Public Safety Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning and welcome to the Thursday, March 12 meeting of the Public Safety and Health Committee. It is 09:08. I'm Alderman Scott Spiker, Chair of the Committee, joined to my right by Vice Chair Alderman Bergelis, joined on the big board by Alder Chambers. We will be joined momentarily by Elders Taylor and Moore. We have a very full agenda. We'll get to Item six momentarily, but first we'll dispense with the first five files. So watch it go. Items one through three, Alder Bergalis would move that these items be referred to the Steering and Rules Committee. Are there any objections from any of the three members? If not, then so ordered.

Moving on to Item four, file number 251,872. This is an ordinance relating to parking controls.

Good Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Scott Reinbacher here with the Department of Public Works. Today, we have a few changes to the city's parking regulations. First is to remove the no parking anytime restriction on the North Side of West Thurston Avenue from Tetonia West to the 1st Alley.

This is to free up some parking for residents. Second, we are proposing to install no parking anytime signage on the West Side of North 97th Street from West Lisbon Avenue to a point 50 feet south just to improve traffic flow for residents. Third, we are proposing to implement a two hour parking restriction from 7AM to 5PM Monday through Friday along the East side of South 10th Street from Greenfield to a point 150 feet north of that. This is to create turnover for residents just because there are some vehicles being stored on the street long term. Finally, we are proposing an exception to the city's alternate side parking regulations on South Allen Street for one block between Delaware and Kinnickinnick.

All of these were coordinated with the local alders. Happy to answer any questions. Very

good. Any questions? If not, Alder Berglis has moved to recommend passage. Are there any objections? Then so ordered. Moving on to Item five, file number two hundred fifty one thousand eight seventy three. This is an ordinance relating to traffic controls.

Yes, there are a few changes to the city's regulatory traffic control devices. First, will be to install a stop sign for the westbound direction at Townsend and Pierce. Secondly, this would install always stop signs at the intersection of Arthur And South 9th Street. And finally, this file will install always stop controls at the intersection of I I I and 78th. Similarly, all of these were coordinated through the local alders. Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? Passage. Alder Berglis moves to recommend passage of the ordinance and hearing no objections so ordered. Thank you. Thank you. It's now 09:12 so we are set to begin our 09:10 agenda items. I will read in

Mr. Chair. Can you

please report

me as an eye on that last passage?

Thank you. So

Just on the last two.

Alder Taylor has asked for reconsideration to be recorded as a yes. Hearing no objections to either of those. So ordered on items four and five.

Mister chairs, can you add me for one through four as well, please?

Okay. One through four.

What about five?

Oh, you were here.

No. No. I was not here.

One through five just in case.

All right.

Okay. One through five. Yes.

Okay. Moving on. Thank you. Item six, file number 251798. I'll read in six and seven and then invite folks to the table.

This is a substitute motion modifying Milwaukee Police Department Standard Operating Procedure three forty, Uniforms, Equipment and Appearance sponsored by Alders Zamoripa, Dimitrivich, Brower, Perez, Baumann and more. Also reading in item seven, which will have a sub for file number 251795. This is a substitute motion modifying Milwaukee Police Department standard operating procedure four sixty, use of force. Sponsors, Zamorepa, Brower, Dmitryovich, Perez, and Baumann. Alder Dmitryovich or not Dmitryovich, Zamorepa.

I don't see her here. So since these are modifications, proposed modifications of, police department SOPs, we'll invite the chief to the table, but we'll have one of the sponsors speak first just so folks understand what's going on. So PAC 12

Thank you.

Passed a couple of years ago, took the, as it were, rulemaking authority out of FPC's hands and placed it the ability to modify or or rescind an SOP change, placed it in the council's hands by a two thirds vote. But I was vocal at the time and continued to be vocal that just because the legislature saw fit to move the FPC's authority in this regard doesn't mean we have to play along. So I think we do better as a government if we have the input from multiple perspectives and multiple bodies. So it's going to be my practice as long as I'm chair to encourage that first items relating to SOPs go to the Fire and Police Commission and receive their extensive review, cooperation and on assisting with public input. They have their meetings at night where more of the public can attend.

In addition, have their conversations with the police and fire chiefs depending on whether it's an SOP or SOI, which they still have the authority to one name and to issue directives to. So with that in mind, you might say, well then why the heck are you scheduling these items that relate to SOPs? Well, in both cases, it's my understanding and I'll let the sponsors speak to it that the sponsors have reached an accommodation with the police department and so that everyone is rowing in the same direction. So not to steal the thunder, although it's agendized as such, the intent is we'll discuss these briefly and then place them on file as no longer necessary. So with that, I'd invite Chief Norman and team to the table and start off with Alder Brower.

Would you like to bet for the team here? Or would you rather wait for Alder Zammaripa?

Mr. Chair, thank you so much and I'm pleased to sit to your far left this morning. Sorry, I wanted to get that joke for Alderman Bregolis. No, but yes, If if if Alderman Joe Costa joins us in a few moments, otherwise, yes, I can speak to the SOP modification. Would you like me to first or we would like to hear from the police department first?

You you can as as the sponsor just say what the intent was and then we'll kick it over to the chief.

Yeah. So the intent with our coalition with this amendment or excuse me with this modification to a standard operating procedure and again, I just wanna say thank you to the Milwaukee Police Department for being willing to work with us to achieve to achieve our aims here. So, the intent with this is a substitute motion modifying police department standard operating procedure three forty which is uniforms, equipment, and appearance. Basically, what we've seen when there has been a surge in ICE activity across the country is that we have agents, federal agents, who do not wear identification. They conceal their identity.

We're gonna have an ordinance considering something like this similar later in this agenda, but they conceal their identity. They are in unmarked unmarked vehicles almost entirely or vehicles with mismatching license plates and all sorts of all sorts of things that are unbecoming of any sort of law enforcement whatsoever. So we want our intent with this is to have our law enforcement here in Milwaukee held to the highest standards of accountability and conduct here. So we offered this motion to raise the bar for our officers to make sure that when they're on public, they're clearly identified. They're not concealing their their identities to the public unless, of course, it's absolutely necessary but we are, you know, so we've we've put this forward this SOP to accomplish that and in the course of that, we've had conversations with the Milwaukee Police Department and specifically Alderman Zamaripa has been leading some of those discussions and she she may join us in a moment.

But, yeah, that that's the intent of this to make sure that when the public sees a masked officer and there's no reason for them to be masked, that they know that it is not members of the Milwaukee Police Department out there, that they can be that they can be ensured that our officers under our control are are held to the highest, standards of behavior. And so that that's the genesis of the substitute motion here that we have before us.

Okay. Very good. So we'll stick with item six first, the motion relating to face coverings and MPD. And with that, we'll kick it over to Chief Norman. If you'd like to introduce yourself and your team, please proceed.

So just want to say first thank you. Good morning to the Chair and to the various members of the committee. I just want to have introductions for my Chief of Staff, Heather Huff, who's to my right here. We had a meeting with the auto persons, auto woman, president Perez, and also auto person Zamorripa. And we heard some of the concerns in regards to this particular item understanding that we were trying to make sure that we can be responsive to this particular concern and that we do understand the concerns of the community in regards to this particular item and so with that being said, we were able to work with our unions to ensure that there is a level of cooperation that could be at a faster pace in regards to what we usually are bound by because we are bound as a department by the CPA or the contractual bargaining agreement and that we're able to get this rectified in a quick and expeditious manner for the purpose of ensuring that our public understands how MPD operates but also that we are being response to the concerns.

So, just like to thank the, you know, all the persons that we work with and also the unions for being able to get to this particular point to have this response in a quick manner.

Very good. And we're joined at the table by the chief sponsor, Alders Amarifa. Alders Amarifa, would you like to say a few words?

Yes, thank you so much Chairman Spiker and good morning to members of the committee and the public as well as Chief Norman and Heather Huff. First, I want to apologize. I thought you would take a little bit longer on the initial items of the agenda. Quite such an efficient committee you are. Alright. I'm Aldeperson Jocasta Samaripa and I come before you today on three files. So I thought I'd try to roll it all together if that's okay, Chairman Spieger.

Let's first, if you'd like to say something about the face covering then we can move into the the others.

You want to take it one at a time? Okay. Alright. So that would be item number six.

Correct.

Okay. Well, first I want to say this all has been a very long road of meetings and phone calls, debate, and dialogue. I had two SOP motions but I'm going to keep this one to file number two five one seven nine eight which was an SOP motion regarding SOP three forty on uniforms, equipment, and appearance. Myself, many of our colleagues, and constituents have been disturbed to see that federal law enforcement agents across this country have been concealing their identities as they swarmed in many American cities. And so I began to speak with other alders as well as mayor Johnson and his office and finally, I asked to meet with Milwaukee Police Department chief Jeffrey Norman as well as his chief of staff, Heather Huff, around this idea that I wanted our Milwaukee Police Department to be clearly distinguishable, transparent, and unmasked.

My goal with this modification was to be able to assure the public that our MPD officers are in fact the exact opposite of a federal ICE agent. Police chief Jeffrey Norman and his chief of staff Heather Huff heard me out and took it upon themselves to work with their membership to modify this SOP on uniform policy to explicitly state that MPD officers should never be concealing their identities. And so I want to thank Chief Norman and Heather Huff for their leadership on this and their willingness to listen to the concerns of my colleagues and and and and that I shared with them. And so with that, I'm moving on to the

next motion but I know you want

to keep it to this one as well. Conclude my remarks there. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you. And the reason we need to do it that way is there is a sub for the next one. So we'll have to take a procedural motion to make sure that sub is before us. So, okay. So any questions relating to item six? Pertaining to Mister chair. Alder Chambers.

Thank you, mister chair. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this. As people may know, We're working on this for quite some time, and I have also met with Heather with chief of staff, so I wanna commend her and, you know, chief Norman for their work on this and not, you know, necessarily coming to political theater that is in front of us, but, you know, common sense, far as making things and doing what's right. So, there'll be more to this, but I just wanted to add my comments to it and thank them for their hard work and dedication on this.

Thank you, Alder Chambers. Alder Burgauss.

Thank you, mister chair. Thank you to the sponsors of this file. I think this was a, our first exercise in dealing with repercussions from Act 12. Like we heard

from the

department, SOP changes aren't solely in the realm or purview of the council even if Act 12 deems it so. There are collective bargaining agreements to consider as well. If the council were to change an SOP, what would prevent the chief from changing it back the next day? There are a number of considerations that weren't thought out in Act 12 and perhaps someday soon, maybe January 2027, we'll have an opportunity to correct some of some of of these and other failures for Milwaukee within Act 12. That said, what we saw in Chicago and Minneapolis and other cities from federal law enforcement was not law enforcement.

It's clear that those actors abused their position and abandoned any common sense convention of constitutional policing and law enforcement. This substitute motion addresses part of that concern. We certainly have more work to do, but I think it's an important first step. And because of the ambiguity with act 12 and policy from the Fire Police Commission or not, instead of placing this on file, I would like to hold this item to the call of the chair so that it would be available should the council need to return to it in the future. Thank you, mister chair.

Okay. So, it's Alder Zamrikbuz as chief sponsor. Is that something you would be warm to or not?

Well, I again, wanted to reiterate for the public that Chief Norman did work to modify this SOP on its own. So, I was willing to place it on file today but of course, I I leave I leave up the decision of what the committee wants to do to the committee members.

Yep and if you had your 2¢, do you care one way or another? I I hadn't heard the thing Alder Bergelse was suggesting so I haven't thought about it but just interested It in your

also is news to me. So, I wanted to, of course, I appreciate Alderman Bergalis' remarks greatly and and so and so the motion would be to hold it then because there could be a desire to bring it up in the future. Is that correct?

There could be a need to bring it up in the future.

I suppose the rationale would be if the chief place takes he backseats, which he has given no indication he would, then the motion would be sitting there, I guess. I don't wanna put words in one's mouth, but for our future chief future chief.

Again, I would I suppose I would leave that up to the committee. I I did I I don't wanna surprise folks with been working together and trying to come to compromises and the like, and I I certainly don't wanna pull a one eighty on folks that I said Yep. I would be willing to put places on file given our work together on this.

Okay. Yes. No, I agree. I agree these things should Yes, be sorted

Alder. Just a quick thank you so much. Just a quick procedural question or musing. Putting something holding to the call the chair doesn't I mean, it does allow what the alderman is attempting to do, which is that we could bring it up in the future. But placing something on file does not eliminate particular the concept of that particular legislation into eternity.

Mean, we can bring a file forward in the future as easy as as we can do in our new file in the future. So that's we just want to make sure that that was a possibility. And all all files, you know, that aren't act upon in a certain time do eventually get put to rest anyway. So if we are talking about the possibility of looking if this is somehow need to be brought up years in the future, it would already be put to rest as a matter of our council calendar anyway. So just some 2¢ and for the listening audience as well.

And that's a fair and good point. So just because you place something on file doesn't mean you can't recreate a version of it, you know, soon after. I guess one thing I would note is when I agreed to schedule this with with the chief sponsor and Alder Brower was with the understanding that it was going to be placed on file. I wouldn't want to send the message to the Chief that we say things and then do something else and there would also then be a live opportunity for somebody to bring it out of committee on the floor, which would not be possible if it were placed on file long term. So, okay. So with that, do members have a wish? Alder Taylor, I'm sorry. I forgot.

Before you do that, I had there were quite a few of these files coming forward. One of my goals was just to make sure that members of the police department and chief Norman were on board with some of them. And this is one that that accommodated for MPS, made those exceptions. And not knowing that chief Norman and Heather are in agreement with this change. I would had asked to be added as a co sponsor on here. So if I could be added as a co sponsor knowing that it will fit in with expectations or with the standard that has been set by chief norm.

Okay. Very good. I'll let the record reflect elder Taylor's cosponsorship. Any other discussion? So the motion before us is to hold. I'll be voting no just to preview it so it's not

I would object to that as well.

Okay. We'll take a roll call vote then. On the motion to hold the file.

Alderman Chambers? No.

Alderman Moore?

No. Alderman Taylor? No. Alderman Regalis? Aye. Mr. Chair, Alderman Spiker?

No. Motion fails one-four. Is there another motion?

Place on file.

Alder Chambers has moved that the item be placed on file. Are there any objections? If not, then so ordered. Thank you. Moving on to item seven.

This is again file number 251795 substitute motion modifying Milwaukee Police Department standard operating procedure six four sixty use of force. We do have a sub. So Aldermore would move that proposed sub A be before us. This changes the substitute motion now to relating to the standard operating procedure 172, sick and injured persons. This again is sponsored by Alders Amaripa and folks. So Alders Amaripa and hearing no objection to motion that the sub be before us, it is now before us. Alders Amaripa.

Thank you, mister chair and thank you Alderman Moore for bringing that proposed substitute A before us. Again, this is my second SOP motion. It would be a motion modifying SOP one seven two, sick and injured persons And I I introduced this motion because like so many other Americans, I was outraged, dismayed, and heartbroken when Renee Good was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. And then to add insult to injury, no attempt at first aid was made by nor allowed by these federal agents. I was determined to do everything I could to ensure that should a nightmarish scenario like that occur in our city that our MPD would always attempt to administer first aid to an injured person regardless of who caused that injury.

Again, Chief Norman and Heather Huff were willing to hear me out and in fact, pointed out and this is why this proposed substitutes before you. I was in the wrong SOP initially as which is why you saw four sixty on the agenda. They are the ones who let me know. Actually, Joe Casta, we have SOP one seventy two regarding sick and injured persons which already does what I was setting out to accomplish And yet, I still wanted to make sure that our officers understand this long standing standing duty and goal to always attempt to render first aid to an injured person even if that person was wounded at the hands of a federal agent. Chief Norman took the initiative once again not to do a modification as SOP seventy one seventy two technically already addresses my concern but he did agree to do a roll call clarifying memo to ensure that all of our MPD officers review the SOP and were reminded of their duty to try to aid an injured constituent no matter who may have caused that injury.

Again, I want to thank Chief Norman and Heather Huff for hearing me out, hearing our constituents out, and taking action and to continue doing everything that they can that we can to keep our folks safe and reassure them that we are committed to continuing to foster positive community relations in our city of Milwaukee. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you. Chief, would you like to comment?

Just want to again reassert that we try our best to work with the concerns, understand the concerns within the community, and understand that there is a, you know, reminder in regards to our responsibilities and duties. We should again stand on that. So, thank you order Zama Ripa and her colleagues in regards to that we are able to work through some of these concerns and show to the public that we are hearing and understanding and leaning into this challenge.

Very good. Are there any questions, comments?

Mr. Chair.

Alder Taylor.

Again, I do want to, commend my colleagues for the work that they have done and the collaboration that they have built with MPD. And so again, I'd like to make sure that I am signed on as a cosponsor for this next, item as well.

Okay. Let the record reflect. Alder Berglosa?

Thank you. Mister chair, I'd also ask to be added as a cosponsor and I see the fire chief here. I wonder if he has something he'd like to add.

Alder Bergales, I'll run the meeting. Thank you though.

Thank you,

mister chair. I have questions. I have a question for

the fire chief.

Okay. I have a I'm not calling on the fire chief. So this is not germane. This is an SOP relating to the Milwaukee Police Department. Chief Lipsky will be called on in the next item which relates to Milwaukee's protective services. So with that, do I have a motion?

Mister chair.

Yes. Mister chair.

Alder Moore then Alder Chambers.

I think I was originally on this file. I don't see my name on it but just wanted to make sure that the record reflects that I was one of the cosponsors as well.

Very good. Thank you. I'll let the record reflect that alder Moore is a co sponsor. Alder Chambers?

Yes. Thank you, mister chair. I just wonder if so, chief Norman, have you you made the the changes to these files already. Correct? Like you made the changes to the SOPs from the previous one, this current one, I'm assuming the next one?

Yes, sir. Alderman Chambers, this

is Heather Hoch.

Yeah. Sorry.

Sorry. The first

I'm sorry. Did you introduce yourself?

Heather Huff, chief of staff.

Okay. I'm sorry.

The first SOP we discussed, last file, there was a change made related to an explicit statement that officers shall not use facial mask to conceal their identity. The second SOP that we're in discussion about right now, we had an SOP, sick and injured persons, that did indeed say there is a duty for our officers to attempt to render aid, with a procedure for that for everyone. And we just clarified that through a roll call memo to say including other agencies of the injuries caused by other agencies. So there was no need for an SOP change for this particular file.

So therefore there's no need for this file to be up if you already made the adjustments.

So chief

I I guess the the reason why I'm asking the question the reason why I'm asking this question because this is a lot of theater right now. So it's like they already made the changes. So, you know, we're gonna keep hearing the same stuff that's already been talked about. I just feel like it's disservice to those people that are waiting service to the chief time and everything. We're already gonna make the changes.

So I just wanna be respectful of people's time that we are we are, you know, standing side by side with our constituents in this battle, but we gotta be realistic here here and make sure that we're, you know, being mindful of, you know, not just doing things just for show, but just doing things for action. And I think this file because right now, it seems like to me, we're making a vote on the SOP change or we are placing this on file, mister chair.

So, alder Chambers, so my understanding is that, as chief of stuff staff Huff related with item six, there was a change in the SOP that the Chief made voluntarily. The file before Item six would have required that change, but the Chief made it of his own volition in concert with the alders, including the Chief Sponsor. Item seven is a little different. There is no change to the SOP, but what the Chief did was issue a roll call memo as it were to underscore and raise to top of mind this feature of the existing SOP. Have I characterized things correctly?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, are you allowing Alder comments?

Yeah. Well, Alder Chambers still has the floor.

Yep. Thank you. So we're so we're never mind. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you. Alder Dimitriavich.

Thank you so much. Chairman Spiker, I wanna thank you for this unique accommodation. I have a sick child at home, so I'm trying to do a couple things here, but I I appreciate the accommodation to allow for elders to speak virtually. So I see things just a little bit differently. I see this as part of a process, a long process, and I see this as democracy in action.

We witnessed as Americans and as a community just total atrocities being, performed by our own federal government. We heard from hundreds of people, many that I can see in that audience today holding those beautiful signs. You are welcome at any meeting, at city hall, anytime. Your emails, your phone calls matter, and what you got was a response, a legislative response put together in a package. This item this item and last item, when you see the chief there, which I truly appreciate, listening to us and responding and making real modifications, that happens when you agendize something and have a committee process.

It's a process. Even this this roll call had, changes within it and draft changes. So it's a beautiful democratic process, and these are more wins for the ICE Out package. This is what our nation and the people in Milwaukee and all of our organizations there were asking for. We know we cannot do everything, but we will do all we can.

And I do think this is the right step forward, and we should all be proud of ourselves for leaving no stone unturned and making every change possible. There is now a roll call memo that specifically says the words any law enforcement agency. I think that we are cleaning things up and making them tight, and I appreciate that the police department is responding to our actions. The item after this is one that we didn't have as much alignment on, and I'll talk to that one when it's up. But the point is is there's much to be celebrated here when there's democracy and compromise, and I think it's worth the time. People wanna see us reacting to their requests. Thank you, mister chairman.

Thank you point of information chairman.

Alder chambers.

Thank you mister chair thank you mister chair. The so when the decision chief Norman, when was the decision made for the roll call memo and had the roll call memo been placed out to the the individual shifts within the department already?

It was it was made last week and this has been disseminated out to the department last or is it early this week?

Earlier this week.

Earlier this week.

Tuesday. So this the so this memo so this memo change this memo I guess Miranda would have been here with or without this committee. Correct?

I mean, the expectations within ISLP but this has been a reminder, a reassertion in regards to the request to ensure that we are being leaning forward with this particular request from the auditors.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions? If not, do we have a motion?

Are we again looking to place this on file?

Alder Taylor has moved that this item be placed on file as no longer necessary. Are there any objections?

Not One objection.

One objection by Alder Berglis. The motion carries four-one and the item is dispensed with. Thank you very much. Moving now to Item eight, file number 251951. This is a substitute resolution relating to the rendering of first aid by Milwaukee's protective services, includes of of the police and fire departments. Alders Amaripa is sponsor chief sponsor along with Alder Moore. Alders Amaripa.

Yes. Thank you, mister chair. This one is a symbolic measure, a resolution that honored to put forward with elder woman more as well as Alderman Brower and I and I believe elder elder woman Demetriovich wants to be signed on as well as a co sponsor but I put this resolution forward around rendering first aid by our Milwaukee's our protective services which is why now we see chief Aaron Lipsky at the table from the Milwaukee Fire Department. I wanted to put forward this symbolic resolution knowing that we had worked together on the last SOP motion. Chief Norman indicating that again was already addressed at one hundred seventy two but he was willing to do a clarifying memo to all of his membership which I greatly appreciate and it was Chief of Staff Huff who put it on my radar that hey Joe Casta don't forget the fire department who are devoted to of course rendering aid to our constituents and so conferring with MPD as well as Chief Lipsky at MFT, I put together this symbolic resolution that just speaks to our protective services and their and their long standing efforts to make sure to render first aid to injured community members regardless of the circumstances leading to that injury.

And so I just want to thank Chief of Staff Heather Huff's Huff in particular who helped me with some language here and Chief Aaron Lipsky as well and of course Chief Norman for their continued input and insight. And so I put together put forward this symbolic document today to continue to reassure our constituent constituents of our commitment to their public safety. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. And we're joined at the table by chief Lipsky as well as chief Norman. So we'll start with chief Lipsky.

Just want to thank chief of staff Heather Huff for putting us on the radar. Always appreciate that and appreciate all the women's Amaripa for extremely good discourse that I think led to language addresses the fact that your Milwaukee fire department would never withhold care and has never withheld care based upon anybody's immigration status, based upon anybody's having interacted with law enforcement. We would never and have never, and this, I believe, accurately represents that. I was just getting to my punch line. Through the timing all off.

No. It's good for a little levity because these are scary times.

Yeah.

People are afraid. And I think it is crucially important that we maintain the truths that do exist in front of us. And some of those truths that exist in front of us are what I just said. The Milwaukee that. Do that. To address the concept covered in this ordinance or this resolution. I'm sorry. I've been on the fire department for twenty nine years. I worked in EMS in Milwaukee for a few years before that. So I'm over thirty years providing emergency medical services in this city.

I've attended dozens and dozens and dozens of violent crime scenes, many involving either officer involved shootings or interactions with with law enforcement. And I can tell you personally, I have never, not once in my thirty two, thirty three years of EMS in the city, I have never come upon a scene where I've witnessed a law enforcement officer withholding care to a patient. And I think it's important for the public to know this, that you are already in a system where we we do actually care. We do actually care about humanity and injury and pain to 're

We're

to them withholding

care. That. Mhmm. We're And I I applaud you, all the women's Amaripa, for making sure that this is given a voice and given a name and for doing it in a way that respects those facts too. So thank you.

Thank you. Chief Norman.

What do you say? Always looking forward to the cooperation and understanding that we are still trying to navigate some troubling and unprecedented times. So I don't think I need to say more than what Chief Lipsy said. So thank you to the auditors in regards to this and that we're still leaning in to the work that we need to do to reassure our public we're listening.

Very good. Any questions, comments from committee members? Alder Bergales.

Thank you, mister chair. Please add my name as a co sponsor on the item.

Let the record reflect. Alder Taylor.

Yes, I want to first say I I'm grateful and thankful for two outstanding individuals that are sitting before us today and and what they bring to our city. So thank

you for your work.

Yeah. Yeah.

And and I I will point out too. Thirty three years is a lie. So thank you so much for your thirty three years

of service.

In a time that, to use your words, is unprecedented and uncertain times and very crucial with a lot of fear and anxiety that exists right now, I think it's extremely important that we have realistic expectations of what you can and cannot do. And and I think so it is important that we bring light even if we're not making major changes, but that we point out to the public what is already there. So I agree with that and thank you so much for that. So with that then too, am asking to make sure that I am added as a cosponsor on this substitute resolution as well.

Very good. Let the record reflect that. Any other questions, comments? If not, do we have a motion? Mr. Chair. Alder

Brower? Yes. Thank you so much. Yes. I just want to comment. Again, thank you. I'm really glad we're able to make this change happen, make this roll call memorandum happen here so that all every single officer of the Milwaukee Police Department is aware of the standards that we have for their for their conduct. And I think really the question is that we're, you know, less concerned at at in this context with the behavior of our officers and our our first responders than we are with what ICE agents will be doing. And I, you know, so that that is really the question. I think everybody and I think everybody understands that in this room but just just so it's said out loud here.

I'm looking right now on my computer at an article from January 2026 here from The Guardian reported the headline here is a federal officers blocked medics from the scene of ice shooting, and that is from the murder of Renee Good. It was witnessed there that the ICE officers themselves resisted the attempts by bystanders. I don't I don't believe it was City Of Minneapolis first responders who attempted to provide first aid, but they resisted the attempts of, individuals who did have medical training and could have provided first aid at that scene from providing first aid to Renee Good. Whether that would have saved her life or not, I'm not. I have no idea, but, this is the kind of situation we are trying to avoid with this resolution, and I'm so glad to hear a commitment from our first responders, the chief of police and, the chief of the fire department that that that they're gonna do everything they can to avoid a situation like that.

These federal agents are completely out of control when they've conducted a surge. And right now, you know, right now Trump's White House is is reeling a little bit. They're they've they've taken a blow because of the conduct of some of their agents, but that that doesn't mean that in the future, just like a lot of fascist regimes, they will not come back with a vengeance and try to do the same things again in other cities. It is not out of question that there could be a surge here in Milwaukee, and I'm so glad, colleagues, that we're preparing and doing everything we can, and we're doing everything we can as immediately as possible right now. And that and that's today.

So so thank you all so much. And I just wanted to bring that to the attention that this, you know, the word of this isn't even putting blame on the first responders in this particular context in Minneapolis. We're talking about, you know, like, just just like our first responders should now hear that there's an expectation that they should do everything they can, if there's a scene where federal agents choose through cold blood to murder somebody here in our city.

Mister chair.

Alder

Moore. Thank you so much, elder Brower, for your for your comments and elder Persons Amaripa for your leadership on this. I just simply wanna say I'm just so proud to live in a city that, you know, we have leaders that care and we're taking a stance and we're being proactive and we're also being transparent. I think these conversations need to happen. I think that our community needs to know what we are doing. And so providing a space for us to have these conversations is is really centered around transparency. So I'm glad that we're having this conversation. Mr. Chair, move adoption when the time is appropriate.

All right. Alder Moore has moved to recommend adoption of the resolution. Are there any objections? If not, then so ordered. Thank you very much. Thank you. Item 10 is salient, but we're gonna go to item nine. The chief has a time commitment and chief Norman does that we wanna make sure to respect here. So we'll call in item nine, file number 251665. This is a communication from the Milwaukee Police Department relating to its use of cameras, including but not limited to body cameras, automated license plate readers, and point tilt zoom cameras, as well as any others that are provided by FOX Safety.

This is sponsored by myself. So I have to be a little delicate here. There is an open investigation. So the file pertains to the general question of MPD policy and practice relating to the use of various cameras, including automated license plate readers and what precautions either have been in place or are now in place now to avoid potential abuse. So with that, I will kick it off to chief Norman.

Thank you, mister chair. And again, good morning to you all and couple apologies. One, I'm not feeling the greatest, a little bit under the weather. So definitely try my best. And also that I do have a hard stop at 10:00, I have a other engagement for 10:15. But I'd like to first start off by stating that I wish we were here to talk about the twenty two percent reduction of violent crime, or

I wish

we were here to talk about the 48% reduction in car carjacking, or I wish we were here to talk about the 70% reduction in part one crimes in 2025. But I do understand we're here to talk about technology, and it is important to talk about not only technology, but more specifically flock. First, I'll start off with my stance. I do support technology. I believe in the responsible use of this resource because it's a force multiplier, especially for a department that we do have staffing challenges.

I know that the men and women in Milwaukee Police Department use this for a more efficient, effective use in regards to impacting crime within our city being able to address those type of concerns of missing persons and be able to help for the investigative resource, but also understand that there are individuals who use technology to do it for bad purposes. And we know that we have to use technology to, again, be able to impact and be able to respond appropriately to those who use it for their own illegitimate purposes. So more specific about FLAC, what it is and what it is not. FLAC is a output system, meaning automated license plate reader. It uses plates either partially or full, to help with investigative purposes.

It is also able to be used where you have specific details of a vehicle to be, again, used for investigative purposes. What it is not is not FRT. It is not facial recognition technology being used in this. It's not where we have a share with the federal government. The marketplace department owes this particular information. It's within our systems. We have to give approval to anyone outside of our organization to be able to use it. Also, it's not to collect private information from our citizens. That is not the purpose of this particular system. And also that MPD does not direct it to use for surveillance purposes.

It is, again, investigative tool, which when we talk about investigations, that's a reaction that you have a reason for what you're doing. MPD employs robust checks and balances. One of the things that we also make sure that our MPD members are trained and reminded of the expectations in regards to using this tool. We also have an SOP that guides us in regards to what is and what is not the responsible behavior for this. And we have an audit process involving our supervision and to ensure that there is a checks and balances.

We must inspect what we expect. But we also understand, especially from our recent situation, that we can do better. We understand that we have to put in more robust checks and balances. And at this particular time, we will have, you know, the risk manager James Lewis talk a little bit more about it when I pass it off to him. But in the end, I'd like to say this in regards to these technology.

I do understand that with great power that the technology provides, brings great responsibility. And I understand that as the department where we have, you know, a couple thousand men and women, both sworn and unsworn, who work with this particular technology, I can never guarantee that someone will abuse or misuse it. It is definitely something that we do not accept, do we allow, and that is something that we also make sure that we put in the type of checks of oversight. So I can never guarantee someone will, again, misuse this responsibility. What I will guarantee is that there will swift accountability in regards to these particular type of losing the trust of our department of our of our community.

That I do guarantee because it is important to understand that we need to make sure that our community, our department understands responsibility that what technology comes with and that we need to make sure that those who, again, do not live up to that trust find out what accountability is up until the point of that you would not be part of the NPD organization anymore. And so with that said, I will pass it over to Risk Manager James Lewis to talk a little bit more about our checks and balances in regards to this particular use of technology.

So before Mr. Lewis starts, I will have a question that Mr. Lewis you can address directly. But I am sure the public will want to know who had access to the various cameras in in particular, the ALPERS, the automated license plate readers. Is that something every sworn member of the police department is able to access or was? And if things have changed recently, what the new standards of access are. So that'll be a point hope to have addressed. So mister Lewis.

Thank you, mister chair. James Lewis, police risk manager, Milwaukee Police Department. Thanks for the opportunity to share some information with us. I'll start off by answering your question just so we can get down to it, mister chair. At no point did all members of the Milwaukee Police Department have access to flock.

Access to flock and the Alpers system was governed through the criminal investigation bureau. Access was limited to, members who, requested access, but not all members had access. We also, as the chief alluded to, have a balance of sworn and civilian employees. Those would be crime analysts who aid our officers in investigative leads and follow-up.

Just to clarify then, so you're not saying that only members of the criminal investigative bureau or CIB had access, that access was governed by CIB. So first of all, you're saying that it's not just CIB members that had

Patrol and CIB officers and civilians had access but it was not a blanket department wide. If you're a member of the MPD, you get access. It was not that style of access.

Right. But just so we're not too clever by half, if a member of CIB or patrol asked for access as long as they said what, they were granted it.

There was a I I I don't know the exact I don't believe that they were magic words that they needed to use, that if they had a purpose for needing it in their investigation or if their, division or bureau believed that they needed it, that they were able to, ask for it and, receive it.

And do we know how many cases of officers asking for that access resulted in them being denied?

I don't have that information. I can certainly follow-up with the committee on that.

Okay. That would be useful information because you can say, well, only a select group have access, but if anybody who asks from a wider group gets it, then we're kind of playing with warts.

That's for sure.

And then secondly, the current state of play, I'd like to know as well. Alder Brigas, you had a question on the Yes. Previous

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When someone was granted access previously, what did their training look like when they were given access to the database?

You wanna handle that or do you want

me to?

Was there any training on FLAC?

Yes. There was training on FLAC. When FLAC flock was originally purchased by the department, flock trainers came to the Milwaukee Police Department and there were series of trainings that occurred. Flock does charge additional money for those trainings. So the department had a train the trainer program where Flock would give us they would train our folks and then our folks would train individuals who later requested access.

So everyone who requested access was trained on how to use it properly?

They were trained with what the SOP requires and the functionality of FLAC. We have realized through several news articles and relooking at this tool that more can always be done and we've devised booster pack for any user and I can kind of get into this because it dovetails to the Chair's question. But when we revoked access to flock, which we did recently, in order to get back onto flock and have access restored, we're having our folks go through booster booster pack which is developed through the training academy and through CIB who administers this and has been trained by FLAC.

A booster pack that explicitly explains what's appropriate, what's not appropriate. Correct. And how to

use it so that, our audit program, which we've devised, can sort data in a uniform way and find outliers and and find people who aren't inputting data correctly very quickly because if you're not putting it in in the uniform way, it will throw the data off. It will you you will become an outlier user and you'll be audited in a deep dive audit of what is exactly this purpose to see if it was just a user error in how you inputted things or otherwise. So we're looking for the law enforcement purpose for every single time that somebody accesses and uses flock to query a plate. It needs to associate to an active investigation and it needs to have an investigatory reason that a supervisor can readily identify through records which is why you have to input numbers so that the supervisor knows where to look.

Thank you.

Thank you. And just sticking with that for a brief second. So did I hear you correctly in answering Alder Bergelis' question? Everyone who previously had access through a request mechanism, so these would be members of the CIB, the Criminal Investigation Bureau and patrol both sets of sworn could ask and ancillary non sworn. Every single one of those individuals who could request that access had hands on training by flocks flight into town?

No. So then what was the nature? How attenuated was that training? They trained the trainers, but how did that training get to the folks who could request access?

When did you have something to say?

Yeah, Abid?

So I guess FLOC trained our trainers when people requested FLOC. Our trainers were able to show them and so at work locations people who have been trained could train new users to say here's how you use it, this is what we do it for, this is what is required, this is how you enter information into the portal and make sense of the data that you receive back. This is how you can associate it to a case. In order to use the system, it is intuitive but to connect it to a investigative purpose, there is a learning curve that you gain through folks who already are trained in it showing you how to do it which is not an uncommon thing. I don't want to make this perfect analogy but it's similar to like a field training when don't know what you're doing you go to an officer who knows what they're doing and they show you how.

So that pertains to the technicalities of using the FLAC technology when an officer officer requests access or had requested access was there also any sort of spot reminder of the SOP we're governing the rules for that access. So you might know the technology, but do you get the reminder, hey, this is our SOP, this is what you got to watch out for. Is that standard?

Yes. And we've had several updates through roll calls and through reminders as time went on and users were granted access we had roll call reminders saying these are the important pieces of the puzzle that you input into the system so that not just that you're getting the results that you desire but also that we are accountable for those entries.

So there was training and reminders of folks who asked for access that this requires that you have an investigative purpose?

Correct. Okay. And policy governing it as well. So you have your overall policy which is what the Chief alluded to and policy is for that high level. This is the expectation of the department and you set policy so that members understand what their obligations for use of any specific technology or technique is.

And then the part that we have built out in a more robust way now is audit, which is how do you measure whether or not your membership is following that policy and what can you do better to detect areas of either non compliance or misunderstanding or what systems do you have in place to catch abuse. Since we are aware of abuse in the system, we needed to reboot the audit that did exist into a much more robust audit. It is a program that our OMAP team developed. They used the audit sort feature through FLoC which is provided by the vendor to actually make sense of that data. FLoC provides an amount of data that isn't easily sortable for a department to determine whether or not somebody has used FLOC inconsistent with normal expectations.

And what I mean by that is like outlier data. And so when somebody uses Flok in an outlier way against their own queries or a certain plate is being run more than any other plate in the department. In the past, we had not had a way to automatically sort that on a per month basis to sort of look at like what are the Z scores or the means of means of these searches and then associate those with directing supervisors to say you should look at this one because if you say to a supervisor go ahead and audit it without directing them with data, you're not leveraging like the best use of data to say where you should look. So if you're looking for a needle in a hay stack for abuse or misuse, what our audit system that we've developed over the last couple of months will now allow supervisors to do is direct them. We think that the needle is right here in this area you should look for it.

Okay. So then in the previous regime, there was an audit system. But the audit system was not, I guess, invasive enough to, as it were, catch real time anomalies or even, you know, within a month catching anomalies in terms of, hey, we have a member who's doing an awful lot of searches or we have a member who's doing has a very strong fixation on this plate or that plate. So the previous audit system lacked those tools? Correct.

And the current audit system possesses them? Correct. Given the concerns that had been voiced, I guess, at this committee, FPC hearings, a finance and personnel committee hearing. And given what's happened around the country in some bad instances, was there not felt a need by the department to examine the audit system and to perhaps make it more robust in anticipation of problems that maybe we see elsewhere?

You're asking that question in like a historical context because I would say, yes, we have responded to that type of Yeah. The historical

question. Correct. Why why why didn't we know better?

I don't have an answer for that question.

Don't know.

Chief of Staff Huff?

Don't have an answer for that question either. I think the assumption was the audit function that we had in place was being utilized and we didn't really understand the gaps in that audit system until something slipped through the cracks. So yes, there was ongoing discussion. Yes, we you know, believed what we had in place, was robust enough. But then, when an incident occurred and we explored it and took a very deep dive, we realized here are places, where we need to go.

And a last question on this. The Fire and Police Commission has more direct oversight function than than this body does with respect to the operations of the police department? Were there any subcommittee hearings or any commission hearings where the auditing tools of the department were examined to your knowledge?

Not to my recollection but

I have a point on that. I don't know that Lee's here but he did text me and say that

Oh, please.

Can speak for himself.

Okay.

Go

ahead. Director Todd, would you like to introduce yourself and then if you need the question again, feel free.

Yes. Good morning. Mr. Chair, committee members, Leon Todd, Executive Director of the Milwaukee Fire And Police Commission. So this is one of the areas of emerging technology.

It's not something that this FPC specifically has had an opportunity to do a deep dive on, but as part of our 2026 audit plan, which we had created in late twenty twenty five or early twenty twenty six, FLAC or ALPOR is a subject matter that we do intend to do an audit on this year. So that will look at presumably a random sample of incidents and then look to determine compliance rates with existing policy and if there are any areas for improvement in terms of training or policy or ongoing MPD audit. That is something that the FPC audit team will be looking at this year. And does the FPC when a department whether it be police or fire adopt a new technology, is there

any look given by FPC as the oversight body to ensure that a proper amount of caution is given because if you have to wait to run the full audit, well by then you have potentially. So is there anything built into the mechanism of a PC oversight that would elicit some caution from the departments overseeing about adopting the new technologies and avoiding potential perils that maybe we've seen elsewhere.

And I believe and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe MPD acquired this technology in 2022 or early twenty twenty three. So at that and I don't have a specific recollection of this, but there certainly would have been a discussion about the acquisition of that in relation to the policy or the SOP that MPD has on that. But off the top of my head, don't remember the specifics of that discussion.

And it's, you know, I'm a frequent observer of Fire and Police Commission hearings, try to stay in touch there. And I know with the facial recognition technology which this is not unless the car has a face, you see a plate or you see you get a picture of the back of the vehicle, look for identifying remarks. I know with facial recognition policy is technology as soon as the Fire and Police Commission caught wind of that, there was a reaction and hey, we got to use caution here, which eventuated a year from then and the Fire and Police Commission saying, I thought rather clearly to the chief, hey, you need an SOP if you're gonna use this stuff. So that makes me wonder why there wasn't a similar reaction with the adoption of the Alper cameras was it felt to be a more mundane anodyne technology and that's why there wasn't the concern there?

I don't know if there was a lack of concern. I'm assuming well, I don't specifically recall whether or not this particular SOP was established pre or post Act 12. There certainly would have been a discussion on it. I just can't remember this discussion that took place two, three years ago off the top of my head. So I do apologize for that. I'm happy to look back at that and give you an update, but I just don't recurrent as I sit here, I don't remember.

I do remember and Alder Dimitrivich is still on the line. I do remember sitting in a FNP hearing where a contract was up and there was a very thorough discussion of her concerns relating to the ALPR cameras. So it had been foregrounded there. I realize we're in this awkward space that just because something happens at public safety, it doesn't automatically rise to the level of salience to the FPC. And similarly, we're in a disadvantaged position of not always knowing what's happening at FPC to a level of salience where we discuss it at public safety, although I do my best there.

So perhaps a note going forward is for these bodies to keep closer tabs on what each other are doing and to make sure there's a more formal method of communication. While ensuring the independence of each body that doesn't mean we shouldn't know what the other are doing and if there's concerns expressed somewhere, those should trickle across. Does that seem like a fair expectation?

It does. Okay. Thank you.

Sorry, Mr. Lewis, interrupted your train of thought. You were saying how the world has now changed. A new auditing process has been set up. And what have been the changes in access? Is it as easy to just request access and be granted it as before?

I would say no, it's not as easy. It is a more vetted process. So we have instructed our captains across the department if they have members, number one, that the captain must review and sign off on the request and approve it before it gets approved by the administrator of the system. And so what that ensures is that the captain is saying, yes, this member is on a need basis from my work location. They are also signing essentially ALPR user agreements which reiterate the very high level important pieces of the policy must be for a law enforcement purpose, must have a CAD case or verify with, must be for an investigative purpose.

Search is made on behalf of other people. So if if if I have access but mister chair as an officer does not and mister chair asks me, hey, James, can you run this plate? I, James, am responsible for your search, which means I need to know your workup. We've also made any so that user agreement will be signed by the member, signed by the captain. It's not a new work condition because all it really is is reemphasizing the policy that they've read it and understand it.

They will be then reviewed by the flock administrator and if granted access then subject to audit. They also have, I believe, yeah, that's as far as getting on board with it, that's really the biggest changes is some sort of vetting process signed by the captain, signed by the member. Also, if a member changes a work location, they will be required to reapply. That's to ensure that in the future of this program that a one time grant by a captain who, you know, oh, I kind of know this person and they're going to be used in this way at my work location. Well, if that member gets transferred to another work location and they're not being used in that role that necessarily requires access or is a good use of access, they need to go through their captain again to get that approval if they so desire.

We also reminded our members, of course, any of a non compliant or abusive search is subject to discipline. I think that that is a message that has reverberated through the department without being specific but just looking at the news. Members understand that this is this is serious, that violations violations of the misuse of this program aren't just career enders but they're breaches of public trust which is the currency that we use to have effective law enforcement. Okay.

Other questions from committee members?

Mister chair, after committee members, I'd like to speak.

Yep. So, first, we'll we'll go to committee members and then we'll we'll go to other alders. So, Alder Berglis.

Thank you and and this file is about all cameras that the department uses. We're kind of focusing in on automated license plate readers. But and the consequences of misusing them. But if we're talking about having this technology, what are the benefits of having it? Does it help? We've heard we heard from the chief before he he left, that it's a force multiplier, but have there been real impacts to the community and to crime in our community as a result of using these cameras as an investigative tool, using them and using the technology properly.

100%. So we have hundreds of examples of where the Alpers technology has helped us solve crimes by locating suspects of those crimes and violent crimes. So a couple of examples that come to mind recently or in the past few years, there was a postal worker that was, murdered. And Alper's cameras were utilized to find the suspect in that case, and it was one of the pieces of evidence that we relied heavily on to track down that suspect and bring that suspect to justice. Another one that I I want to point out was in Walker's Point not too long ago, I believe it was last summer, James.

Yep. There was a bicyclist and severely injured by hit and run reckless driver, And we didn't have any information about the identity of that person they took off. And so there was an outcry that, you know, they were seeking the individual that did this. And through Alpers, we were actually able, to locate, identify, the suspect in that case and bring that suspect to justice. So, these, you know, their Pizza Huts on 76th Street robbery.

I did use the Albert camera and technology, to identify suspects in that case. So, these are just some of the multitude of examples where this type of technology has helped us locate vehicles that are fleeing from serious crimes.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. So and I remember an analogous discussion. Hate to keep bringing it back to the facial recognition technology, but there the department had presented that there were real tangible benefits of using the technology and as an investigative tool. And there were discussion of certain safeguards that would have to be brought into place. So in the end, it's a cost benefit analysis, I suppose.

And similarly here, I guess I hear you saying Chief of Staff Huff that there are real benefits to the use of ALPERS on public safety standpoint and the question is what costs there are or whether those costs can be mitigated to the point where they don't outweigh those benefits.

That is correct, Chair. And one thing I point out is that any of our tools, whether they're technology or not, have the capacity and potential to be misused. And historically, they have been. So, just a couple of, you know, examples. Guns have been misused by law enforcement.

Cars, vehicles, have been misused by law enforcement. This is another one of those things that has the potential for misuse, and we're continually adapting to these new tools and putting things in place to do everything that we can to prevent misuse. But besides looking past the misuse, there are real benefits of law enforcement having access to this type of tool.

Yep. And I'll kick it to Alder Dimitrivich in just one second. But I would say that that that might seem unduly dismissive and that an agency from outside the state can't come in and animate an MPD officer's gun. There might be concerns and we can speak to him at some point of whether somebody could come in and use our data. I know we're the keepers of the data, but there might be circumstances where we have to give it up.

So that allows for a potential, some might say, for abuse that extends beyond our walls of our city and so might be another reason for concern. But I've said enough. Alder Dimitrivich has a very thoughtful letter that was submitted to the file, is now in the file dated from yesterday. So with that, we'll hand it over to Alder Dimitrijevic.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Chairman Spiker and committee. I know you have a very long agenda today, so I thank you for your service. Thank you for putting the letter in the file. It's cosigned by president Perez, alder per or I'm sorry.

President Perez, alderwoman Moore, and alderman Brower. And I kept it to the people who had spoken to me about this issue, but I'm sure there's more council members that have questions as well. Your memory serves a very astutely and correctly as usual, Chairman Spiker. It was in finance a few months ago when I attempted to object to a single source contract to the flock cameras. And I won't put you through that again because I see that that speech hopefully had an impact partially.

I wish it could have prevented what happened here. Know, flock is a $7,500,000,000 corporation and growing. And we are in somewhat of a a non competition, really. It's almost a sole source contract that I attempted oppose, months ago. And and cities get in these situations where, yes, they are looking at the the cost and benefit.

But tell that to, you know, the looks like an ex partner as reported in the journal who had their license plate read hundreds of times by this individual who's now resigned by the Milwaukee Police Department. I don't think that's a reflection of the police department, but that's a pretty severe misuse. And in the letter that is now part of the file and has gone directly to the Fire and Police Commission, there is I'd like to draw your attention to the independent auditing because that was what was discussed. It must be independently audited. It cannot be we cannot police ourselves.

We cannot police the police. Like, that's why we have an independent fire and police commission. So that is a better practice. And last but not least, I must draw your attention. This is the part that I have been the most concerned about, which is item number four, a clear firewall for immigration enforcement in LPR specific policy.

We cannot disconnect this from what is going on in our nation. And one could say that if a police officer was able to abuse it this way, how could protocols be in place that the federal government, which is breaking rules left and right, doesn't end up providing a legit judicial warrant to actually access this data. And now what could be caused in that situation? We have someone sent to one of these detention camps where there's been hundreds of nine one one calls and deplorable conditions for children. So there are pretty outrageous results if it is misused or not used correctly.

So I implore this letter to be not only read, but acted on, discussed at the Fire and Police Commission and some true guardrails. You know, I've often said this about our president is that any guardrails that we've seen before have got to be evaluated and firmed up more than ever. That's a lot of what the ice out package is as well, is no one had planned for these times. And I especially even the I know the police department wasn't wasn't anticipating, but we are in a moment just like I would say AI and data centers. Some of this technology has some amazing advantages and unique advancements.

We're living in a really interesting moment in time, but we're also living in a really dark time, and we do need to rise to the occasion. So I hope that this letter will be taken seriously and real action will happen. We've been asking for quite some time, for a change in the technology SOP. In fact, the Fire and Police Commission discussed it but didn't have a real change unless I'm mistaken. So this is the time. The time is now. It's too bad that it has to be reactive and not proactive. Thank you, Chairman Spiker and the committee.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Alder Brower.

Yes. I just want to first of all, thank you Alderman Dmitryovich for those comments. That was very insightful. Was so glad to sign this letter and I know there's other alders that would sign in it too as well. We I mean, I'll I'll just say broadly, like, to to respond to some of the things the police department has has said that are legitimate, that we we don't we want we do not want crime in this city to be occurring.

Like, I I don't think there's and there's not a single constituent or a single person in this room who would want to see some of the some of the things that you've described, you know, happening. And and I know that the chief, you know, just said from the jump that I wish we were here discussing crime reduction. But that's in in some ways that is a what about ism, because the issue here that we're discussing with this with this file and what we're discussing is a issue of the of power that we have and and because we're the ones who've we we, the city of Milwaukee and through our police department are the ones who are retaining this immense power to if someone is associated with their license plate. I mean, I'm usually the one driving my car. You know, if a license plate my license plate's picked up by a raider, somebody can know my whereabouts at any time.

And that's a huge amount of immense power that we have to be able to track through a database and then it'd be logged and stored and retrieved at any time that we have. So that has to be mean, I and frankly, like, you know, the the the criminal element, you know, does have the power that they do to to kill somebody or steal from somebody, but this this is a whole separate issue of debate of this kind of power. And since that power is within our hands, it is legitimate to debate and discuss it here at the table and look at, like, whether we should or shouldn't use that power or whether we should have should or shouldn't have guardrails on that power. So I think just to kinda, you know, frame the debate there that we have this hugely powerful tool in these in these flock cameras and we have to be very, very, very minimum extremely judicious and at the very maximum consider, you know, whether we even wanna use this or not. I mean, we've decided collectively and and I appreciated the police department deciding to not use facial recognition technology despite there being, you know, potentially some legitimate benefits to be able to apprehend criminals.

But, like, the the cost outweighed the benefit in that situation. I and I do appreciate the police department doing that. Was glad to, you know, put out a statement thanking the department for doing that. But really, you know, and as far as the another issue that was brought up to that I want to bring up is the historical question of whether, you know, when this came up, should we have done a better job? And then Alderman Spiker asked a question related to that.

And I'll just broadly say that with the emergence of technology here and with things so rapidly changing, we it should not be a question of like putting the maximum guardrails on a piece of technology that we that we encounter and that we want to use in policing or for that matter, any anything. Right? I mean, we don't we're going be installing cameras on some of our DPW vehicles to analyze potholes. I mean, that could be a that's a recorded video that could be based on Internet. That then and frankly, if any of this stuff is Internet based and housed on the Internet, could be accessed by Homeland Security.

I mean, to my knowledge, the Patriot Act gives them the warrantless ability to access that debt if it's stored in the air. I mean, we we don't even know when when this any federal agency is tapping into this thing, our phones. At any at any point in time, whether that's a phone owned by the Milwaukee Police Department or a flock camera owned by the Milwaukee Police Department or the pothole sensor mounted to the front of a DPW vehicle. Right? Whether they're tapping into that and and potentially using that video, running that video through other technology that could include facial recognition that that they have access to.

Right? So that's I just wanted to put all that stuff out there. I'm really, really glad that we have this file before us and that we're that we're talking about this on the current constituents of mine to reach out to my office, you know, with your opinions, you know, about the kind of guardrails that should be had. I would argue for them if we're going to use this technology and we should have that debate, be one debate whether we want to use this technology or not. And then the next debate we have is to what guardrails we should put on.

And in that particular case, I would argue the maximalist position that there should be the most guardrails and and and I mean, you know, apparently, was a guardrail that allowed us to discover what this police officer was doing to and these allegations to come forward. And so that's positive. There could be others out there. There could be others that are less severe, but we're learning related to these alligators less severe than what's being alleged. There could be other and so do we have a guardrail to catch those even before they're happening?

And anytime a new technology comes out of the gate, it should be, regarded with the most hesitancy and put and have guardrails around it. Mean, I like, I am very cautious when it comes to AI broadly and its implications for job losses and also just the fact that in the coming years, most of the content of the Internet is going to be AI slop coming out as well. And we should all be concerned about that, not just for the for our feeds, for our own liberties and all this stuff that's coming out. So I really just want to see us have the most guardrails possible on this. I think this starts that conversation and I was really glad to sign that letter. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you. Mister chair. Aldora Taylor.

Thank you so much. Yes, so as I I sat here and listened, I think that technology is good in its place. I think I agree with my colleagues that I I I heard you say a lot of things that you've put in place to sort of oversee the users within the department, but it didn't include public. The public didn't have a say over an oversight over the use of that technology. And I think that's important because with the impact that that technology, the negative impact that it can have on the lives of so many people, that I agree with my colleague that the numerous amount of guardrails that we could put in place to make sure that there isn't misuse of that technology.

It's one thing to have it in house, but I think it's a little bit different when we utilize some public insight oversight as well. So I think that we need to and this and this is conversations that that I've had specifically with Alderman Spiker as well because or chairman Spiker because he's the chairman of this committee. But for a long time coming, I think it's important that even though we're talking about flock cameras right now, there has been talk about facial recognition technology. If whether we're using this right now or going to add cameras in the foreseeable future or near future, we need to be very careful about how that information is used and who has access. And because where there's a will, there's a way, and people do find a way around the rules all the time, and there's only so much we can do.

So I think that we need to even just think about, how to incorporate public oversight as well to make sure that we are, not waiting for things to happen and then we come up with, with policies but anticipating what could happen because we know some things may be happening and we're not quite aware of it. Know, but we should be anticipating that and planning for it and implementing those guardrails that were spoken about by my colleagues.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? I guess I have one more. So with the Alpers, the Automated License Plate Readers, that through their function generates a certain amount of data. That data is data that FLAC has.

So I guess I have two questions here. One is, are there agreements that prohibit FLAC from sharing that data with other agencies outside of Milwaukee? And two, if we are asked as a police department to share data, under what circumstances do we do so, under what circumstances must we do so? I realize that's a broad set of questions, but that's obviously the salient point is, is this stuff we can keep purely in house or might others have access to it? And I think people's concerns grow to the extent the second question is answered affirmatively that others do have access.

So can you speak just generally to that point?

Sure. I think James can provide more details but, the user, the person who has the technology decides who gets access and who does not. So in essence there's a switch. And some law enforcement agencies have the switch flipped to allow access. Others like Milwaukee have it set where we don't allow access.

Could you clarify to access by whom? What is the

Other agencies. Other law enforcement agencies. So the nationwide

Dallas police department but also, you know Arizona. Different

states. Correct.

Federal.

Correct. Okay. So the position of this particular company is that we own 100% of the data and it is never sold and that our agency decides who to share the data with, not flock and all of the data is deleted after thirty days by default. So that is the standard for this particular system. And then James, if you wanna talk about, you know, how that operates for the

police department. Just a query. So if the federal government believed there were a terrorism suspect in Milwaukee and they wanted keenly to know their whereabouts, would they have the resources then to ask or tell our police department, hey. We need access to this data as a means of of tracking down this terrorism suspect.

So to your specific question, we have not received a fact pattern like that. So I can't give you a specific here's how it would happen. This is how it went. We've received FOIA So

somebody doesn't have to ask you for something to know what you would do if you were asked. And I should think we would care very much given the concern that's in the ether right now whether or not a federal agency could come in and demand this data from us?

Yes. So I answered it that way to sort of just set the table that I can't give you concrete or specific examples, but I can tell you what we have received which are FOIA requests. Have

FOIA, you have to define.

The Freedom of Information Act. Okay. So we have received open records requests. We've received FOIA requests from other agencies. However, we haven't received a judicial warrant signed by a judge requiring us to give information over.

I would anticipate that if we did get a warrant like that, one, we would be running it through the city attorney's office to see what our obligations are under that warrant. But that if a warrant is signed by a judge, that we'd have to honor it the same way that when we obtain warrants, individuals who say no, you know, can't you can't fight that warrant. The the proper venue to fight it is in the court, not as agency to agency. However, we control the parameters and one of FLOC's functionalities is that in any agency can decide the depth and breadth of the sharing that occurs from the cameras that are within their network. And so our threshold for that has not been to share with federal partners.

We have shared with state partners, and we share with Chicago as well, and there are mutual exchanges for that. We understand crime patterns and need and use of this technology, but we do look limited to the immediate locality here in Wisconsin and just our neighbor to the South, but not participating in federal operations. Although we have interstate systems like the highways that go through, we don't have federal sharing with federal agencies or with other states. For example, any West Coast, East Coast states that are really far away from us, we don't share with them. The sharing is within the state of Wisconsin and the city of Chicago.

And I mean to a point that Alder Berglis had asked and elicited from Chief of Staff Huff, you might have an Amber Alert or some situation where you really need to know what an individual where they are because they might have a child. And so the ALPOR camera could flag that, it could flag a stolen vehicle, it could flag all this stuff. But I guess what I'm hearing from the department is we don't proactively share with partners outside the state and including federal partners, but one can imagine circumstances where there would be a live question of whether we must give over the state if we have judicial warrant of a judge is saying you must do so Yeah. Then We aren't entitled to saying, I'm gonna decide, judge, that you're wrong. You Well, it's not a business legal.

It would be, yeah, it would be a legal obligation. If the if the judge orders you to do something, you must follow it. Contempt orders could follow things like that. Right. But as I alluded to, that's I'm not aware of a mass use of judicial warrant to obtain that type of information.

I haven't seen anything about that in the national news or coverage of this, let alone being aware of it from internal information sharing. But like I alluded to, if we get there because we do have to prepare for what the future holds, that would be something that we would run through the city attorney's office. We'd be running it through best practices and attempting to resolve it in a way that balances all the interests that we talk about here and the control that we actually have over any of this data. And so if it's it would depend on the specific how that warrant is tailored, but if it says give the information to the agencies you already share with, we've covered that. If it says this agency in Arizona wants it, we'd have to look at that.

But I would be hard pressed to say you can flout that judge's order. It wouldn't matter. That's bad legal legal advice.

Right. Okay. Just by way of wrapping towards the conclusion, during the discussion of the facial on this file, during the discussion of the facial recognition technology, there was a great cue and cry about that software and whether we should acquire it. I thought that was a big deal, but not as big a deal as the underlying question, which is, hey, we're putting up all these cameras all over the city. Does is anybody concerned that the data they acquire may come into hands you don't want to have holding them?

And if you're talking facial recognition, they might have the software to run it. So to the extent we are blithe and cavalier about cameras going up for all manner of things to catch illegal dumping, to catch any of the stuff that's in the file here, body cameras, alpers, point tilt zoom cameras. All that is generating data and the concern is, one concern is you don't want to inadvertently create an apparatus for a surveillance state and then wait to see if somebody turns it on. So that is why this file was created. That is something I think we could get coming together a meeting of the minds if you will of both folks on the right and the left and it's something that warrants our attention.

With that, I'm concluded. Are there any other questions? Sure. Alder Brower?

Yes. Just a couple of technical questions because I'm I want to make sure that I have my head around how this

is

actually going down technologically. We have mounted cameras that are on at all times, day and night, operated only when there's light. And then that'd be the first question I have. And then as a as a vehicle is driving by, it if the if there is a license plate present on the vehicle, on the front or the rear of the vehicle, it scans that plate and that is logged somewhere. And then at that is logged and stored somewhere. At any point, we can access the database in which that was stored. Okay. We're gonna you know, we have a suspect and, you know, type in their name. Okay. They have this vehicle registered to them according to the DMV records.

Okay. And there's the license plate for that vehicle. We're gonna take that. And I'm I'm assuming it's all integrated seamlessly probably. But punch in the names, see the vehicle plate, and then we can see the list of all of the flock this flock camera mounted over here on North Humboldt Boulevard or something. We can and then it went by it. You know? O 08:35 on Wednesday the sixteenth or some and then we and then that's a that's exactly timestamp. Is that how that whole is that exactly how that goes? Or do we we say, oh, we're looking for a suspect. Here's their plate number. Okay. Cameras now be on alert and flag us when that happens. Do we have data just being stored or is it just getting flagged when we're looking for a specific vehicle or suspect?

I got it. I think I understand. So there's a lot there to unpack and there are a couple of things working at the same time. So there are things, where we as a department develop a car, a a plate, and a on a vehicle that's involved with something and we would do what's called a BOLO, a be on the lookout for.

So that would

go out to all officers and traditionally how that's worked, like, that's not new to flock. That is a long standing. Yeah. Hey, everybody. We're looking for this car today.

If you see it, you should make that stop because we have information about an investigation that we need from this car. You can use the technology to aid with that because if it if that car with that specific plate hits in a spot and it's in the BOLO list, an alert can, if the officer has it logged in and they're they're you know, have their flock ready up in on their computer in their car Mhmm. And it hits near them in their area, right, it can tell them, hey, that car that may be wanted for homicide or stolen vehicle, armed robbery, something like that is right by you alert. You should do that. That's one bucket which answers, I think, only part of your question because the other part is, well, what if I am an officer?

Let me give you an example from like a critical missing instance. And so if if you're an officer and it comes over, hey. We got a critical missing. It's in your area. Officer Brower, you're assigned to it. Here's the the last known vehicle that this person was in. You can create a search saying, I wanna find this car. I'm I'm very interested in it because the person who is supposed to be in it or driving is is is part of my critical missing investigation. So you can use that information to make a query in flock with those parameters, to find that vehicle. Thank you.

So And it would and it would give sorry. Sorry.

I don't mean to. No, no, Go ahead. It wouldn't be helpful to get historical data in that instance and so you can set the parameter to say, I wanna know right now if this car is being driven in the city. Fox storage of data goes back thirty days. So if if you're officer Brower and you're like, man, I think like last year, I remember this car. I wanna see like what it was up to last summer.

Mhmm.

Can't do it. It doesn't go back that far.

Okay. So there's not a log. There's not anyone else with

log use. To do that. What my example to you just there would be a misuse. Just I wanna see what it was doing last summer. That's not a it needs to be related to an investigation.

What I'm saying is is that that safeguard in there, one of them is historical data only goes back so far. And so depending on the bucket of investigation or purpose that you have, there is different functionality. There's what I would say is like the push functionality which is, hey, everyone needs to know where this car is because it's it's wanted and it's active and it's a public safety concern. And then there's the individual officer queries which you as the officer need to associate to an investigation with a legitimate lawful purpose and then the queries that are associated to that will pop up in FLAC and then you can make sense of what you have and you can then tailor your search better to the exact car and time space that you want. If you want to know, I'm only interested in if it's right here because it's in my area, you can you can geo like the geography of where that is.

You can there's functionality for that.

So then if so we're not well, so like, let's say a car drives by one of these cameras, it's, you know, not registered. Everybody should have their vehicle registered, of course, but, like, but it's not registered. That's not getting flagged by a flock for then an officer to No. You know, or or for parking enforcement to

Yeah.

Tow the vehicle when it's parked or something.

That's that's not happening.

What the parking enforcement helpers are because they they have their own helpers at DPW for writing tickets. Yeah. It's correct. That system does push them like here's violations for this car if it's not registered, if it doesn't have a permit. That's correct. But assume that that's how that works. In in ours, it's not Fock is not integrated with the e time query, and the e time query is a state run system that all officers in the state of Wisconsin use to query plates to determine is it valid? Mhmm. Is it registered with DOT? Does it is it stolen?

Those types of things. Does this plate list to this car? That comes through a different system. They're not integrated and they don't talk. There is not functionality to have a one stop shop where I can just click this button and now I'm getting like, here's all the drivers who's ever been associated with that car.

Here's all the information of any registration addresses that they've used for DOT. It doesn't have that type of functionality. There certainly are ways if you're an investigator to piece things together but it takes a human investigator to do that type of correlation connection and workup that would eventually get you to a place where you either say the target suspect of my investigation, I have probable cause to make an arrest or I don't and I've been able to rule them out through my investigation and I need to look elsewhere. So it I think that to the chair's concern too about the big brother state, right, like this is this is a piece of technology but it doesn't pull everything together where you're eagle eye sitting on a computer and you can just solve all the crime by sitting here. It still takes an incredible amount of officer workup and work to turn searches and queries and investigations into arrests and some things like that.

No. Thank and

thank you for the clarification. I just wanna maybe clarify a little bit more. So there's not like a so just just to confirm, there's not a log of every vehicle that has gone by a flock camera at any point in

the day unless it's being so specifically flagged. My understanding of the way that the data from the cameras are is that everything that the camera reads is retained for thirty days. And in a black box system that is not accessible unless you make a query. So I have to go through the officers have to go through the process of putting in their reason and their case number and the plate that they want in order to query against that data and it will return results but only up until a certain period of time. So if you're trying to go back in time and far, far back, you it's not like the way back machine for FLoC, if you're familiar with the way back

machine.

Oh, Yes. Yes.

It's not like that. It is a rolling thirty day storage, and then it is deleted and purged. Okay.

So this isn't being used to, you know, pull people over for registration issues or anything like that. Okay.

I mean, an officer can do that on by not using Fox. Fox will

not stationed, tell you you know, along along Humboldt Boulevard and and see somebody and all the plates not registered and pull them over for the app, but the flock isn't being used for that specifically. And if Yeah.

And That would be a really bad use of flock.

No. Wouldn't Like a hitch. I mean, it sounds like it, right? But but I just wanna make sure for clarity because, you know, know that people are really, really wondering about the nature of this. And so that's why I'm glad that we're talking about this.

We share with other agencies including I I know that we have there's federal, there's task force related to, I mean, I know one of them is you know, high intensity drug traffic areas and we work with those agencies. Where does flock incorporate into our work with federal agencies that aren't Department of Homeland Security or aren't ICE because that's a piece of concern for me that, like, well, you know, if we're if if DEA can just tap right into this I mean, I know that's Department of Justice, different agency, but given that our president is throwing away every single norm that we've had for criminal investigations, and anything that like okay. So if DEA has access to flock to build a pipe in and view things or run a query, then that almost means that to to my mind that it's possible technologically anyway for then ICE to pipe in as well.

Yes. So I understand the concern. The way that we regulate our flock use is that our task force officers, whenever an MPD member is part of a task force, they stay an MPD member. They may be assigned to the task force. They're still subject to our rules and regulations.

And so as members of a task force, they may have access to department information that they can use to leverage their responsibilities in the task force but they are still our members. They're still held to our standards and so it's not like a cat's paw I think is what you're getting at which is like well I'll put a member here and then now the entire DEA has access. No, it's through our member. And so our member who is part of the task force is the one who's authorized to make those searches and then that's how we control who is making queries in our network. Still subject to all of our standard of procedures.

Correct. If the patch on the back says task force, you're still obligated to all of our rules. You just have more responsibilities because you are also subject to their rules. And where a competitive rule exists, one says one or the other, our rule prevails. Okay. And that's how we've set up those arrangements is to ensure body cam use for instance which is on our agenda, right?

Mhmm.

Task force officers in the feds don't always have body cams. Our officers do. They're subject to our rules. They must comply with them. And if they don't, we can remove them. We can discipline them. We can hold them accountable like any other member.

Thank you. Yeah. I just want to get through some technical things. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sure. Thank you. Alder Moore.

Quick question. Is it implied that we sort of share because I know we share particular information with like Waukesha and Washington County. There's some agreements or something like that that we have with particular counties. Is it implied that they would or could share this information with ICE?

So, yeah, you're kind of getting again at the cat spot. No. So it's our information. We control who Who? Is is accessing it. So if I give it to Waukesha, they can't turn around and go like, well, I got it from them. So here's access. Like, here's know, we're gonna turn on a button that you're going to get it from us because that would defeat the purpose of limiting that access. Right. It would essentially mean all everyone what's known to one is known to all and that is not how FLAC has set up their systems. It is designed to have agency control over who gets access.

Got it. So just the example you used earlier as far as I mean, obviously, there are police officers without the use of flocks have access to particular like they pull over a car. Yeah. They can pull up their, you know, pull up an individual's license plate, whatever. And and even with that, those sort of things have oversight and it's monitored because Yeah. If, you know, you know, we you know, MPD, this is a bad actor. You know, our people constantly without police interaction, our people constant can can an employee pull up an individual information and is that monitored?

Yes. So those are run through the state DOJ in conjunction with the FBI. And so those databases are nationally linked databases because they'll if I if I get a plate from Utah Yeah. That's driving through Wisconsin and I want to query it, I need access to Utah's database to say, does the DOT in Utah recognize this plate? And so that level of clearance and oversight and accountability and audit is run by the FBI and it's run through CJIS which is the criminal justice in Information System. System.

System. Yeah.

And there have been I mean, you could look this up too. There have been agencies, not MPD, other agencies who have lost their ability to participate in that because of abuse. So they do have audit and their remedy for noncompliant use is we will just revoke you. And so now your officers don't have access to this crucial tool that they need in order to do affect that traffic stop.

If I'm gonna pull you

up for registration, I have to be able to confirm your registration is expired. Otherwise, I've just pulled you over for an unlawful reason which has other problems associated to it.

Thank you. Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. And I guess I'll just note as a result of Alder Brower's testimony so or questioning. So the fact that our officers have to do a query into the black box of data as it were is a bit of a check with things like body camera footage that is open recordsable. You have to coin a word. Some anybody who does an open records request can eventually get that data if it's subject to certain restrictions, but eventually it wouldn't be real time access.

So and to your point earlier, tremendous amount of investigative work has to come in to like link this with that. Right now, Agensic AI could make this

not What do you use? Agensic?

Yeah. In Oh, okay.

Got it.

Could anything automatable, algorithmicable, we'll be able to just keep making up words Yes, because I'm on a roll well, know, things that were extremely labor intensive would become routine. So I guess for concerns about the future, one thing is stuff that they can just get the data even if it would be extremely labor intensive to do much with it right now. In the brave new world coming it might not be something that limits one's ability to make use of that data. So just flagging it for future concern. Okay.

Well, we've had a very robust discussion. If there's no other questions oh, sorry. I'm so sorry. Elder Taylor, you asked me Yeah. Like ten minutes.

And and I think that you may have addressed some

of it.

So, you know, I guess with with ICE presence and the the the fear and anxiety that's been created and I know it there was some you were saying that they had people that other agencies have to have warrants in order to access that information. But and that ends all you talked about other states maybe, but I I didn't hear you say the federal government also has to have that warrant in order to access that information?

Yeah. So we have not encountered yet an agency, federal, state, or local tribal for that matter, bringing a warrant forward to say Milwaukee Police Department, we demand subpoena this information. Mhmm. If they had that warrant, it would be something that we would have to scrutinize through legal, through the city attorney's office to see the depth, breadth, and scope of what we're required to respond to. And so if a federal agency regardless of the acronym that they bring to us obtains a judicial warrant signed by a judge, I'm I'm less concerned with who the plaintiff is and more with who the judge's signature is.

If a federal judge is saying you have to do something, it's something we take very seriously. Court orders are court orders and we don't wanna be in the business of being in contempt of anything. So we would have to look at that. But again, in the national space of of this, I'm not aware of that tool being a possibility, being leveraged in any way to make departments comply with what would otherwise be a request which can be denied. If you're just asking me Mhmm. May I have this? I can say no. But if you're telling me that the court order is doing you must do something, that's something we we look at very differently than simple requests from agencies.

And there's just nothing saying that the federal government can come and have that information without that warrant. It is

Well, we don't share with the federal government. That's that's a control that we have not had. So

Two two other things. One, we know when the information is being stored and there are some situations as much as as companies and and other entities have tried to protect that information that there are times when there are breaches in the information. Is there any possibility of that information being breached or compromised in any way? I Have we put any safeguards in place to make sure that that is limited as much as we possibly can?

Yes. So there is access safeguards to that. There's multifactor authentication that must be done by anybody who's gonna be accessing the system. So at least from an end user standpoint there is robust protections against me trying to obtain your information and then using it into a system and making queries. There are also safeguards within the software itself by the vendor to protect the information and things like that.

So there are safeguards in that way. We also have CJIS clearance for members in order to get to that. They have to have CJIS clearance so officers have that level of clearance of law enforcement sensitive information. And so there are robust national safeguards like I talked about kind of about who gets CJIS access and who doesn't. I think in the premise of your question though, you alluded to the thing that we all need to always be aware of is safeguards are just safeguards.

They're not guarantees. And so you can do as many things as you want but data and technology and anything in the cloud or online is always susceptible to it. We've seen that across the country enforcement, in even, like Alderman Brower said, in in your own device. What's to stop anything there that, you know, that that question is kind of like larger than the Alper system here, but, it's something that is we have to be cognizant of, always when selecting vendors and deploying technology.

Alright. And, so the last thing is, how how do you advise a citizen who feels that they may be the subject of misuse of the technology in any any way? So if we, you know, have a resident that says, hey. I I think I'm the subject of of Yeah. Information being used inappropriately or attained on on me and used inappropriately, how do you advise them to deal with that? And this is kinda going back to what I mentioned about the public oversight and how how we can improve on that.

Yeah. So let me answer it in a couple ways. One, I think if anybody ever feels like their rights have been violated, that professionalism was not the product of the Milwaukee Police Department or that they otherwise wish to bring to the attention of the department in the city a problem with officers or with law enforcement, they should file complaints. And so they can file complaints at any district. They can file complaints online.

The Fire and Police Commission takes complaints. It is one of our hallmarks of our obligations to the citizenry to investigate plausible complaints and to give dispositions to those members or to those individuals to say here's what we found and we welcome that. And so that's the most robust way. I think two is the audit that we've done is indirect relation to public trust and attempting to find instances where the data suggests this might not have been a perfect query. Let's look into it more.

And if we find that, as the chief alluded to in his opening remarks, we're gonna swiftly take care of that. We're gonna be referring charges to the district attorney's office. We're gonna be opening up internal investigations and and those members aren't welcome in the department. That's Okay. Point blank right there. That misuse

Mhmm.

Erodes any public safety mission that the department has. It casts a a negative light on all of the good officers who go day in and day out and try to impact public safety in a professional manner. It there's no room for members that way, and we don't need them. So if citizens feel aggrieved, please make complaints because we will investigate them. And if there were problems, we will handle it.

Thank you so much for that. I would like to definitely continue discussion on the public oversight and how we can definitely improve on that. Thank you Thank you. So

So one advantage we've seen at the table is in addition to their subject area expertise, we have Chief of Staff, Huff Risk Manager, Lewis and Executive Director of the FPC. Todd are also lawyers. So we have an abundance of knowledge. We've been able to take advantage here. Even though they can't legally do the law business of the city, they know what they know. So good discussion, worthy discussion with that. Alder Taylor would move that this be held to the call of the chair so that we can discuss it in the future as I'm sure we will.

Mr. Chair. Alder Brower? Yes.

Real quick procedural point here. I do believe that there was a letter from ACLU that was sent this morning. I'm wondering what steps need to be taken to add that to the file?

They can send it to Jeff, staff, assistant Polanco or Ortiz and it can be added to the file there. Okay. Or they can send it to me and I'll forward it to them.

Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. One more.

Alder Moore. Thank you for that Alderman Brower. It was sent to quite a bit of us and I did send it to our staff assistant to be added to the file.

Okay. Great. Well ahead of me. Alder Taylor?

Yeah. Last thing. I know that my colleague mentioned that there might be others that are not on that letter that would like to be and I'm definitely one of those that would like to be added to.

Okay. I think it went out yesterday to the FPC but I'm sure they could recirculate.

Okay.

Or just in the discussion, further future discussions.

Yep. Sounds good.

Okay.

So Alder Taylor has moved that the item be held to the call of the chair and hearing no objections, so ordered. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank

you. A little housekeeping for my files. So Item 16, file number 230676, this communication from Safety and Civic Commission relating to a report of its recent activities. We had communication from MPD's Safety Division that the chair of the Safety and Civic Commission would like this item held. So Alder Regalis moves that it be held to the call of the chair hearing no objections so ordered.

Also with apologies to AT and T, we are backed up on our agenda. So item 14, file number 251,903. Deeply apologize if AT and T is in the room and fire department, but I want to give you the opportunity to skedaddle because it's going to be a while still. So with that, Alder Moore would move that that item also be held to the call to chair and we'll get you next cycle. Do you want to hold that one too?

Fifteen? Okay.

No, I

don't want to hold it. He's here but I'd like to.

We can't. We can't go to it

right now.

So

I guess on item 12, Ms. Fierro Padilla, are you there? I know we've kept you online for an egregious amount of time.

Yes. I'm here.

Yeah. Why don't we deal with item 12, your item? So file number 251694. This is the appointment of Stephanie Fierro Padilla to the Milwaukee Commission on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault by the common council president. President has nominated you. Would you care to say a brief word on your interest in serving?

Yes. So I've been a domestic violence advocate, and most have been a research center for about and

to we're members to please keep do it down so we can hear you speak. This will be a brief item. Okay.

Can you hear me better?

Yes. Please. Go ahead.

I'm kinda hunched over so that's why I turned my camera off. But sir, I've been

a

advocate at Resource Center for about seven years now. As a commissioner, my goal is to strengthen relationships and build trust across our city. We cannot address domestic violence and sexual assault alone. This work requires collaboration between community organizations, law enforcement, health care providers, educators, and most importantly, survivors themselves. As first generation, it's really important for me to address every culture and every generation.

We also know that barriers barriers exist, such as language, immigration concerns during this political climate, stigma, lack of access to resources can prevent survivors from seeking help. Our responsibility is to break those barriers down. I really want our commission to be a place where voices from every community are welcome and respected, a place where we listen first, and a place where solutions are built together and not imposed from above. So to our community partners and advocates, I look forward to working alongside you all. I am committed to listening, learning, and building strong partnerships so that together we can create meaningful change in the city of Milwaukee.

Thank you very much. So appreciate your extensive leadership through UMOS and the background you bring to the commission. I appreciate your willingness to serve. Are there any questions or is there a motion?

Ms. Chair, have a motion.

Yes, Alder Moore?

Yes, motion for what would this be? Confirmation.

Alder Moore moves for confirmation. Are there any objections? Then so ordered. Thank you, Ms. Vieira Padilla for willing to your willingness to serve and for your patience today waiting on the Board. With that, we'll move back in the order to Item 10, file number two 51797. This is a substitute ordinance relating to law enforcement identification. This is sponsored by Alder Brower and several other alders who are listed. With that, we'll kick it over to Alder Brower, the chief sponsor.

Yeah. Thank you so much, mister chair. I really appreciate the time and thank

I'm you the sorry. And there you there is a sub before, so Alder Moore would move that the sub be before us and hearing no objection, so ordered. Sub a. Yeah.

Thank you so much. Yeah. And I believe I remember the committee has this. I believe there's also some available for members of the audience as well to check out this ordinance. Thank you so much.

This ordinance attempts to accomplish what hasn't been accomplished in other cities as it relates to ICE, which is to compel ICE in any way that we can and any ramp up of immigration enforcement including customs and border patrol to identify themselves when they are conducting their operations. We've seen situations that's been reported in the media where ICE agents have been not only in unmarked vehicles that don't even identify any sort of law enforcement whatsoever, vehicles that have mismatched license plates, if license plates at all. So they won't get picked up by our readers. And in addition to that, being improper being poorly or improperly identified on their uniforms and masked. So this is disturbing on a number of levels.

It's hearkening to governments around the world and in history that abduct people with masked agents and disappear them for descent. Unfortunately, what's happening right now is even even worse in some respects than that because people are being abducted right now by ICE for the I don't even wanna say for the crime. It's not a it's not a crime at all. It's just for the for the attempt by them to better the lives of their families and themselves by coming to this country. And so it's just completely uncalled for so much of their so much of their conduct.

The entire idea that we need to be vigorously enforcing whether somebody has filled out the right form or or made it through the morass of red tape that is trying to become a citizen of this country. For those of us that, weren't lucky enough to be born here, is just is just completely unacceptable. We need immigrants in this country. This country was built by immigrants. This country is strengthened by immigrants.

And if we claim and if anybody's claiming that they wanna make this country great, more immigrants would accomplish that. So I think it goes without saying that we need to do everything we can to hold immigration and customs enforcement and CBP accountable. And so this what this ordinance attempts to do is to require that any law enforcement, regardless of agency, be identified when they are conducting any sort of operation here within the city limits of the city of Milwaukee. And I proudly introduce this resolute, this the ordinance. Excuse me.

I'm proudly introducing this along with other colleagues as an attempt to do every single thing that we can to prepare this city for the possibility of a of a ramp up in ICE operations or any sort of any operation by the federal government. The period, our residents want us to be prepared. Our residents want this body to do every single thing that it can to prepare this community. Obviously, we can't pass an ordinance, stopping what Donald Trump is doing, but we can pass ordinances that will attempt to hold those officers, accountable, you know, while they're here. And so that's that's been the goal of the entire ISIL package.

That's the goal of this ordinances. It accomplishes several things. It prohibits face coverings. No law enforcement officer may wear a mask or face covering that obscures his or her face or identity. It requires identification when acting in an official capacity. All law enforcement officers shall wear identification. Vehicles. When acting in an official capacity, no law enforcement officer may operate a vehicle that does not clearly identify the law enforcement agency. And listing a few exceptions. For those engaged in undercover operations or other other situations that would that would necessitate not being identified.

So really what we're trying to do and and certainly immigration enforcement, which is a civil matter, frankly, should not be considered, and that's what this ordinance has to do is to make sure that those operations, the people are clearly identified so that the public and the people they're interacting with and the people they're attempting to abduct know who at least is attempting to do that. And so that's that's my argument for it. Obviously, we'll have further arguments and more discussion as this goes on. And I just appreciate, Mr. Chair, you placing this on the agenda.

Thank you very much. And I think there might be a very small technical correction needed to the sub A before us on under the penalty, looks like the end of the sentence cuts off. So if you violate, you're subject to forfeiture of not less than $5,000 or more than $10,000 and then default payment thereof, we await with bated breath. That can be corrected

now and council. Thank you.

Okay. With that, Alderman Zamripa, would you as the second sponsor on this

thanking you for putting this file and the others that we heard earlier this morning on the agenda today, Mr. Chair, and also allowing three of our community leaders to come forward and provide testimony, public testimony as well too. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. So, this was discussed in advance. We know we have a very packed agenda and very thorough items, but there were three members of the community who were going to offer their testimony as relates to this as well. So with that, if folks would like to come forward, the three. And Mr. Chair?

Yes. And that be Emilio and Christine and Daryl.

Yes.

Okay. So if we could keep our remarks brief, two to three minutes for each person, then we can proceed.

I

guess I'll start. Thank you so much for creating the space for us to share our support for this resolution. Obviously, it reflects a much larger support of the community and many organizations. Vosas

de

la Frontera urges the common council members to strongly support the substitute ordinance to the MPD uniform standards operating procedure which requires all law enforcement officers to be unmasked with the sole purpose when the sole purpose is to hide their identity, to require them to identify themselves individually, their agencies, and their agency vehicles. This transparency is needed for public safety and to strengthen our democracy against encroaching authoritarianism. ICE and other federal agencies have been deployed in city after city as a militarized operation, terrorizing communities. They are armed, masked, dressed in civilian clothes, and in unmarked cars. This secret police have grabbed fathers, mothers, students, children, and shoved them in cars without judicial warrants, violently attacking non white immigrants and peaceful protesters.

This also contributes to more problems as there are people who have impersonated ICE and CBP to victimize immigrants. In Milwaukee, Moses has helped immigrants in this in the past such as a family that was being extorted by a man that was pretending to be ICE. They came forward because we had strong police policies that did not involve immigration. Last year, one of our members was approached by someone claiming to be ICE. Fortunately, they never opened the door and required ID and a judicial warrant.

After contacting the attorney, we still do not know if this was ICE or an impersonator. This is a person who is fleeing from violent conditions and has been in the process of seeking asylum. Most recently, I think you all have heard about the case of Elvira Benite Suarez who just just exemplifies the kind of trauma that is being created and the fear and the erosion of due process. This is someone who has been in this country for thirty five years. She's a Wisconsinite.

Her children are here. Her family is here. And during a routine ICE check-in as she appealed her case and had been approved for lawful permanent residency, she was arbitrarily picked up by ICE and is now in detention in Kentucky without access to legal counsel. So I say that maybe just as the larger context that we're living in and why the need for accountability and transparency in shoring up democracy is so important because it's impacting us here in Wisconsin as well. Last year in Palmyra, a former chief of police, judge and U.

S. Veteran testified at a public hearing against two eighty seven sharing that when we allow people to be masked and inflict violence with impunity, they lose their humanity. And he saw that during war, and he did not wanna see that in their city, and we certainly don't wanna see it in ours in Wisconsin, or any part of The United States. The village board, in fact, and the current chief there agreed to rescind the program. So by voting to support this resolution, the city of Milwaukee elected leadership is standing up for public safety, upholding transparency, accountability, due process, and democracy.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mister Marine. Good morning.

Good morning, chairman Spiker. I think we lost vice chair Miguelis and distinguished members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Gerald Modine. I serve as national president of Ford Latino.

We serve members throughout the city, throughout the state, and throughout the country. I sit before you today here to speak in strong support of file number two five one seven nine seven. While I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the serious threats posed by having armed masked agents who refuse to identify themselves questioning and detaining individuals in a free society particularly as they relate to our constitutional rights, Due to time constraints, I'm going to limit my remarks to a single concern that I've had. It's a concern I've shared with all the top law enforcement officials in our city, in our county, and in our state. Across Wisconsin, many law abiding citizens legally carry firearms under our state's concealed carry laws.

These individuals are trained to respond if they believe their lives or the lives of others are in immediate danger. When a group of masked individuals with weapons aimed, shouting commands, and refusing to clearly identify themselves approach an individual, confusion is inevitable. Tragedy is inevitable. And in a concealed state, carry state like Wisconsin, confusion can become deadly in just seconds. A resident confronted by a group of masked unidentified and armed individuals may reasonably believe that they are in a life threatening situation.

Under Wisconsin law, that person could respond with deadly force in what they believe is a lawful act of self defense. Not only could the outcome be the tragic death of one of our residents or a member of federal immigration enforcement, but in addition, under this administration, it could be used as a pretext to deploy members of the National Guard in our city essentially to occupy our city. While some may argue the threat is minimal because these immigration enforcement tactics are only used against the immigrant community, I would remind them that our constitutional rights are assured to all regardless of immigration status. Second, I would refer them to the countless number of US citizens who've been questioned, threatened, beaten, detained, and in some instances, even killed by immigration enforcement officers. Let me be clear.

Identification protects everyone involved. It protects residents from fear and confusion. It protects officers and agents from unnecessary dangers and it protects the legitimacy of law enforcement and government authority. The file before you today is not a radical proposal. It sets the same basic standards that we've set and expect out of Milwaukee Police Department and our County Sheriff's Department.

When agents clearly identify themselves under agency, they reduce misunderstandings, prevent impersonations, and help maintain the public trust. At its core, this ordinance is about something very fundamental. Legitimate governmental power never hides behind a mask. Transparency builds trust, accountability, ensures the lawful use of authority, and clear identification in this instance, yes, it will save lives. I look forward to working with you and this and other parts of the Milwaukee Common Council's legislative package that seeks to protect our individual freedoms, ensures our government accountability, and in so doing protects the lives of all residents of the great city of Milwaukee.

Thank you all for your time this morning and for your consideration. May god bless all of you. May god bless the great city of Milwaukee. May god bless The United States Of America. Thank you.

Thank you. And lastly.

Thank you. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, committee, and thank you to my colleagues sitting to the right. I took a little different tack. Of course,

I Please identify yourself first.

My apologies. My name is Emilio Dottori. I'm the executive director of the Milwaukee Turners at Turner Hall Founded by immigrants and refugees, we are the oldest civic society in the city, if not the state, and it is in this historic context that I'm gonna speak. Our founders arrived when there were virtually no federal restrictions on immigration. We continue to be a principled organization that have a clear understanding of who we were and still are today.

Of course, we support this resolution and what we've just heard for the reasons we just heard. Back when we were formed, one in three people spoke German as their native language, and there were six daily newspapers published in that language for city residents. Milwaukee has always been a pluralistic society honoring the contributions of its children, native born, and adopted. We've never been perfect, but we have consistently fought to live our values. Milwaukee resisted slavery, which was then falsely enshrined by the federal government through the Fugitive Slave Act.

We broke Joshua Glover out of jail repeatedly, thousands of us, because it was the right thing to do in the eighteen fifties. Just as Milwaukeeans opposed the blue laws forbidding dancing or drinking beer on Sundays. Milwaukee also rejected laws and practices preventing black men from voting, fighting in the courts and press to ensure that Ezekiel Gillespie was the first African American to vote in 1865. Milwaukee was also a hub for the labor movement. Our citizens died on the streets of Bayview protesting subhuman working conditions that were legal at the time by demanding eight hour workdays and safety policies, ensuring that workers didn't need to place their bodies in harm's way.

Wisconsin was also and proudly the first state to ratify the nineteenth amendment which enshrined women's suffrage in 1919 after a seventy year battle against loss. Milwaukee was a was strong when we were led by Val Phillips who was one of your predecessors who advocated for open, fair, and accessible housing in the city while also demonstrating moral and legal leadership that built equity for thousands of others. And she stood for justice while others spitted her, called her names, and threw glass on bricks. All of these ancestors did the right, albeit the difficult thing, pushing against injustice and morally reprehensible laws even in especially federal laws. Whether it was through marches, demonstrations, speeches, education, the press, local ordinances, or civil disobedience, they push for what was right even if it was imperfect.

It was then and it is still today the correct thing to do. Milwaukee has another opportunity to push forward as right, to stand for moral and legal justice, and to continue a tradition of wearing a gritty, tough, and fair identities on our sleeves. I speak to hundreds and hundreds of people each week. There is no debate on how federal immigration is being enforced. Residents are in agreement.

No one wants secret masked police collecting bounties. Police are frightened. People are frightened and angry at a federal government that has made a hard left turn away from sanity and due process. It is a fear inducing abomination of who The United States is supposed to be disrupting the economy, our schools, and institutions, and our daily lives. We and you especially have the opportunity to heed Milwaukee's constituents while also heeding its history by supporting the size out of MKE package and this ordinance. And I hope to continue standing with you on the right side of history.

Thank you. One quick question and then we'll kick it open. So to the sponsors, I see there is a provision in here that relating to vehicles when acting in an official capacity, no law enforcement officer may operate a vehicle that does not clearly identify the law enforcement agency the officer is representing. At first you might say, oops, the drug cars can't go around having identification that they're MPD vehicles consistent with their aim, but then I see under 4B it says there are certain exceptions, the provisions of subs one through three including the vehicle one shall not apply to a law enforcement officer engaged in an undercover assignment for which concealing identity is necessary for the investigation of a criminal offense, not a civil one, a criminal offense provided that information related to the undercover assignment has been provided to the Milwaukee Police Department. So either for the sponsors or the LRB drafters, it does sound like that initial concern that this would apply to MPD drug cars has already been anticipated and dealt with in the sub before us.

Is that a fair characterization?

That's correct. That's the intent of that exception.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions, comments from committee members? The city attorney's office joins us at the table. Can we speak to the question of the legality of the proposed ordinance as subbed with the understanding miss del Toro mister del Toro kind of threw a gauntlet down that maybe sometimes you do pass something that's illegal in the larger. But is that what is happening here, or is it the city attorney's opinion that this ordinance is legal?

Good good morning, mister chair. Evan Goyke, city attorney. To my left, assistant city attorney Clint Mookie so that members of the public that are present today understand the file before the committee is an ordinance and under the different ordinance, the city attorney is required to sign off on new ordinances to ensure that they're legal and enforceable prior to them being enacted and I've tried my best in the roughly two years that I've been city attorney to partner with the city council and council members to be a part of if it's drafting or the committee process so that we can flag concerns and address them as soon as possible so that the policy work that you are entrusted to do is successful and stands the test of time and that includes withstanding potential legal scrutiny. There is a substitute before the committee today or that the committee may choose to adopt. We urge you to do so.

It makes a small change but an important legal one. The file is introduced originally excluded the city of Milwaukee and there was a state statute in California that did a somewhat similar provision. It applied to it did not up that California provision did not apply to all law enforcement departments within the the state of California and the district court and then the ninth circuit court of appeals struck down that law, on under equal protection arguments because it didn't apply evenly. So the substitute takes care of that. It applies evenly.

There is an enforceability wrinkle with MPD that we can discuss if you'd like. But what we wanted to propose and what the sponsor has put forward is something that would survive a legal challenge. And so I am here today to opine I have to do it again officially in writing, but we're we believe that the substitute as drafted would withstand that legal scrutiny. Barring the technical change, we will read the end of that sentence when it's drafted and ACA Mookie also flagged that there are two paragraph fours. So we'll number them correctly and we'll finish that sentence and I imagine that those changes are minor and will not change our analysis that this file is legal. And we can

touch

on enforceability questions. We did want to prepare and answer those questions because there are some challenges and some limitations to when this ordinance could be effectively prosecuted, but that does not diminish or change our opinion that the file can move forward.

Okay. So city attorney's office says to the best of their knowledge given the sub, the broader sub that is now before us, the legality is something they can sign off on. Okay. Questions, comments from committee members? Alder Taylor then Alder Burgess.

Oh, no. I was going to move for adoption when appropriate. Alder Burgess.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the revisions. The federal case in California stood up to me when that ruling came by. It's great to see that we can react so quickly and make accommodations and corrections to ensure that ordinances that we pass will be legal and enforceable and reflect the values of the citizens in Milwaukee and reflect the values of the citizens and residents in Milwaukee. I ask for unanimous consent to be added as cosponsor as well. Thank you.

Very good. I'll let the record reflect that sponsorship. Any other questions, comments? Mr. Chair?

Alder Brower? Is it if it's okay for members of that amount of the committee to jump in here, I do want to be deferential to you guys here. But I would appreciate some comments on enforceability from the city attorney's office. I'll broadly kick it off by offering the thought that there is the possibility that if our police officers attempt to ask an ICE agent or demand of an ICE agent that they identify themselves that the ICE agent could tell them to take a hike. And that's probably the beginning of the enforcement questions.

You know, I wanna also just broadly say that, you know, if if that turns out to be the case, I at least want and and one of my intents with this legislation is for our police to at least attempt to do something rather than rather than nothing here in this situation. And I mean, alternatives could be also turning on their body camera while they're informing the ICE agents of this. But actually, you know, I'll wait till the city attorney opines on or offers an opinion some thoughts on enforcement before I go into some more details about possible scenarios. Well, I'll start

and then I'm gonna turn it over to ACA Mookie and I'll start very local and then we'll work out in concentric circles to the feds. First and foremost, the file does not define law enforcement. So, a consideration, this is a policy consideration for policy makers. It doesn't change our legal review But that you don't define in the file. The file does not define who you're talking about.

So it thought of whether or not you wanna look to existing state law. Chapter one seventy five of the state statutes defines law enforcement in in context of who has arresting power. To be clear, the ordinance would not be one limitation is for members of the Milwaukee Police Department. They have an SOP as was talked about earlier today in this committee and that our SOPs are what handle violations of conduct and so you have a tension where MPD cannot cite themselves for the violation and assess a fine to themselves. We but we have the SOP where there would be potential consequences for an MPD officer violating this conduct.

So you kind of have it enshrined for MPD in two places. Just want to flag that the MPD is not going to be able to cite themselves and then prosecute themselves for this violation, but that is probably redundant and unnecessary because of the SOP. Second, there are three units, three law enforcement departments that have co occurring or concurrent jurisdiction in the city of Milwaukee. The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department, the Marquette University Police, and UWM's Police and both UWM and Marquette's Police are defined as law enforcement in state law and so they operate exclusively or you know really within the boundaries and we want to take a look at whether or not they have their own conduct or SOP like MPD and so there may be challenges citing them and successfully prosecuting those concurrent law enforcement departments for violating this ordinance and then the third flag is there may be scenarios and I'm not here. I don't have anything in text today where we have shared service agreement or task force agreements where the jurisdictional lines between Greenfield, West Dallas, Milwaukee, Glendale are a bit blurred and multiple officers from multiple departments are working on some task force or project or have some form of agreement and those agreements or contracts or whatever they may be may have language that would make it difficult to to successfully prosecute.

Those are all hypothetical. I I they don't and and again, I'm I don't have a vote on this file, but it doesn't change our legal review. I just we thought it would be fair to flag for members that there may be fact patterns that arise where this ordinance does not result in the successful prosecution of some of the law enforcement members of those local jurisdictions I described. The application to federal law enforcement is is different and I'll turn it over to ACA Mookie to handle that.

Thank you Mr. City Attorney. Thank you Mr. Chair and good morning. Good morning to the esteemed members of the committee as well as those alders joining us virtually.

I'm going to sort of eat the sub from the opposite direction. There is a robust and well established area of law interpreting the supremacy clause of The United States constitution and dating back to the founding generation itself that has been interpreted to prohibit any local regulation or state regulation that impedes or burdens or in any manner controls the execution of federal law. In general, federal officers have immunity when they are performing acts authorized under federal law and when in so doing they subjectively believe that the actions that they take are necessary and proper to accomplish that goal unless their belief was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. Now there as I stated, there is a long and robust set of cases interpreting that in a variety of contexts. And prior cases have stated themselves so this is not merely the analysis of the Milwaukee City Attorney's Office that no federal officer has ever been denied immunity because the court later second guessed the reasonableness of his conduct.

And so in so much as a federal agent were to allege a subjective belief in the necessity and properness of either failing to identify himself by name tag or wearing a face covering. There is at least substantial doubt as to whether or not a federal court would pierce immunity and it's likely that any attempts at enforcing this ordinance would find their way into federal court for the assertion of federal immunity. All that being said, there have been recent cases which have at least suggested that the presumption of regularity normally historically afforded to federal actors may not be applied with the same level of deference that has occurred in the past. But again, at least under all of the existing case law interpreting the supremacy clause to date, it is likely that a federal agent would be entitled to federal immunity under this ordinance.

And I'll just add and then we can take questions on on on these points. Federal law does change. The federal congress is an elected body and, you know, the US house all stand for reelection or election every two years and a chunk of the senate. So there may be you know, I I I don't want to leave the committee members, with the impression that we are, opining that this can never or could never be applied, but there are limitations under current law and current federal law where immunity is likely to be asserted and very unlikely to be defeated. But again, that could change.

That could change a year from now, two years from now, and the ordinance would have different enforceability then. And and just back to a point I made earlier, whether or not an ordinance is used a lot or prosecuted a lot does not capture its entire utility. And I think Alder Brower, I'm now reaching way over my skis and opining on the value of the ordinance, you know, you you mentioned in your commentary about wanting officers to at least attempt or to have some tool to try to attempt to change behavior. And so and I don't I don't want committee members to leave our comments to say this this is a file or an ordinance that could never be applied. It will be challenging.

But some of those challenges could be removed in the future and it could be used more effectively.

Okay. Additional comments, questions? I guess so what I hear you saying, City Attorney Goyke is legal, yep, Enforceability as was commented on given the supremacy clause and its interpretation in federal court. There might be some challenges in an officer writing a ticket because this would be a civil penalty, correct, not a criminal? Yeah.

Penalty. Only a money penalty. Yep. And so there might be well, one, the officer the federal officer might, you know, rip up the ticket as it were and ignore it. And even if it were pursued in federal court, there might be some challenges relating to the deference points of it actually standing up in court.

Of course, as you also alluded to, there might be utility in the ordinance regardless of whether or not it would you know, you can send messages without necessarily being able to affect the behavior should somebody float an ordinance on the books. So, okay, I think I understand the state of play well enough. Any other questions, comments? Mr. Chair? Elder Brower.

Yes, thank you so much. And I really appreciate the city attorney's office's work on this. Thank you. I know that we've this has been moving very quickly and thank you for prioritizing the work of analyzing these. I I really do appreciate it.

With the fines that we what I think this establishes, what I want to see this establish is that when an ICE abduction is occurring and organizations like Voce de la Frontera and other groups have identified and verified that it is an ICE abduction that is occurring, we may have protesters on the scene. When MPD arrives, I want there to be grounds right away for something occurring that's that's wrong. And this this is one tool in that toolbox that that our police officers can begin deploying their body cam technology right away when upon arriving on scene can form ICE that they're that they're violating the law. And, I mean, yes, I would want our officers to attempt to issue a citation. I mean, yes, I do want them to do that.

Whether, you know, the actions of ICE are up to the eye up to that individual agent or what their agency is directing them to do. But if we issue a citation, we stack up these fines. I mean, that does create a civil claim that potentially if the federal law has changed could allow us to, could allow us to utilize and and actually actually win. I mean, that's part of the reason I made the, you know, the forfeiture is not less than $5,000 Let's let's fix some potholes with all these goons out there too. And I thank you for laughing at that.

Yeah. But but for and but seriously though, like, I do want to begin to establish a precedent with how we're interacting with ICE agents that our police are going to be cautious and and look on them with as much suspicion as they look on the criminal element because I do believe these officers are are violating that these ICE agents excuse me. These ICE agents are violating, if not the direct letter of the law, they're violating the the the spirit of what this country stands for, which is to welcome immigrants into this country. So let's at least establish that there's something going wrong, that there's something is wrong with all these ICE abductions that are occurring across the country.

Okay. There are no other questions. Alder Taylor, you had a motion?

Yes, I had a motion for adoption.

Okay. Alder Taylor who has moved to recommend yep, I know. Passage of the ordinance. Are there any objections? If not, then so ordered. Thank you very much.