the Unitrans buses? Check the sign at the front of the bus. There should be a Vehicle Inspection Approval Certificate that specifies the bus’ safe seating capacity.

Next time you feel cramped, start counting heads. If it exceeds the capacity, shout back at the ornery driver. Tell him the bus already exceeds the maximum legal capacity. The people waiting at the bus stop will hate you, the driver will hate you, but your fellow passengers will breathe a sigh of relief.

(Literally — they’ll be able to breathe. And they’ll thank you for that.)

Daniel is a Sacramento attorney, former Davis City Council candidate and graduate of UC Davis School of Law. He’ll answer questions sent to him at governorwatts@gmail.com or tweeted to @governorwatts.