This is the March 5th, 2026 regular meeting of the Fire and Police Commission.

Present are Commissioners Burgos, Evans, Fong, Schneider, Spence, Spencer, World Patterson, and myself, Commissioner Horowitz.

Commissioner Ramey is excused.

Also present are FPC Executive Director Leon Todd and Deputy Director Jay Pusek.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We will begin with item number one, public comment.

For those who would like to speak and are here in person, please come up and sit at the front table when your name is called.

If you are appearing virtually and have registered in advance to speak, please use the raise my hand feature in the webinar tools and then unmute yourself when called upon to speak.

Each person will be given up to five minutes to speak, and we will begin with the people in person.

The first individual for public comment is Alyssa Cole.

Good evening.

Okay.

Thank you for allowing me to speak today.

My name is Alyssa Cole, and I am part of the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racism and Political Repression.

The FPC has outlined suggestions for policy changes to SOP 660.

While these changes lessen the reason for officers to engage in vehicle pursuits, it does not go far enough.

Vehicle pursuits are deadly, dangerous, and cause unnecessary risks to the community MPD is supposed to protect.

The SOP needs to have the clear limit that vehicle pursuits can only occur in life-threatening emergencies.

When pursuits do occur, they must adhere to SOP 575, releasing the footage to the public and families as outlined.

MPD also needs to be more transparent.

Residents deserve to see how NPD is spending our tax dollars.

Having pursuit data for 2014 only become available in 2025 is unacceptable.

And I just have short amount today, so thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Kyle Welton, and I reside at 133 North Jackson Street, apartment 429.

I come before this body tonight because I'm deeply concerned about the lack of oversight that allowed a Milwaukee police officer the ability to track his romantic partner and her ex through flock safety.

This officer logged into the system and searched for these individuals a total of 179 times.

The reporting on this incident states the department's policy is that officers must list the reason for every search, including the case number and the law enforcement related purpose for the search, but Officer Ayala simply listed investigation each time and was granted access.

While this conduct alone is chilling and disturbing, it is even more concerning when you consider the broader context.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Officer Ayala had been accused of dishonesty on the job.

In 2022, a federal public defender wrote that Ayala had exaggerated so much in his testimony and reports that it almost seemed, quote, like a compulsion.

Ayala had also been disciplined at least three times in Milwaukee as a result of internal investigations and came under investigation three additional times while working as an officer in Glendale, where he once repeatedly tasered a man during a drug arrest.

Despite a pattern of dishonesty and misconduct, Officer Ayala was not placed on the Brady list until two months ago and was still provided access to a system that allowed him to electronically surveil his girlfriend and her ex with taxpayer-funded resources intended to protect the public.

Officer Ayala has a deeply troubling pattern of conduct that makes it clear he cannot hold the public's trust in enforcing the law.

And thankfully he resigned yesterday and he should be barred from ever holding office again.

But his ability to access the flock system to surveil his girlfriend and her ex is the result of a systematic failure of oversight.

If the department's policy requires that the officer list the reason for every search, including the case number and law enforcement related purpose for the search, how was it possible that Officer Ayala accessed it 179 times with just the simple phrase investigation?

The advances in technology have given law enforcement incredibly powerful tools for criminal investigations that, as shown in this example, are also ripe for abuse.

While it is the duty of each officer to uphold their oath to support the Constitution and abide by the law and department policies, it is the duty of the organization's leadership to create safeguards against such egregious misconduct that violates the civil liberties to which all Americans are entitled.

Perhaps the most disturbing fact is that the department didn't catch this.

One of the victims did.

By using the website, have I been flocked.com, which posts audit logs from FLOC obtained through FOIA requests.

Officer Ayala's conduct alone should have been grounds enough to ban him from accessing such a database.

But clearly, there is no review of the searches being made by the department's leadership to ensure the officers aren't violating the Fourth Amendment with unreasonable searches.

Policies without enforcement are merely suggestions.

And MPD must do better to safeguard our constitutional rights.

There is no reason access to Flock data should be available without a review of the request by someone in the department or the DA's office to ensure the officer is accessing the information with legitimate law enforcement purposes.

Officer Ayala is a bad actor who exploited a system that had no guardrails in place.

This commission should demand a full audit of all flock requests to ensure there is not a broader pattern of abuse and ensure that systematic controls are in place to protect the people of Milwaukee from such unreasonable searches in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kay LaFord or Lafond.

Can somebody else go first?

Sure.

Amy Donahue.

Hi.

Okay, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, good evening.

Good evening.

Thanks for having me.

I'll be pretty quick as well.

I'm Amy Donahue.

I live in the River West neighborhood.

Like many folks who will be testifying tonight, I just want to add my voice to support of the audit and any and making the strongest recommendations you possibly can against flock and surveillance by public safety in our city.

And to one thing that I've been kind of sitting here trying to figure out is what the FPC's role is in kind of pushing things to go in other directions.

So I just want to encourage you just looking at these numbers, the amount of money and resources that are wasted and like actually harming people in our community, and maybe finding ways that the FPC can make recommendations about better uses of money, right?

If there's things that we can do towards behavioral health and root causes of things and make recommendations, specific recommendations for the city council to use that money in other ways from your auspices of the Fire and Police Commission.

Yeah, again, I've been here before, I've seen you all before.

Thank you for taking the time and um and yeah, we don't want surveillance and don't want this money to be used in these ways.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kaelin Arlt.

Arlt.

Sorry.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Kaelin, and I am here once again to express my distrust in the Milwaukee Police Department.

Given MPD's history, we cannot trust them to enact real accountability on officers violating the law.

I am disgusted after hearing about Officer Ayala's abuse on the flock cameras to track someone he was dating and that person's ex.

Officer Ayala was previously disciplined three times after internal investigations by the MPD.

These consequences, details of which are not public, did not serve as a deterrent, and neither did the three investigations he faced while serving as an officer in Glendale.

Officer Ayala was accused of groping a woman during a drug-related arrest and using excessive tasering on another individual in a separate arrest.

Especially damning, however, is the fact that Ayala was finally placed on the Brady list after his recent abuses were discovered.

He should have been placed on the list long ago after it was noted by a federal public defender that he had a compulsion to exaggerate details in his testimony.

Any of Officer Ayala's examples of misconduct and illegal behavior should have landed him on this list, but it didn't.

Because the system is built to defend itself and not to seek justice.

There is a coordinated effort by MPD to protect its own before protecting the public.

And this is only one of the examples that we know of.

How many more Josue Ayala's are in the MPD?

How many more abuse cases need to pop up before MPD realizes how intrusive and violating this technology is?

We need accountability.

We need to feel safe, and mass surveillance is not how we achieve that.

We urge you to cancel the contract with FLOC, remove all the cameras, and issue a ban on ALPR technology.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And for members of the public, I did want to just point out that Flock or Alper is a subject that the FPC is already planning to audit this year as part of our 2026 audit plan.

The next uh individual is Mackenzie Arnold.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'm here as a concerned resident of Milwaukee, demanding the city be deflocked, as has been stated already.

There are significant concerns around the surveillance technology and its frequent misuse and abuse by law enforcement.

Today I'm asking you will the data from the flock cameras be accessible to the public?

In the city of Everett, Washington, a resident submitted a perfectly legal open records request for the data from their flock cameras, seeking to understand what data is being collected.

In response to this, the city decided to turn off their flock cameras altogether, with a judge setting the precedent and ruling that the data constitu constitutes as public record.

To be clear, the city of Everett chose to shut the cameras down, citing concerns that access to these cam to these files could fall into the wrong hands as public record.

But there's no such thing as the right hands when it comes to this such this much data that allows people to be tracked.

The only abusers of this technology have been law enforcement.

We, the public, have seen numerous cases of abuse of this technology at the hands of police officers.

Officer Ayala's personal use of the Milwaukee flock cameras to stalk the person he's dating and their ex is just another example of this surveillance technology falling into the wrong hands.

So if we're concerned about hypothetical abuses by the public, then we should be significantly more concerned about the numerous proven abuses by law enforcement.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kayla Ford.

My concern earlier was that um I wanted folks who got in the comment stack first to be able to comment first, so I don't know if you can flip it over or something.

Um I'm a therapist.

I am also a survivor of domestic violence.

I live at 5002 North 55th Street, Milwaukee.

My name's Kay LeFond.

Umusive police officers have more access to weapons, surveillance, reputation, and importantly, narrative control.

They show up to domestic violence calls first, they control the scene, and they write the initial report.

This means leaving officer abusers is exceedingly more difficult than leaving civilian abusers.

This is such a widespread problem that there are entire organizations, foundations, and networks dedicated specifically to helping people escape officer-involved abuse.

Despite their pain and suffering, you are considering the expansion of systems that can answer questions like where is her car?

Where does she sleep?

Who is she visiting?

Survivors already change routines, jobs, schools, and child exchanges.

Do we want them to have to automatically leave the county as well?

We don't have to imagine the risk of surveillance abuse.

We have already seen it happen locally, on repeat.

That's the statistically predictable outcome.

Research consistently finds higher rates of physical aggression in law enforcement families, somewhere between 20 and 40%.

Who knows where Milwaukee falls on that scale?

Who knows how many officers think to themselves, I'm not abusive, I never hit a woman, but would justify abuse of these tools?

Who knows how many even think I never weaponize surveillance, but when faced with the reality of their power and their feelings, would still find a way to justify it, perhaps claiming safety concerns for themselves or their former partner.

Abusers already cite safety concerns to get survivors locked up, ripped from their children, and forced into psychiatric treatment every single day.

They will abuse Flock while saying it's about safety.

In actual work with perpetrators and survivors of domestic violence, stalking and monitoring are treated as high risk indicators because they're about entitlement and escalation.

Abusive police officers will not magically keep it out of the workplace, although that shouldn't be good enough for you.

Supporting Flock means adding a futuristic dystopian layer to the waking nightmare that officer involved abuse survivors are already living.

Don't do it.

If you care about survivors, please please reject any and all use of automatic license plate readers and insist that the common council should have budget authority over FLOC spending and increases.

Thank you.

Zoe Gonzalez.

Good evening.

Hello, my name is Zoe Gonzalez.

I'm part of the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racists and Political Repression.

Thank you for having us all today.

I'm here to show support of more definitive and clear rules regarding police chases where the police are to adhere to a standard operating procedures where they are not to conduct chases except for an extreme life threatening situations and be clear and more steadfast in informing the public of their procedures and data and use of our money and their resources.

Not just in regards to police chases, but many other situations when we give MPD or any law enforcement entity more relaxed rules and less oversight, more lives are endangered.

We should not allow the police to police themselves when there are countless examples where they choose to act against the public rather than protect it.

These chases affect the people in pursuit, causing death and injury, the sense of safety in neighborhoods they occur in, people's trust in the system that they had been told that they are there to protect them and families that have been affected by injury and death of people in pursuit.

Many say that the solution should be flock technology, and I'd also like to voice my disapproval disapproval of the use of it, as many here have noted today.

It will undoubtedly be used for the wrong things and result in just another way for law enforcement to act on their racial prejudices, and as an example set by Ayala, using it for their own personal agenda and further affecting the safety of the community.

Thanks.

Stevie in the hallway.

Okay.

Oh, here.

Is that Stevie?

Yeah, I think so.

Good evening.

Sorry.

Okay.

If cops like Ayala don't prove that mass surveillance is a public safety threat, the security vulnerabilities do.

To start, the cameras are easily hackable.

Researcher John Gaines discovered that by pressing a button on the back of a Flock safety camera in a specific sequence, a wireless access point can be created, effectively hacking the device in under 30 seconds.

In 2025, he published a paper analyzing three flock devices, including license plate readers, and found that the devices had no mandatory two-factor authentication, unencrypted credentials, and operated on outdated operating systems that are no longer supported.

In a conventional penetration test, these findings would be classified as high or critical due to the inherent risk of unpatched vulnerabilities within the system.

Various professionals have identified similar vulnerabil vulnerabilities and shared this with Flock as a warning, but the company has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the claims.

Gaines has over a decade of experience in cybersecurity.

Most people wouldn't know how to hack a flock device even with the code he provides in his paper.

But thanks to Flock's cybersecurity malpractice, you don't even need to be a hacker to expose their data.

A YouTuber Ben Jordan was also able to use a commercial search engine to access Flock administrative interfaces and view the raw footage as it were as if it were Netflix for stalkers.

He was able to see footage from over 70 Flock safety cameras as individuals went about their daily lives on bike paths, sidewalks, park trails, and children's playgrounds.

None of the data was encrypted, and there was no username or password required.

I thought that was bad, but actually gets worse.

An accidental data leak revealed that Flock outsources overseas gig workers in the Philippines to review and classify footage from over 80,000 flock cameras.

These workers are paid low wages and operate without background checks or security clearances.

The process known as data annotation trains Flock's AI to detect license plates, vehicle types, clothing, and potentially demographic traits like race, reading raising serious privacy and ethical concerns.

So not only is Flock putting millions of Americans' personal information at risk, it's shipping that data overseas to train its AI models at a low plate price by exploiting workers.

After Gaines came out with his research, two lawmakers, Senator Ron Wyden and Rep Raja Krishnamorty, called for a federal investigation associated with the national security risk of Flock safety and its devices.

They alleged allege that Flock has been negligently handling Americans' personal data by failing to use cybersecurity best practices.

The month prior, Wyden wrote a letter to the Flock CEO, Garrett Langley, alleging that Flock security failures meant that abuse of flock cameras is inevitable and that they threatened to expose billions of people's harvested data should a catastrophic breach occur.

Wyden also wrote in my view, local of elected officials can best protect their constituents from the inevitable abuses of flock cameras by removing Flock from their communities.

So I'm urging all FPC members to do the same and act within your full capacity to dismantle these devices and ban similar ALPR in Milwaukee before the technology is inevitably abused again.

And speaking of Netflix for stalkers, I'd also like to point out that in Milwaukee's 2023 to 2027 buying plan, it's like the Milwaukee Police Department wants to spend 125,000 on Axon's FUCSIS software.

Like Flock, Axon is another ALPR dealer, but they also sell other surveillance technology and software like FUCSIS.

FUCSIS is a real-time intelligence platform designed to integrate and unify live video and data feeds from diverse sources such as body worn cameras, in car cameras, drones, license plate readers, and private and public surveillance systems into a single actionable view for public safety agencies.

We do not want invasive software like FUCSIS in Milwaukee, especially considering the muse use and abuse cases of the current tech that we've seen that it's been used for stalking.

Many cities that canceled Flock turned around and signed contracts with Axen for similar ALPRs to replace them.

Any and all ALPRs must be banned along with the other invasive tools.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ashley, and I'm not sure the last name it's difficult to read, starts with a D.

Dodger?

Dodger, perhaps?

She's coming.

Okay.

Good evening.

Hello.

I'm Ashley.

I am a resident of Milwaukee, and I'm I am here to speak against the use of flock cameras.

Because this is not actual safety.

This level of surveillance is a tool of fascism that can be used to target specific individuals for any number of reasons, mostly vindictive and personal, and not actually for solving crime.

Why are we inviting this unnecessary tech into our community?

I have an open mind, but an open mind for progress and safety, not for this creepy, unnatural surveillance.

There is a pattern with policemen and the stats show it.

These abuses have happened before and will happen again, and worse, I must assume.

And people are waking up, and the fight against this will never end.

The dismissive response that flock isn't going anywhere from our police chief.

It's just unfair when he goes to an apart-time country to train with literal terrorists.

Why are we taking direction from this person at all?

He should be fired.

Do the police think that they are above us?

Do the police want peace?

Do they want to work with their community?

I feel sick over this paranoid and fear-based world we live in.

We want peace and safety in our city.

And these for-profit technologies will never keep us safe.

Please care about the community and work with us and see us as the humans that we are.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Corey Tomasek.

I think he's also.

Okay, they're hearing you.

Yeah, they can hear others.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'm calling for MPD to cancel contracts with Flock to remove all Flock technology from the city and to put a ban on any ALPR technology, as FLOC is not the only company that provides these services.

This technology is dangerous to the residents of the city.

With or locally, regardless of any SOP or guardrail, it's prone to abuse and misuse as shown by the case with ex-Officer Ayala.

At a federal level, with the current fascist regime, has put our migrant and marginalized groups at risk.

It's also scary the parallels of surveillance in the US to that which Israel has used in their genocide on Palestine.

And there's so much more to say about this technology, but I want to focus on FLOC, the company itself.

FLOC is a nefarious company that pushes to get its foot in the door with ALPR contracts.

With the initial contracts, they present a product that is limited under the guise that ALPRs do not provide live video monitoring, which will be better received and more likely for a contract to be approved.

Once the initial contract is approved, Flock then pushes upgrades that do provide live video and can convert existing non-Flock IP cameras to operate on Flock OS, amongst their other technologies.

They do this all the well, guiding police departments and navigating around council approvals when possible, either when they are aware of an approval is not needed or by suggesting upgrades whose costs fall under specific approval thresholds.

This point holds true here in Milwaukee, where the budget for the FLOC contract was increased by 82,000 up to 180,000, which was not approved by common counsel.

Um renewal of the contract does not need common council approval as our institutions and laws right now are right now, and an older woman even recently expressed concerns about this at a budget and personnel committee meeting.

That's not the only thing FLOC guides police departments on either.

Flock coaches police on denying record requests and inserts itself legally into that process.

A document provided by FLOC themselves titled Guide to Flock Safety Data for Open Records Law, recently updated in 2025, so it's an active document, specifically points to FOIA requests and outlines how government agencies can avoid providing requested information.

Additionally, in some of its contracts, it creates a duty for customers to notify Flock and to delay open record responses when public record requests are submitted.

There is wording specifically in the Grafton Wisconsin contract stating FLOC requires reasonable prior notice.

FLOC is purposefully providing legally questionable guidance on avoiding transparency, which is the opposite of what MPD claims to want to provide.

Finally, once these technologies are installed, they are hard to get rid of.

Last year, in Verona, Wisconsin, City Council voted to end this contract with FLOC after community concerns were raised over the company's data sharing with federal law enforcement.

Instead of dismissing the public's legitimate concerns, the city council listened and acted.

But the cameras are still there months after the contract was ended, because FLOC is dragging its feet to remove them.

This delay prompted the city officials to cover up the cameras to prevent them from collecting more data from the city.

This is an example of how hard it can be to roll back the surveillance apparatus after it's already been implemented.

A task made all the more difficult when the company is uncooperative and doesn't resp respect local governance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Aurelio Saha, Milwaukee resident and member of the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.

In reference to the SOP on vehicle pursuits, what exactly constitutes about to commit a violent felony?

Language and officer vague language and officer discretion leads to profiling and discriminatory practices.

Surely, if a chase is to happen because someone is actively committing a violent felony, it sounds as though this should be considered a critical incident and have to follow SOP 575.

Furthermore, the lack of transparency in reports, such as a nine-year wait time for pursuit data is nothing short of negligent.

There should be routine release of pursuit data, such as monthly or quarterly, specified in the SOP.

Thank you.

Rosie G.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Rosie Garcia.

I am a resident of the South Side of Milwaukee, a member of the Milwaukee Alliance Against Political Repression, and the professional behavior analyst.

I am here to speak against SOP 660, its ineffectiveness, and to offer personal experience with car chasing.

These interventions are added, modified, or removed based on strictly or strictly based on observable measurable data, not on perceptions, intuition, preference, or beliefs.

When I evaluate a treatment, the first question I ask is Is there evidence of a positive effect on the client or their environment?

As apply as I apply this approach to Milwaukee's pursuit policy, I ask the same questions.

Do these chases actually decrease reckless driving, car thefts, or violent crimes?

Is it accomplishing as its tend its intended purpose?

Or at the very least, does it help residents feel safer?

I have researched the research and found no evidence that car chasing has a positive effect on city residents, nor does it decrease crime or increase a sense of safety.

On the contrary, there is ample research on its negative effects.

Even the 2024 FPC Vehicle Pursuit Resort report fails to demonstrate that SOP 660 is achieving its intended goals.

The report gives information of the pursuits, but it does not show any positive impact on the crime it claims to target.

On a more personal note, we must measure the effects these pursuits have on the community overall.

For this, I offer my own personal experience.

Two years ago, I moved to the South Side to care for my nieces and nephews, ages two, three, and four years old.

Every week, or almost every week, I observed at least one police vehicle speeding past my window.

After a crash occurred right in front of my doorstep, I became petrified to leave my home.

I stopped walking on the sidewalks with my children.

I was scared to drive my car because I had to park on the street due to lack of parking space.

The anxiety began to affect my daily decisions, and I preferred to stay home rather than expose my children to any accidents.

But safety should not be a luxury.

Many in my community do not have the opportunity or desire to leave their home.

Even if they have the same concerns about car chases as I do.

And they should not have to live in a constant state of hypervigilance, fear, and anxiety.

As a behavior analyst, if an intervention showed no data of success and caused significant harm to the environment, I would be professionally obligated to remove it.

There is no evidence that car chasing is effective in reducing reckless driving, violent crimes, or car thefts.

Again, on the contrary, we have overwhelming evidence of the harm it causes.

We need a policy that prioritizes measurable community safety over high-speed unproven chases.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Robin Christensen.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

My name is Robin Christensen.

I'm a resident of West Town, and I'm here to deflock Milwaukee.

That means canceling the contract with Flock, removing all the associated cameras, and issuing a ban on using any automated license plate reading technology since Flock is not the only ALPR company.

Every day I drive by the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility, and the police presence there is always highly visible and audible.

Well, companies like Flock do is take that level of surveillance found in a towering jail and give it to the police department on a near unthinkable scale across the city.

As if the MPD were to send out a car from that jail as I drive past it in the morning to follow not just me, but each and every other car in the city in the city, tailing us all, silent and invisible everywhere we go.

Milwaukee has a problem, and it is the fault of AI surveillance technology.

We have the news that MPD Officer Josue Ayala abused flock surveillance technology to spoke to stalk multiple people.

We've heard about the multiple failures and oversight that prevented his abuse of this supposedly safe technology, but this is not a chance event caused by just one officer.

It is a predictable consequence of a system that is designed to be invasive, designed to be unaccountable, that is working as intended by invading the privacy of citizens.

At a February community meeting with local organizations, the MPD and the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office confirmed that U.S.

immigration and customs enforcement can access the flock data collected by our city and the county, regardless of any Milwaukee policy.

Milwaukee's policies do not stop the use of flock data collected in our city by any other departments who have access to use it as they please.

To see an example of how far this can reach, take the recent case of the AI company Anthropic, which was uh threatened by the U.S.

Secretary of War to hand over their tech with no restrictions so it could be deployed into an autonomous weapon.

The government threatened to blacklist anthropic, meaning they never get any other business in the U.S.

Now take a company like Flock, which already sees itself at war with local communities and disdains anyone trying to limit its reach.

We've heard of the ways Flock uses delay tactics, the way they use deceptive sales practices, the way they use insecure technology to get a foothold in a sort of silicon valley act first break things mentality, but the public safety of our citizens is not, should not be subject to this level of experimentation and this insidious reach, which is expanding in Milwaukee.

Take the 219 Flock cameras found by the Fox 6 News Report in 2023, and the hundred more that were planned at that time.

There's the bloated Flock contract that jumped from 100 to 180,000 overnight without any council approval.

There's the 125,000 that MPD wants to spend on Axence Fusis technology, which we've heard as an even more dangerous and all-encompassing iteration of this surveillance.

Flock has had multiple problems with obtaining proper permits and licenses and has faced multiple lawsuits, claiming that the company's ALPR system violates constitutionally protected rights.

In 2025, at least 30 localities have either deactivated their Flock cameras or canceled their contracts outright due to concerns backed by the local PD, uh by backed by local police department misuse cases.

The common council does have power to provide oversight on Flock in Milwaukee.

It can give the finance and personnel committee the ability to vote or it can give the committee the ability to vote on the approval of all sole source contracts, and it can show how to bring real safety to Milwaukeeans by working to de-flock Milwaukee now.

Again, that means canceling the contract with Flock, removing all the associated cameras, and issuing a ban on all automated license plate technology.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Ben Slowe.

Good evening.

Um I'm uh resident here in Milwaukee.

I live in River West.

Um I'm also a local reporter here in Milwaukee.

Um, and I'm extremely concerned about the implementation of mass surveillance tools like Flock, when our society already censors, silences and punishes the dissenters and the truth tellers, while enabling systemic state overreach and patriarchal abuse to continue.

Hence Hoswey Ayala.

What if someone says, does or publishes something the state or an agent of the state doesn't like?

Could such an offense subject that person to unbridtled surveillance?

We are not far removed from these scenarios when bills like the vaguely worded AB 672, which would have enacted harsher penalties for individuals, quote, acting as an agent of the of a foreign government or terrorist organization, end quote, were recently considered.

And while a bill like AB 446, which would adopt criticism of Israel into the national definition of anti-Semitism is currently being considered.

Coupled with the political climate where these bills are even entertained.

The implementation of this technology is a crash crash crash course into unfettered technofascism.

DFlock Milwaukee cancel our contract with Flock, remove all the cameras, and issue a ban with all ALPR technology.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kevin Saz Perez.

Good evening.

D Flock Milwaukee.

Cancel the contract with Flock.

Take all the Flock cameras down and ban all FLP.

Sorry.

I was stuck on the FRT stuff.

ALP and that too, but uh ALPR technology.

Um so those are the bank the demands.

Um please talk about using this for Flock for public safety, but it does not create a more safe community for us.

Uh these are cameras.

Cameras record things, they do not prevent crime, they do not create safe communities.

And uh so we want things that actually will create safety.

Um there's a lack of transparency.

We saw with the lack of transparency in how FRT was used, and now the lack of transparency with Flock, it took the Fox 6 investigation to find where these cameras are.

Um obviously lack of transparency how officers are using it, um, and that's not keeping our community safe.

Um, when it we did see where the cameras are are placed, a lot of times in um majority black neighborhoods, low-income neighborhoods, places that are already burdened by over policing, and uh it's just another justification for racist and biased police tactics of the use of these flock cameras.

There uh has been studied, uh, one for sure out of Syracuse University that I know of um that showed that ALPR technology misreads the state on a license plate one out of ten times.

That's 10% of the time that it's misreading the state.

That's not even the documented times that it has misread a number or a letter on the license plate.

And so this is leading to people being wrongfully arrested, um, people being pulled over, them and their kids at gunpoint.

That's not creating a safer community.

This is this is uh creating more danger, more mistrust, uh, more worry and fear within our communities.

The the more surveillance there is, the more that that distrust is is created.

So uh, yeah, we asked that um the the demands of of getting rid of these flock cameras, uh these tools have been used as a uh you know, under the guise of public safety, but they've been used for the the personal benefit and personal power gains for of police officers, um rather than being used to actually serve the community, and so if if we're just gonna see misuse and abuse, um we we don't want them.

We want them banned, um, we want the flock um contract ended, all the cameras taken down.

All ALPR technology banned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chard Velez.

Good evening.

Um, I want to return briefly to the question of automated license plate reader data and federal access.

There has been some public reassurance recently that data sharing with federal immigration authorities is limited, but the current written policy does not reflect that assurance.

The governing policy, SOP 735, explicitly allows sharing with other law enforcement agencies, including for homeland security purposes.

So my first question is straightforward.

If the department's state of practice is non-sharing with ICE, as Chief Norman has said in public forums, how is that practice actually enforced when the written policy still permits that sharing?

Without a policy change, what exists today does not read as a prohibition, but perhaps a soft expectation.

And that leads to a second issue, I believe, which is structural.

Even if a policy were adopted tomorrow restricting cooperation, the technology itself creates a vulnerability, as many here have spoken to tonight.

ALPR systems allow searches to be run by officers across departments and jurisdictions.

Federal agencies do not always even need direct contracts with these systems.

Across the country, reporting has shown that federal immigration investigators often obtain information by asking local officers to run lookups on their behalf, sometimes formally and sometimes informally.

In other words, access does not always come through official agreements.

Sometimes it comes through a simple request.

And all it takes to break the supposed barrier is one officer somewhere in the network agreeing to run a search.

Now, it may be true that these systems maintain logs, but logs are not prevention.

They are a record after the fact.

And we have already seen locally that misuse of police databases can occur even where there is logging.

So the real oversight question I have for you is not simply whether logs exist.

It is how would the commission detect and deter these kinds of informal searches before harm occurs?

How frequently are ALPR searches audited, and what triggers review.

And how would the commission know if an officer ran a search on behalf of another agency in a way that was inconsistent with local policy, whether that be official policy or the kind of soft policy that I've spoken of?

This matters because the common council has been considering measures and adopted some measures aimed at preventing collaboration with immigration enforcement.

But operationally, ALPR systems represent a structural weak point.

Right now, sharing is formally allowed under the existing SOP, and even if that changes, the system still creates that pathway for informal access that may fall outside of what the public believes, because that's that is what the public has been told is happening.

The question for oversight is whether the current safeguards match the real capabilities of the technology and whether they match the promises or public statements that have been made.

Because if the policy says one thing, but the system allows something else, then the public assurances we are hearing do not actually describe the reality of how the system can be used.

Again, I want to call attention to a circulating fact, FAQ, purported to be from the MPD on this issue of ICE cooperation, and to its assurance in the fact that data will not be shared.

That FAQ is irresponsibly far from what the SOP is as it is currently written.

So again, SOP 735, I believe must change if it is to reflect in reality what the department has been saying publicly that its policies are.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Arthur Bolis.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you all for taking the time to listen to public comment tonight.

My name is Arthur Bolas.

I'm the resident of the South Side of Milwaukee and a member of the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.

I'm here today to talk about MPD's pursuit policy SOP 660.

I appreciate the community's effort to modify the policy.

After reading the suggested changes, I'm afraid it doesn't do enough to keep us residents safe and hold MPD accountable.

Allowing a pursuit when an officer thinks someone is about to commit a felony leaves the door wide open for cops to take advantage of the policy to engage in unnecessary changes and putting the residents of our city at risk.

I'm asking for that line to be stricken out.

The policy needs to be further amended to have real accountability for incidents resulting from police from a police pursuit.

These choices need to be called what they are critical incidents and must adhere to SOP 575, releasing all and any video to families and to the public as outlined in that SOP.

Um I was here last October for MPD's little slideshow presenting data on the PRZUTs.

As far as I could tell, this was the first time that they have made the public data from that previous year available and have yet to release any further data.

Uh this is unacceptable unacceptable, and they must start providing comprehensive statistics on a regular business on a regular bias.

Uh we deserve to know how, why, and how often cops are speeding through our city.

I'm also asking for MPD to release the costs stemming from any lawsuits that result from a PRZUT.

The public deserves to know how much of our tax dollars are being wasted with these chases.

And um, I actually would like to request that agenda item 13 tonight uh regarding the pursuit policy changes um be moved up to after public comment.

And since I have a little bit of time, I just want to echo a lot of people here tonight and um call for a complete ban on FLOG and surveillance technology.

Um there's numerous reasons why, many outlined here tonight, and I just want to add that um the company Amazon umbring uh who is its own surveillance monster, has canceled the partnership with Flock after the public outcry um of that Aurelian Super Bowl commercial.

So if a company like Ring doesn't want to do business with Flock, I think that kind of emphasizes the danger that it presents.

Um thank you all again.

Amanda Merquay.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Amanda Merquay, I'm the advocacy director uh for the ACLU of Wisconsin and a Milwaukee resident.

How are Milwaukee residents currently surveilled?

FLOC's automatically automatic license plate reader system, cell site simulators, also known as Stingrays, the integrated community connect surveillance camera network, um integrated by FUSIS, shot spotter, gunshot detection microphones, drones, open source intelligence tools, what else?

Many law enforcement agencies across the country purchase data from third-party data brokers as an end run around the Fourth Amendment.

Do we do that?

Who knows?

At the absolute bare minimum, we need a framework for transparency about existing surveillance tech.

In many cities, including Milwaukee, decisions to acquire and use surveillance technology are made by police departments in secret without any knowledge or input from the public or elected officials.

In response over the past ten years, local community control over police surveillance ordinances have been adopted in 26 jurisdictions across the country to provide transparency and democratic accountability.

I think it's wild that the common council and FPC may not be privy to the answers to some very basic questions about these technologies used to surveil Milwaukee residents, such as how does the technology work?

What is the intended purpose of each technology and after its use, is that still the purpose for which it's being used?

What and whose information is being collected and how is that data stored?

If the technology is not uniformly deployed throughout the city, what factors are used to determine where the technology is targeted.

For example, if you take the shot spotter map and you look at the redlining map, it's the same map.

Um what potential adverse impacts does the surveillance technology have on civil rights and liberties?

What standards must be met if uh sharing surveillance data with third parties, whether that's a private third party or another government entity, which is maybe a goopy question if federal agent if federal agencies already get direct access to the fusion center.

Public records obtained by the ACLU reveal that FLOC Safety's nationwide information sharing network allows external federal, state, and local law enforcement to access sensitive license plate data from dozens of uh Wisconsin municipalities and counties without a warrant or meaningful oversight.

And as of folks have mentioned, um police departments have also searched informally um the database on behalf of um the FBI, DHS, and Border Patrol.

Flock surveillance network spans at least 5,000 police departments.

Um estimates from the National ACLU are closer to 7,000.

In Wisconsin, at least 221 Wisconsin law enforcement agencies use uh FLOC, including Milwaukee.

And according to an analysis of Flock audit data published by the Wisconsin Examiner detailing searches between January 1st and May 28th, 2025, um, the MPD and stack performed the most flock searches of all Wisconsin law enforcement agencies during that time period, with nearly 40,000 searches originating from MPD alone appearing in network audit data from the Wawatosa Police Department.

Concerningly, the reason um for the search investigation was used over a thousand times and just INV period, over 500 times, and that's only within a five-month period and 2025.

If the MPD or Fusion Center are sharing data with FLOC's national database, police from the thousands of outside jurisdictions can track Milwaukee residents and those driving in the city for work and entertainment, including immigrants, people seeking health care, elected officials, and other targets of the federal government as long uh as they drive through our community.

Finally, there's a concerning pattern um related to the procurement process around surveillance tech in well, across the country, but also here in Milwaukee.

Recent flock contract approvals have all received sole source contract waivers that don't require even um finance and personnel committee approval.

Um it's our understanding that the requirement for singular sole source uh contracts be approved by the fire uh finance and and personnel committee under the city charter weren't applied to flock contract amendments on the grounds that the contract involves services related to proprietary products.

Um PD's uh past contract with uh FUCSIS, integrating all camera and other surveillance systems, also sole source.

MPD's contract with tactical support equipment inc for cell site simulator equipment, also sole source.

Um in addition, when surveillance tech is donated to MPD from the Milwaukee Police Foundation or other private entities, I have no idea how oversight works.

Ultimately, Milwaukee residents should not be surveilled in secret.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Excuse us.

Um could you give me a copy of what you were reading?

Sure.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'm Emilia DeTori, executive director of the Milwaukee Turner's attorney hall.

Uh I'm glad you were all able to retain some of your power and that you can still determine the salaries of police and fire chiefs.

So on to the today's topic.

Uh after it came to light last week that MPD officer Josue Ayala used MPD surveillance tech in this instance, at least he used Flock cameras 179 times to spy on his lover and her ex.

Uh the public has almost as many questions and concerns uh and outrage to this and to other things.

I want to say yes to everything that uh my comrades here have mentioned before.

And I think between us we have hundreds of questions which are unanswered.

And I'm here to ask some of these questions in the hopes that FPC can shed some light on this.

Um essentially, this is a list of questions.

How many officers currently have access to FLOC?

How many officers had access to FLOC at the time of Ayala's abuse, and how do we vet and monitor their use?

Uh if Ayala was able to use FLOC to search for his lover and her ex 179 times, only using the word investigation as a justification, what new protective measures have been put into place since then to prevent this?

And can an officer just type the word stuff and have his request go through?

It's it seems so.

Has there been a complete audit of all the hundreds of MPD officers who have had access to this surveillance tool, including what they attempted to monitor and the justifications they provided?

It appears the victim found out she was being secretly monitored by Officer Ayala through a third-party watchdog site and not through internal police monitoring.

So knowing that, what safeguards are being put in place to make monitoring more secure and our privacy more secure?

Can the FPC explain how surveillance and location data from Flock cameras are integrated or used in conjunction with surveillance data from social media trackers, cell sites, simulators, cameras, and all the other surveillance equipment and software that we heard about today and have heard about in the past?

Uh in addition to the SOPs, uh the Char and Amanda and others uh brought up and the other types of surveillance techniques, what are the procedures and protocols for MPD to share with or request information from the federal government via our fusion center?

Or are agreements as part of the HIDTA?

Now I noticed that the Department of Justice's high-intensity drug trafficking area, the HIDTA page hasn't been updated since 2008.

And it reminded me how quaint the Obama presidency seems right now.

Uh are we still considered is Milwaukee still HIDTA?

I don't know.

Uh what is the nature of our information and surveillance sharing agreements with the federal government as a result of our partnership due to this status?

Because it's an entire other way that this information can be shared with the federal government.

Does this work separately from our fusion center?

Either our local Milwaukee Fusion Center or the two statewide fusion centers?

I don't know.

Uh, how is all of this information shared interdepartmentally at the fusion center?

I'm fairly certain that the process has changed dramatically since their inceptions in 2001 and 2005.

What rules and safeguards protect us from officers and other jurisdictions from accessing the flock camera data?

As we heard, there are at least 7,000 other police departments nationally that use flock, and it appears as though they, as well as ICE, indirectly or directly, can access the surveillance data we collect daily through straw man usage or other means.

And what protects us from this and who monitors and audits this on the regular?

We really have no idea what oversight is.

Finally, and I hate to say this, but we told you so.

We said this would happen in this very room.

We and the Equal Rights Commission discussed how this would happen, uh, probably happen in their rooms.

And we talked about this incident uh at the Common Council too.

And the County Board of Supervisors warned that this was a honeypot of information, the creation of which was begging to be stolen, and they advised against these repositories of non-stop surveillance, facial recognition tracking, license plate tracking, cell phone tracking, social media tracking.

Comically, it appears that Chief Norman discovered this happened with Ayala in December, seven or eight months after Ayala was stalking these people.

And late as that was to catch this, that also means the chief knew this while we all pushed against the insidious facial recognition technology they were attempting to deploy.

Do you know how the public feels, understanding that the police knew how surveillance was being abused and exploited while they were fighting to add still more surveillance to monitor us?

We told you this would happen and it did.

And really, if you don't rein it in, it's going to happen again.

Thank you.

Paul Fing.

Good evening.

Hey, I'm Paul.

I'm from a part of Barper, Milwaukee Alliance Against Political and Racist and Political Repression.

Back again to speak, what third time in a row, fourth time in a row, something like that.

Um I appreciate that this council uh is putting SOP 660 and the police pursuit policy back on the agenda, and I'm hopeful.

But the complete lack of accountability, transparency, broken trust, secret trips, secret trainings, abuse of uh surveillance technology going over this council and the community by the MPD and its police chief.

Um over the past two months have eroded what little existing trust that I had in the Milwaukee police system.

Only by extensive and immediate community-driven changes to end police vehicle pursuits, except in extreme life-threatening situations, deflocking um Milwaukee, replacing uh Chief Norman and so much more will a path to repair even be possible.

Um February, MPD pushed uh change to SOP 660, adding more criteria for pursuits to occur when reckless driving happens.

This change did not address the NYU experts or citizens' demand demands to end police vehicle pursuits except an extreme or except for uh yeah, except in extreme life-threatening situations, but added more words to say the exact same thing as it always has before, which is to continue to allow pursuits for reckless driving and then to rely on the officers' discretion.

History shows that doing this results in more chases, more injuries, more deaths, with no proven prevention of crime or apprehensions.

With addition with the addition of reckless driving wording in the 2015 SOP pursuits, uh the number of pursuits increased from around 100 to 300.

When the wording broadened in 2017 pursuits exploded from 300 to 1,000 chases a year, around 1,000 chases a year.

These chases are dangerous as stated by MPD and their own SOP 660.

So why are we increasing the numbers by 100% or by 10%?

Also, what data is MPD using to justify this lackluster change in the impact of it so far?

History shows otherwise, and in 2020 and the 2024 pursuit data was only made available to the public in October 2025.

Are we supposed to be taking MPD's word that they have this data and that it's working as expected?

Look at how that's turned out so far.

Look at why we're all here today.

We need MPD to eliminate reckless driving and ambiguous warning from SOP 660, ultimately ending police vehicle pursuits except in extreme life-threatening situations, and then hope and then hold MPD uh to be more transparent by continuously providing public uh with the data on these dangerous pursuits.

I'd also like to echo a lot uh today about flock and MPD's abuse of it.

The abuses of flock cameras by Officer Ayala is terrifying.

The lack of power of the SOP to prevent or discover this until a citizen reported it is terrifying.

And the MPD's complacency to protect this officer over the public is damning.

People say people will say that uh Ayala was a bad cop and that other good cops won't do this.

But how can we trust MPD's word after this case after MPD didn't place Ayala on the Brady's list after three offenses?

Or when this type of abuse is happening regularly by law enforcement in Wisconsin with multiple cases like Greenfield or Greenfield Police Chief Jay Johnson, National Police Officer Christian Morales, and Kenosha Sheriff's Deputy Frank McCarthy.

The SOP is not preventing or discovering abuse, and the MPD is projecting or protecting abusive officers over citizens.

The only course of action is to de-flock Milwaukee.

You must cancel contract with FLAC and remove all the cameras and issue a ban on ALR ALPR as FLOC is not the only ALPR company.

MPD either cannot or will not protect uh Milwaukee citizens from its own officers abusing FLOC, so this council must do that.

We have been shown by MPD that we need community-oriented policing, and this council will be a citizen's voice in public safety now more than ever.

We need actual changes to protect citizens, not MPD.

Please listen to all who speak and have spoken today and actually make items for change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Ellery Extense.

Hello.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Ellery.

I'm a resident of the Kilborn Town neighborhood.

Um I'm here today to ask the Fire and Police Commission to deflock Milwaukee.

Uh cancel our contract with Flock, remove all Flock cameras, and issue a ban on ALPR technology to ensure no flock competitors of competitor companies like Axum can be collaborated with as well.

Um is not dependable to do the job of reading plates accurately.

Um, across the nation, there are a number of cases where people are pulled over because an ALPR identified their plate as that of a stolen vehicle.

In every case, drivers are removed from their vehicle at gunpoint and detained, um, only for the officers to later realize the mistake uh made by the ALPR first and compounded by their mistake of not double checking the plate.

Many of the people subjected to wrongful ALPR detentions are filing and winning lawsuits after going through these traumatic and often costly encounters with the police.

ALPRs like FLOC contribute to negligent law enforcement actions and a dangerous environment of suspicion and fear.

To avoid the high financial and social costs of AOPR wrongful detentions, uh the FPC should deflock Milwaukee.

Thank you.

Tiffany Stark.

Good evening.

All right, let me get my pages right.

Okay.

My name is Tiffany Stark.

I'm a Milwaukee Alliance member, acute mental social work and community advocate.

Thank you to the FPC that continues to work with us to make these important changes to police policies.

I would have been at the last FPC meeting on February 19th, but I was at another FPC meeting.

However, I heard SOP 660 would be back on the agenda.

As we know, vehicle police pursuits do not make the community safer.

It actually causes more trauma.

I do not know if this recommendation is being made due to the community outcry and or because of the current lawsuit filed on 226 in the death of Mari Smith.

But I am glad to see some more changes coming to SOP 660, as we know the new policy implementation on the 6 as it stands would not have saved the lives from 2024 and 2025.

Not any in the present as it's the policy doesn't go as far enough.

I've had read the recommendations and agree with most of it, but I also have some additional demands to be added.

Policy change 66 says vehicle pursuits are justified when the occupant occupants have committed, is committing or about to commit a violent crime.

I propose changing the wording to exclude or is about to commit a violent felony, as this relies on individual officer discretion.

Number two, accountability.

We want all police pursuit chases to be treated as critical incidents when injuries and deaths occur in accordance with SOP 575, and any and all videos of the pursuit must be available to the families in 48 hours and the public in 15 days.

MPD needs to be more forthcoming with all pursuits.

We want data around those dangerous pursuits with MPD to provide monthly quarterly reports to the public and FPC meetings to include data of total numbers of pursuits, the reason for the pursuit, and the number of accident injuries and deaths.

Speaking of data, my daughter's father, Anthony Higgins, who died October 2025 from his injuries from a vehicle police pursuit in June of 2024 has still not been added to the total number of fatalities in 2025.

It should be 10 deaths and in 2025, not nine.

His life mattered, and I'm requesting MPD finally update their data to reflect this in their reports, providing accurate information.

It is very triggering to hear this on the news every single time there's only been nine deaths.

It's traumatizing because his life mattered.

I mean, the medical examiner said he passed away due to those injuries.

The young boy that I'm conflicted about that now is being charged for second degree reckless homicide.

So why isn't this data matching up?

It's really making me angry.

Speaking of lawsuits, which more I'm certain will be coming soon related to the vehicle police pursuits.

We want publication of public funds spent on lawsuits as the public deserves to know how much of the tax dollars will be warranted on MPG's costly police policies.

We already know the mayor's view on the police chases, and don't be surprised of pushback by his office.

He publicly stated a reckless driving form in November 2025.

You only see the news on the news when there is a negative outcome.

But most of these police vehicle pursuits are going just fine.

He said, let's revise let's rewind seven years ago when someone could flip off a cop and read run a red light and they couldn't do nothing.

Sorry, this is not an appropriate policy to chase based on your ego being bruised.

However, I'm very concerned with rep Bob Donovan recent legislation.

He also is behind the push to reenact these vehicle police pursuits along with the prior MPA President Mike Cavallo in 2017.

And now pushing for legislation at the state to make it harder for Milwaukee City Common Council to pass police policy with a unanimous vote versus two-thirds vote.

We will continue to fight this legislation and will be calling the Milwaukee City elders to vote in change this policy and hope Chief Norman will do just the right thing and will do the right thing and change this policy once and for all on his own.

Because ain't no power like the power of the people because the power of the people don't stop.

And we are going to and we're not going anywhere.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Hello.

First, I want to remind everyone that we still need to fully ban FRT, and we need a ban on deadly exchanges to prevent our police force from ever training with a genocidal Zionist entity again.

I also support calls to ban high-speed police chases.

Today I will speak to an additional demand to deflock Milwaukee.

This means canceling our contract with Flock Group, removing all the cameras, and issuing a ban on automated license plate readers because Flock is not the only ALPR company, and all of them are susceptible to these abuses.

An MPD officer has finally been caught abusing data from ALPRs.

With over 600 officers having access to the tech, Officer Josue Ayala is surely not the only one, but the first to be caught.

Or perhaps more accurately, the first the public has been made aware of.

MPD boasts that they have strong SOPs to govern the department, but the SOP on ALPRs did not prevent Officer Ayala from abusing it repeatedly, nor did the SOP uncover the abuse.

As we've heard, it was actually one of the victims who discovered the abuse by using have I been flocked.com, a website I have also used.

I held my breath while searching my license plate on the site, worried that officers I've alienated by speaking out here at the FPC may be tracking me.

Ayala's victim input his license plate into the site and saw it was searched 55 times by Officer Ayala.

He then filed a complaint with the MPD, the victim did.

So it's worth repeating.

It doesn't matter what an SOP determines is necessary.

What matters is what officers are willing and able to do.

A case study takes us to Austin, Texas, a city known to have implemented one of the most restrictive ALPR programs in the country, and it still failed.

Austin is also the city that rejected Chief Norman's application to be their police chief.

Anyway, an audit on the Austin Police Department's program revealed that over 20% of ALPR database searches lacked proper documentation or justification in violation of department policy.

The audit also revealed contract language allowed for data retention beyond council mandated limits on retention and potential sharing with outside agencies.

This demonstrates that even the most restrictive guard rails are meaningless without compliance, and failure to comply here is a risk to public safety and to our rights.

Even if a police department has an airtight SOP in place, the data is accessible to other jurisdictions who do not have an obligation to follow local policy or have weak policies of their own.

FLOC group's own guardrails are a joke, and the company tries to pass the book of responsibility with its continued appeal to local policies.

This means nothing when Flock's data sharing network does not account for how law enforcement governance varies by jurisdiction.

Some communities may have a good relationship with their local police who solicit their input on what policy should look like.

We do not.

But no one has the same relationship with hundreds or thousands of other agencies who can access that local PD's data.

It's hard enough to hold officers accountable in our own cities.

Now imagine if an officer on the other side of the country violates our privacy, it'd be even more difficult to hold them accountable.

I was here the night MPD lied about no longer borrowing FRT when it was revealed that MPD had been lying.

We were all outraged, and it led to you, commissioners, deciding to prepare a recommendation or a directive on FRT, which I expect you're still following through on.

If you are outraged about FRT, you should also be outraged about ALPRs.

The vulnerabilities and the lack of complete control over the data means any outside law enforcement agency with FRT capabilities can take our flock data and run it through their FRT software.

If we don't want MPD using FRT on residents, we shouldn't enable any law enforcement agency to do that to our residents.

That means eliminating the possibility outright, because we must not trust the protection of our civil rights and liberties to those who violate violate them the most often, law enforcement agents.

Many of us have been emailing the common counsel about deflocking Milwaukee and there is support among the alders.

An FPC recommendation to ban the use of ALPRs would reach open ears and willing minds.

And I must point out that not a single comment here today has been in favor of FLOC.

Lastly, I have to comment on how today's meeting was moved up from 5 30 to 5 p.m.

start time.

This is at least the second time this year, and both times have been when Milwaukee for Palestine and other organizations have called for mass mobilization to a meeting.

As a member of the public, this feels like an undemocratic ploy to silence our voices by making us miss the opportunity for public comment.

And I'd like to know if you have an explanation to share with the public for the reason for this.

I do.

Um it was not moved.

Uh the meeting time was always 5 o'clock for this meeting and was never moved up or changed.

Uh there have been times in the past historically where uh the regular meeting would start at 5 30.

Lately, for the last few months at least, we've been starting at 4 30, unless there is an executive session, and depending on how long the executive session is expected to last.

The regular meeting starts uh immediately thereafter, so it could be 4 30 or after that, depending on the executive session.

But the meeting times are always provided in the notice, uh, which we try to publish approximately a week before the meeting.

Um, I would recommend some kind of notification system.

Yep, um, so that the public doesn't have to keep double checking the agendas for meeting times.

Diego Garcia.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Diego Garcia, a member of the Milwaukee Alliance.

And I just want to draw attention to the weakness of the current wording of SOP 660, which essentially states an officer can choose to start a chase if they believe a violent felony is going to occur, which frankly, if I had a dime for every time myself, my comrades or my friends, you know, have had that perceived both of them that'd be a very wealthy man.

You know, as they do not have a great track record, especially with people, you know, brown black folks.

Uh, you know, as I mentioned last session, you know, faith with MPD is an all-time low, you know, whether it's the chief going on a trip to Israel, whether you know he uh admits, you know, that you know they have been using FRT, or the fact that uh an officer, one that we know of, is using flock for personal use, which is straight up disgusting if you ask me.

I firmly believe, you know, that faith between the community and the city you know can't be amended by making and enforcing policies that hold the MPD to a transparent and accountable standard, you know, to the community polices.

The current wording of 660 does not do that.

You know, and so what the Milwaukee Alliance demands is to have a stricter policy around the car chases, you know, so there's no level of ambiguity, you know, so it's clear cut, right?

You know, all video related to these vehicular incidents, which these are critical incidents, guys.

You know, like you know, people you know that I know, you know, even outside of my comrades, you know, I've been affected by and have PTSD as a result of it.

And also, you know, the MPD should be, you know, reporting this data on these car chases on a regular basis, not you know, months or years after the fact.

You know, and just as uh, you know, outside of you know the Milwaukee Alliance's demands I want to express the strongest of unity, you know, to deflock Milwaukee.

You know, and additionally, you know, I'm very uncomfortable by that officer, you know, using flock for personal use.

So the best way I think, or I believe that a community can know like if they've been flocked or not, or how the MPD's been using it is if there's just a full-scale audit of every time you know it's been accessed, right?

You know, by a member of the Milwaukee Police Department.

And I'm gonna add on uh just a request for you guys here, you know, that Arthur shared is that I'm just requesting that any sort of you know talks about the standard operating procedure just being moved up on the agenda.

I understand uh there's a lot of people either receiving promotions, transfers, or whatever else, but uh I could safely, you know, assume that everybody's here for the center operating procedures.

So if you guys could do that, that would be really great.

Thank you.

I don't recommend you're gonna read the next name.

Oh I'd like to take that meeting.

Take it 13 minutes and that's what I said to you earlier.

If that's all right.

Sure.

Okay.

Angela Lang.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Um, I want to say my name is Angela Lang, and I am one of the co-executive directors of Block, Black Leaders Organizing for Communities.

Shout out to the team.

I'm here to talk yet again about concerns with increased surveillance technology.

I've come before you in the past speaking against facial recognition technology and talked about the dangers of increased surveillance, harassment, and racial profiling.

As Mr.

De Torre said, we told you this would happen.

While the police chief announced a ban on acquiring additional FRT for now, the whole time flock cameras had been abused.

Last week it was reported that now former officer Ayala used the technology over and over and over again to stalk and harass someone he was dating.

Where's a protect and serve mentality for when cops when this is what cops use their position for?

We know there's also been other instances across the country of misuse with this technology, and I'm here with so many others to say deflock Milwaukee.

This technology has proven to be only abused, and they there could be more instances that we unfortunately don't even know about.

There needs to be an audit, and I know you mentioned that there will be an audit.

There needs to be transparency in its findings with the community.

MPD has proven time and time again that they don't keep us safe.

They should not continue to get a dime for new toys to play with that are funded through our tax dollars to oppress, stalk, and harass the same community that they swore to protect.

I also echo the sentiments of everyone else here about police chases.

Police chases do not keep our community safe.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I've been to these meetings three or four times before, uh talking about facial recognition technology and how I didn't trust it.

I'm here again to talk about the flood technology and how I don't trust the technology.

I don't trust our police department to use the technology.

I don't trust our city council to do something about our police department using this technology.

And I don't trust you during your 2026 audit of flock to adequately examine and be proactive about this issue.

Like 6:30, and this reason you go to the other meetings and you're there to like 11 or 12.

I know you care, but we simply don't have the evidence and track record to trust that you'll do something.

And the same thing goes with the operating procedure for the police chases.

You should have been on this already.

Like this is a known issue.

It's been an issue for decades.

And yet here we are again.

Having a divorce are concerned when you should already be doing this.

No, I have faith that you'll do your best, and I have hope that you'll follow through on what you're probably gonna tell us you're gonna do.

That's all Ajack Johnson.

Good evening.

Good evening.

So this is my first FPC meeting.

Hi, I'm AJAC.

Um I guess I'm just kind of baffled.

I've been doing a lot of thinking recently, just on this whole American experiment that we have.

This idea that we came up with of a liberal government of the people, for the people, by the people.

And I think that it's a really great day when a room can be this full.

But I think it's also a really bad day when a room can be this full.

I mean, I I'm just thinking of all of the things that have come up today, and I mean, like, we it was mentioned with the with Flock that there's action being taken.

I I clearly don't think there's enough action if we've got this many people in the room.

I mean, we've got uh death as a response to uh high speed pursuit that's not being recorded.

I mean, the number should be zero, but if there's ten, there should be ten.

And I just don't get it.

And uh I know to the best of my ability just about like the the regulatory just like the constitutional power that this commission has and to the way that Milwaukee police department's self-determination has just been strangled throughout time, but I really feel like maybe we're just not trying hard enough.

And I guess I just don't know.

I I mean I could just go on and on and on and on with statistics, or I could go on and on and on with allegories or whatever, but I mean, I just really think that like there's gotta be something, right?

Like, legitimately.

I mean, we we're spending all this money on lawsuits, we're gonna continue spending all this money on lawsuits, and we know we're gonna spend all this money on lawsuits.

Meanwhile, I mean we've got a war on the poor, we're towing cars for the sake of being able to meet the city budget when instead we could just stop spending city money on bailing out people who are breaking the rules.

And I'm not anti-law enforcement.

If I have a situation at my home where my safety's at risk, I'm gonna call law enforcement.

But the more we go through these cycles, uh this room gets filled up.

It goes into the press.

We all know that it's gonna go into the press.

People read that.

People who don't have the capacity or maybe the knowledge to make it into this room, but do have the the the feeling to think like before they call 9-1-1.

Do I want to do this?

It's calling 911 safe for my neighborhood.

It's calling 911 safe for me.

And uh then you know, uh on the conversation about justice.

Sure, maybe these license plates would mostly inaccurately, but sometimes accurately help us catch violent criminals.

Well, guess what?

If there is not the faith in this commission, if there's not the faith in our police department, if there's not the faith in our city government to do its job, which it's consistently failed to do, that includes us.

Then that's not gonna comply.

I mean, after arrests, there's trials, right?

If we've got people who aren't willing to testify, they're not willing to testify.

If you've got situations in which we've got the wrong person, we've got the wrong person, the right person's still out there.

So I just uh I just literally cannot comprehend.

Like why I mean, why these chases are going on?

Why the flock cameras are still out there?

We know that they don't, like we know that they don't do the thing, you know.

Um so I don't know uh there's been so much brilliant insight shared, and I do appreciate that our city has uh I mean the the folks who couldn't make it, and all of you who could, people who are willing to come out, and people who are willing to listen, and people who are willing to take notes.

I've seen which of you have more and which of you haven't, and willing to go home and think about this and swallow this and come back and make your best recommendations for the city.

But I do think that part of all across Wisconsin, what we're seeing is a little bit of a learned helplessness.

As the state legislature continues to take away local power and continues to take away individual freedoms, not just to free speech, but to freedom from surveillance or fourth amendment, Fifth Amendment rights.

I think that we've got a mandate to do better.

I think we've got a mandate to meet them halfway, and I think we've got a mandate to fight like hell.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh who can you trust?

Who can you trust?

That's the slogan that was born out of the uh movement to uh have justice for Derek Williams, who died in the backseat of a car begging for his life, uh begging for six minutes and didn't get any justice.

I'm with the Milwaukee Alliance against racism and political repression.

Um actually I'm very encouraged and quite enlightened by all the little research that the wonderful young people have done here today.

Oh my goodness.

So thank you for all you that done the hard work and the research.

I'm in full support of doing away with uh 660 as it currently exists, and I am full, it's a full full support of uh system respenses uh amendments to such uh chase um operating procedures, and as been mentioned by the Milwaukee Alliance members, we do want um video, we do want video recordings of any uh incidents that become of a critical nature.

Um standing here, sitting here also in fully supported deflocking our city.

Thank you for all of you uh sisters and brothers that came out here with that important information.

I didn't realize how flocked we were in Milwaukee.

I knew we were flocked, believe me, I've been here all my life.

We're a flock bunch of people for sure.

Uh but again, thank you for the wonderful research to the we need to do away with that.

And by the way, while I was doing some of my own research in the back there, there is a spray that we can get.

You spray it on your license plate, and I guess it somehow uh doesn't allow the cameras to see your place.

So that's something we it's uh called uh photo blocker spray, so that's something we might want to consider.

We'll bring our photo blocker spray, and we can all spray each other's car after the meetings.

Um but it occurred, and by the way, thank you, um Sister Spencer.

Uh, this is the kind of initiative we've kind of been waiting on.

I can't I've been scratching my head.

I can't remember the last time that the the fire and police commission actually took the leadership and helping us shape policy.

So uh this is very refreshing.

So please continue to help us shape policy bus for the people and not the police.

Um by the way, uh notice that Chief uh Norman is digging his heels in, you know, he's really big old technology.

I'm gonna use technology.

And so as he digs his heels in, I got a feeling he's gonna be against us having anything more better than what he already come up with for Chase policies.

And I got a feeling certainly for us being flocked.

But so keep in mind with the dozens and dozens of people that I've witnessed in the last few meetings.

Oh, you'll have our full support in getting our city deflocked, we'll fill up the chambers of City Hall, and we'll certainly uh come up with a better uh peace chase policy uh than we have now.

It'd be better to have no chase policy.

And lastly, um well, actually I have two last weeks.

Uh I have a question and then a lastly.

My question is how do we get it on the agenda?

We want a full account of Chief Norman's trip to Israel.

We want a full account of that.

So my question is do I need to write a letter to get a full account?

Because uh siding with genocide still does not uh sit well with me at all.

And of course, our dear mayor also hosted four mayors from Israel last year as well.

Just really poor judgment up on behalf of our leaders.

But lastly, we still want you to sue the state and get rid of Act 12.

You got a brilliant lawyer here on your left uh uh uh sister Horwis, and we got a brilliant lawyer up there in City Hall.

Let's get let's do away state 12 is prejudice, it's racist.

The only city in the state that has been um flocked like this.

And so the uh keep in mind we got your back if you got our backs, all right.

Thank you.

Stephanie Connors, good evening.

Good evening.

Um thank you for taking the time to listen to all of our comments.

Very important comments.

Okay, um, so obviously I'm here speaking against flock and deflocking in favor of deflocking Milwaukee.

Um, we have to make decisions based on the evidence that we have, and we have the evidence.

If the harm outweighs the benefits, it is not the correct path forward.

In terms of any possible benefits, statistics show that flock cameras are not actually as effective against crime as touted, primarily by flock itself.

In terms of harm, as we have heard and will continue to hear, the the abuses are rampant, and the potential um kind of abuses that are possible are endlessly vast.

The data acquired by ALPR and flock cameras is not safe from general public access, period.

No SOP can stop that, and backdoor deals and access are always in practice, as you know, and we have myriad evidence of something made even more uh something made even more terrifying while we live under a fascist government.

We are watching use every tool in its power and outside of its power to oppress, kidnap, and kill American citizens.

The evolution of this technology itself is moving at an insanely rapid pace that we do not have the protections necessary to stop the abuse of, period.

Which means it is inherently harmful to the safety of our communities.

It is not as as it is glorified by those pushing for it, a neutral crime fighting justice tool.

Um and one thing that I think is so critical to call attention to in this conversation is that once we and this is so important to me because this is how time and making these things happen works.

So um once we have the physical equipment in place, it's just a smooth slippery slope to increase the technology without checks.

And that that really is terrifying to me.

So we already have 231 flock cameras and um a budget recently increased to 180,000 without external approval because it was not required, which is not shocking that that's the route we took, and a police chief who is all too eager to embrace this technology despite critical concerns and public outcry.

Um, and so increasing to uh this kind of a contract, which I'll get to is exactly the kind of thing that could be put in place overnight.

So I just want to read um an email that was obtained from an employee, I'm guessing a salesperson.

Literally, the title of the email is add live video to your LPR 500.

That's it.

Like a leg a discount deal commercial coming into your inbox, except it's the PD.

And it says, and it's from Kevin Cutler, beautiful Kevin Cutler from Flock Safety.

Okay.

Which is also just inherently oxy moronical to have Flock and Safety as the email address that you're sending from.

But yes.

Okay.

It says, gentlemen, hope you're doing great, exclamation point.

I think I failed to mention this upgrade that we have available.

It's definitely something you can take advantage of without going to council as well.

So, like this company is already primed to say, here's how you can supersede the preventions that are in place, the governmental bodies that you have to be responsive to.

That's laced into how they are pitching this.

Um without going to council as well.

You can set live, you can set the live video camera to view the roadway or have it facing in an adjacent manner to cover other areas needed on the same poll.

Um it goes on to say it says here's the short version.

We've been adding live video to existing LPRs as part of a bundled solution and are seeing strong results.

Boop boop boop, three strong results.

Um you might be thinking, isn't that already possible?

I love this language, it's like a whole ad pitch.

Isn't that already possible?

It is, but what's new is the pricing.

You can now upgrade your existing LPRs for just $500 a year and a one-time $150 install fee.

Um we can also do this on all new LPR cameras moving forward.

It's an easy low-cost way to increase the value and coverage of your current camera network.

And I'd love to set up a quick meeting to get your feedback on how your team would use this.

Plus, if it makes sense, review your locations and identify where we can bring the most value right away.

So, like increasing the technology that is in these cameras is just the easiest thing to do to make a deal and make happen.

And as we know, this body does not have the powers that it should have in place in order to be able to stop that the way that it should on its face.

So, and this is where I got to less not structured in the end of my comment.

But we just have a we just issued, the police chief just issued a moratorium on FRT, and the same thing should be issued on the further purchasing of these cameras until we figure out how we are actually going to protect this community from the abuse and the violence that results from them.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Rihanna Rihanna Henderson.

She's coming from the hallway.

Okay.

Almost done.

Almost.

Well, while we're waiting for her Israel Webb.

Good evening.

Hello, how are you?

Um partially both nose and improved effort with a MPD and sheriff's department.

Um, my issue is um with the people who sit on boards and um the courtroom and detectives and everything, because even if a police officer does do everything do everything like to the library correctly, follow protocol and procedure, things seem to go wrong.

Because we had an issue not that long ago when there was courtroom officials and people associated with law enforcement and other entities involved in law enforcement and department of corrections, you know, involving like you know, ludex and inappropriate behavior and then like evidence getting tempered with and everything like that.

So it was like, you know, this creates an issue too, even with a police officer who goes out there and puts his life on the line, and then there's a stigma of you know, people in a more comfortable situation making a mess.

So now that creates more distrustful people.

So I just want to bring that to attention.

Okay.

That is all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Rihanna Henderson.

I think someone's gonna go see.

Okay.

Oh that very blue liquid that Chrissy's thinking.

Good evening.

Hi, my name's Rihanna Henderson.

I'm with Reproductive Justice Action Malaki.

Um, like many other people here tonight.

I was extremely disturbed to hear about Officer Ayala's misuse and abuse of flock camera systems, but not surprised, as this was completely predictable.

There are a growing number of cases of government overreach enabled by Flock, especially alarming is a Texas law enforcement's use of a national national nationwide flake flock database to follow a woman suspected of a self managing an abortion.

Documents and court records obtained by electronic frontier foundation shows that Texas deputies queried Flock safety surveillance data in an abortion investigation, conducting contradicting the narrative promoted by Flock and the Johnson County Sheriff that she was being searched for as a missing person, and it was about her safety.

But an event investigation revealed that the Johnson County Sheriff's Office actually conducted a nationwide search of more than 83,000 FLOC ALPR cameras, giving the reason in the search log, had an abortion, search for female.

The searches in this case may have violated laws in states like Washington and Illinois, where restrictions exist specifically to prevent this kind of surveillance overreach, but those protections mean nothing when a Texas deputy can access a camera in those states with a few keystrokes without external review that the search is legal and legitimate under local law.

Nevertheless, when the subject showed up at the sheriff's office a week later, officers were under the impression that she came to tell her side of the story about the non-viable fetus.

They interviewed her, inspected her text messages about the abortion on her phone, and watched her write a timeline of events.

Only after all they that did they learn that she actually wanted to report a violent assault by her partner.

The same individual who called the police to report her abortion.

She alleged that less than an hour after the abortion, he choked her, put a gun to her head, and made her bake for her life.

In addition, the sheriff that conducted the search has since been arrested and indicted on felony counts in an unrelated sexual harassment and whistleblower retaliation case.

Right?

He has also been charged with aggravated perjury for allegedly lying to a grand jury.

And VLAC continues to lie about this to this day.

On their website, they have a story that they helped a missing woman, asserting that journalists and advocates covering the story intentionally misrepresented the facts, describing it as misreporting and clickbait driven.

This case reveals the fundamental danger of allowing companies like Flock Safety to build massive interconnected surveillance networks that can be searched across state lines with a minimal oversight.

When a single search query can access more than 83,000 cameras spanning almost the entire country, the potential for abuse is staggering.

Particularly when weaponized against police seeking repro reproductive health care.

I am asking you deflock Milwaukee, ban Flock, remove the cameras and other surveillance tech that we have in Milwaukee, and as others have said, stop the police chases.

Because no data retention policy is protection enough.

When the infrastructure exists, it will be abused.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ron Janssen.

Last one in the first time.

It looks like three.

There's three people with their hand up.

You're good.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Um really have a lot to say.

That there's really not much left to say, right?

Except for that we keep coming here and telling you things are gonna happen.

Hundreds of people come here to tell you things are gonna happen, and then they happen.

Some people judge you for the things you say, other people try to silence you for the things you have to say, and yet like the reality keeps coming true.

You know, I don't even know what's on the agenda tonight, and I don't much care, but like this department is loaded to the brim with criminals, Milwaukee Police Department.

They refuse to take action.

The chief lies to cover for people.

Um, this newest incident, they didn't even fire the guy, they let him resign.

And as we know, that leads to these people being in other departments to do abuses again and again and again.

And so I will say this again.

Chief Norman is a coward because he refuses to take action in these instances where he is supposed to be a leader.

He's supposed to be the guy who protects us.

I don't believe he does, but that's a lie he tells us.

And so you know, I understand that this body has been gutted through various means by the state government.

But we have got to be very vocal about making a change here.

I believe you all have the power to fire the police chief.

Is that correct?

Only for uh cause.

Shh.

Yeah, I I would argue we do have cause.

I would think lying by omission to the public about the use of FRT while feigning uh the production of an SOP.

I think that's probably cause.

Um I think refusing to fire people who have committed criminal acts and instead letting them resign.

Presumably, I assume those people will then get some type of benefit out of the department afterwards, is probably for cause.

Um let's not forget the other criminal actors.

Uh Juwan Madlock, I believe, was the guy's name who I asked the chief personally, hey, when did you know about this criminal behavior?

And he just said, he basically just said, like, well, I didn't know until the feds came and told me.

That's not great, guys.

It's not great.

And yet we just reappointed this guy, and I think we gave him a raise.

Um and yet we have to keep turning out here with you know a hundred people every few weeks to push back against some other horrific policy coming out of this department.

This department is killing people, it is stealing our futures in the form of tax dollars.

Every dollar that goes into this department is a horrific waste.

I walked in late.

There's five squad cars sitting outside idling.

That's greenhouse gases, it's a waste of fuel, it's a waste of resources, it's a waste of man hours.

What are we doing?

If we cannot accelerate the removal of lead pipes from this city, if we cannot invest in infrastructure, jobs programs, health programs, we are losing.

So all of that is just to say, like, I I don't know.

I don't know what else we can do through this body.

Um, I think it's uh very useful as a sounding board to push uh the conversation forward.

Clearly that that has worked in some ways, um, but we've got to find a way to defang this department and and really start to focus on uh the health and the well-being of the residents of this city.

Um that's all I really have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bridget, is there anyone um appearing virtually for public comments?

Yes, uh, director, we have three people appearing for uh public comment.

Um first person would be uh Janine.

Second would be Ruth.

Last would be Julie.

All right, good evening.

Uh Janine, if you could unmute your uh your mic and then make your comments.

Hi there.

Thank you for taking comments tonight.

Um, my name is Jeannie Lupo.

I speak today on behalf of Enough Is Enough, a legacy for Aaron.

Our mission is to eliminate criminal reckless driving that results in innocent injury or death.

Our primary work is court watch in Milwaukee County, where we observe and report on the sentencing outcomes of fleeing and reckless driving cases.

First, I have a couple of one procedural question and one suggestion.

Can you I've I've looked at the agenda several times.

Can you tell me what agenda item is this flock camera supposed to be discussed in?

That item is not on the agenda.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Um, the other is a suggestion that I wondered if it would be more productive to take the public comments after your discussion of the agenda item.

Um, like for me personally, I would have liked to have heard your rationale for um I'm gonna speak on the uh the operating procedure change, but it might have helped me a lot to hear your rationale and your explanation before my comment.

But I'm happy that you're willing to take my public comment.

Um I question the intent and necessity of additional changes to the pursuit policy.

The police department has already announced and implemented changes and presented them publicly alongside Director Todd.

Further revisions create confusion for citizens, for officers, and for offenders.

It undermines clarity and can embolden lawlessness.

We must remember that reckless driving, fleeing, and endangering safety are choices made by drivers.

The criminal, not the officer, is the source of danger.

The vast majority of citizens stop when police signal them.

That message must remain clear and consistent.

Stop for the police.

We often forget that these men and women who are fathers, sisters, mothers, and spouses risk their own lives daily to keep the rest of us safe in our communities.

Upon reviewing the proposed changes, I'm concerned about unintended interpretation.

If officers cannot initiate staffs for speeding alone, are we signaling that speeding is acceptable?

Speed is the foundation of nearly every reckless driving case we see in court.

Many defendants would have received a traffic citation had they simply stopped.

Instead, they now carry felony convictions, one of which cannot be expunged.

That is life altering and often the result of a short-sighted decision to flee.

Vision Zero funded a whole campaign about speeding, we can live without it.

Does this change andor dismiss and thwart all of their efforts?

I'm also concerned about language suggesting that if continuation of a pursuit increases danger, it must be terminated.

If fleeing drivers learn that certain reckless maneuvers, such as driving on the wrong side of the boulevard or on the wrong side of the street, automatically cause officers to disengage, we risk incentivizing exactly those behaviors.

Policy must allow for reasonable common sense discretion by trained officers on the street.

Research from the National Institute of Justice emphasizes that the certainty of being caught is a stronger deterrent than the severity of punishment.

Effective policing, swift and certain, prevents crime.

Limiting officers' ability to intervene reduces deterrence.

The greatest public safety message we can send is that fleeing will not succeed.

Most importantly, there should be equal, if not greater effort devoted to public education.

A traffic stop is temporary, a felony conviction is permanent, compliance is always the better choice.

Finally, I have a specific clarifying question.

Does section six regarding refusal to stop pursuits for lesser offenses override or negate the prior limitations in the policy?

I'll do my best to answer that.

So refusal to stop the answer, short answer is no.

So refusal to stop is where uh someone uh does not uh stop uh in response to uh an attempted police stop, but they are going nevertheless or a reasonable speed and are not uh taking uh either uh excessive excessive speeding or invasive maneuvers to uh to flee from the officer.

That's considered the fleeing where a refusal to stop is is exactly that, but it doesn't have an increased speed or uh evasion, it's it's still a reasonable speed.

Okay, that makes sense.

Thank you for the explanation, and thank you for your time and for carefully reconsidering whether further policy changes enhance or undermine public safety as well as the effectiveness of our police to ensure it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next district.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Ruth Erigott.

My daughter Erin and her unborn baby were killed because someone chose to drive recklessly and flee the police.

The pursuit was ended quickly, but the driver continued his reckless driving until he killed my daughter as she was simply sitting in an intersection waiting to turn.

Through advocacy work and the time spent observing how these cases move through our system.

I've seen firsthand how serious but yet how complex this issue is.

It's reckless driving, the decision not to stop, and pressing the accelerator instead of pulling over.

These are the decisions which put officers, passengers, drivers, and our community at risk.

You know, we ask our officers to protect the public from those who disregard the safety of others.

And the vast majority of our officers carry out their responsibility every day with commitment and integrity.

Despite underceptions to the contrary.

These officers deserve the tools and support necessary to do that job effectively.

A job that few of us would do.

This means supporting tools like the vehicle empowerment law, traffic safety cameras, towing authority, and continued investment in responsible technology, which helps identify offenders so they may be held accountable.

If one tool is limited, others must be strengthened.

Without this, what are we saying to those who would do harm to our community?

It was the responsible use of technology that assisted the police in finding and bringing to justice my daughter's killer.

The community is increasingly fatigued by reckless and aggressive driving.

People are tired of it, tired of fleeing vehicles racing through neighborhoods, and tired of feeling like the rules no longer apply to some.

In response to fleeing, we must be very clear and meaningful.

Drivers who choose to run will be identified and held accountable.

And we must strengthen the tools needed to do so.

And when we discuss this pursuit policy, it's important to remember the message we all send.

We must be careful that this does not unintentionally create the perception that police won't chase, therefore press the accelerator.

That's worth the risk.

When police activate their lights, the expectation is clear.

You pull over, you stop.

Our policies, our enforcement, and our courts must all work together to reinforce this.

That's my message.

And I really appreciate the time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lastly is Julie.

Julie.

Julie.

Hi, Julie Kirchhoe, Milwaukee County resident.

This meeting is currently on your city website, the City Channel streaming schedule for 5 30 p.m.

I can send you screenshots if you like.

I just wanted to make that correction since someone was on record saying it wasn't.

And I'd like to comment on MPD's response to the abuse of the Flock camera system.

In a recent interview regarding FLOC, the chief was reported as saying this technology isn't going anywhere.

Another out-of-touch response and a pattern of dismissive responses from the MVD to the grave and legitimate concerns from the public.

The chief's defense of FLOC has been that he claims it helps solve crime.

But the data out there does not support this conclusion.

And it certainly doesn't support any conclusion that the handful of cases claim to have been solved with the help of Flock outweighs the cost to resident privacy and safety.

It does not.

A study was done by Flock, and that they use for marketing to boast that they solve 10% of crimes.

This faulty study has repeatedly come into question, including by one of its own researchers, its author.

I'll say more about that in a little bit here, but I also want to say I think it's worth hammering home what somebody else brought up about Austin, Texas, and their use of FLAC.

A city with a population of I think about a million people.

They implemented one of the most restrictive ALPR programs, and it still failed in audit.

And further revealed that the FLOC systems generate a hit not anywhere near 10%, more in the range of tenths or hundreds, maybe thousands of A percent.

In a nine-month period, they scanned license plates 75 million times and reported 165 arrests and 130 some prosecutions.

Out of 75 million privacy violations, despite their strict policies, strictest about in the nation, they failed their city's audit regarding the use of FLAC for reasons that included a 20% rate of improper use.

That's one in five times that it was used by their police.

It was inappropriately done, including improper documentation sound familiar or justification.

And Chief Norman playing in our faces with his FU citizens interviews where he proudly admits, and this is kind of an answer to Mr.

Del Tora that every single one of MPD's police officers today has access to FLAC.

He proudly said that in an interview.

Swift accountability.

Two of Flock employees and two university professors, one, Dr.

John E Nod, one of the credited authors on public record expressing his concerns about the study and the conclusions people are making.

That's correct.

Quite a bit.

Can I make a suggestion?

Sure.

That so I know we have to do, we need to get through the consent agenda and the examinations, which will take about three minutes.

But um then I would like to move that we move item thirteen up to the top of new business, which is, I think, the beh cool one.

Yes.

Yes, we're we're we're in agreement.

Okay, cool.

Yes.

Um like to take a five minute.

Oh, yeah, we need a break.

Okay.

Uh, we are adjourned for five minutes.

I will now read the items on the consent agenda.

After I do so, any commissioner may remove any item to the regular agenda for discussion or appropriate action.

Items not removed may be adopted by general consent without debate.

Item two, FPC two one two four one eight resolution relating to the February nineteenth, two thousand twenty-six meeting minutes.

Item three, FPC two one two four one nine.

Resolution relating to the appointment to the maintenance assistant position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item four, FPC two one two four two zero.

Resolution relating to the appointment to the police service specialist investigator position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item five, FPC two one, two four two one.

Resolution to rescind the appointment to the help desk specialist two position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item six FPC two one two four two five.

Resolution relating to the request to refer to the Department of Employee Relations, a request for an examination and eligible list for the account.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

So item 13, FPC 21249.

Resolution recommending modification of Milwaukee Police Department Standard Operating Procedure 660, vehicle pursuits and emergency vehicle operations.

And this is an item uh that was sponsored by uh Vice Chair Brees Spencer.

Um would you like to uh give an overview or intro?

Yeah, I think it'd be helpful just to set the table um before you read through it.

I brought a recommendation at this time because I want to make sure this stays on our agenda.

Um I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to discuss what potential future changes could look like.

We, as I mentioned before, we don't because of open uh meeting rules, right?

We don't meet in quorum outside of this.

So this is really the opportunity we have to discuss this.

I don't know how other commissioners feel about this recommendation, but I'm eager to hear about that tonight and see if we can get um to a place of agreement about how to move forward.

Um I think it's how may also might be helpful for me to share my thinking about this.

I think the city of Milwaukee has had some tough times with turning the tap off all the way, turning it on all the way, and the whipping back and forth of the policy resulting in some bad outcomes, and not just bad outcomes, but like also um a lot of perception driven things that aren't correct.

Um I'm trying to find incremental changes we can make that will reduce the number of vehicle pursuits to the aim of reducing injuries and deaths associated with police vehicle pursuits.

One of those places comes from the very policy that MPD used to um help inform the changes they did make uh a couple a month ago, which is from Minneapolis.

It's a much more restrictive policy than we had had here.

Um, and there was a critical piece that I felt was left out, which is that if you stop someone for a minor violation and they speed away, that should not result in a vehicle chase, and it should not result ever in death or injury.

So that is I think uh a critical missing aspect of the policy, and why I've recommended that here.

There's a reckless driving component to that as well.

But the reason why I I hear tonight, uh you know, I heard people say it doesn't go far enough, and I hear and I do hear you.

Um I'm inclined to agree because I don't think that um we're anywhere near what the research says yet about what is right to do with police policy.

However, we also have a not too distant example in the mid-2010s where the tap got turned off really fast.

Um, and then everybody blamed the restrictive policy for the massive uptick in reckless driving, and we got a really bad backswing into a really bad permissive policy.

And so I'm hoping that we don't end up there again, and that we're just consistently moving towards the restrictive policy that's at the level um we need in the city.

I think part of what went sorry, I just want to say this to you.

I think part of what didn't go well before is I don't think there was a lot of engagement with the public.

So there wasn't like bringing people along with the research that shows why uh police pursuits are so dangerous, and that allowed sort of the narrative to get taken over.

And we resulted with a policy that's been uh resulted in the injuries and deaths that we've seen over the last couple of years.

So well, um that's kind of my intro, I guess.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for bringing this for away.

Um Madam Chair, can I just make one small point?

Uh I just wanted to draw the commissioner's attention to um the number six of the uh the recommended change, uh, and that's because I did make a minor change um today.

Um at the end of uh paragraph six, um, it previously had a parenthetical explanation that uh um accepted reckless driving from the the prohibition of uh um well it says a pursuit shall shall not be initiated or shall be terminated if the driver is refusing to or failing to stop, and the only known reason for the attempted stop is an ordinance ordinance violation or a misdemeanor.

It previously said in parentheses uh except uh for reckless driving.

I changed that so it said except as otherwise provided for in uh SOP 660.20 sub-C.

And the reason for that um minor tweak is because paragraph three does allow um vehicle pursuits um uh for misdemeanor shots fired incidents.

So I wanted to to cover that as well.

So just wanted to put that on the record.

Okay.

Um which are very rare.

Yeah, yes and specifically refer to somebody like uh like sort of accidentally firing off a firearm.

Or shooting in the air.

Yeah.

Right.

Which is still dangerous.

The bullet has to go somewhere.

Yeah.

Um so I appreciate that.

Uh and uh I think I'll just open it up for discussion, and uh we may as well start with their most uh loquacious person.

Um thank you.

I tried to earn that big SAT word.

Um I I want to thank you, Commissioner Spencer, um, for bringing this to us and for um being a driver um in this.

I I also want to acknowledge um the role of the public in pushing for changes to this SOP, um, the pain of the families who have lost someone um due to these dangerous pursuits, uh, the cost to taxpayers um when there are lawsuits as a result of these pursuits, um, and the fact that uh the police executive research forum itself says that uh vehicle pursuits are one of the most dangerous police activities.

Um I think we we know that to be true, but they are dangerous for the officers in the cars, they are dangerous for the people that they are chasing, and they are dangerous for bystanders.

Um thinking about all of that as I um consider what's before us today.

Um I'm also thinking about the framing.

Um, because I think throughout these conversations, um, we tend to sort of accidentally default to um, I think a couple of logical fallacies.

Um I think that we're conflating, you know, this I guess you refer to it as the tap fully on, tap fully off, right?

Our choices are certainly not um all or nothing here.

Um I also think that um at times we're conflating no pursuit with no accountability, um, and I think we know that we have enough tools in our toolbox um to know that that doesn't have to be true.

Um I'll quote the NYU policing project uh in saying restrictive pursuit policies save lives and result in more arrests.

Um so it is certainly not true that there's no accountability when there is no pursuit.

Um I think one thing uh, or I'll first say I I am in support um of making changes to this SOP and to continuing to move towards um something that is safer for everyone involved.

Um I struggle with is I think I agree with a lot of the folks that gave public comment today that we don't really have enough data.

Um, and I don't feel like I have enough data to know for sure what changes to policy um or what parts or conditions of vehicle pursuits are actually the most dangerous.

Um, and that's something that I think um the public deserves to know, but also that this commission needs in order to be making nuanced decisions here.

I don't really know if vehicle pursuits actually result in less reckless driving.

I have no idea if that's true.

Um what I do know is that vehicle pursuits double or in some cases triple, depending on how many cars are pursuing the number of cars that are driving at really high speeds.

Um I think you know uh I was a teenager once not that long ago, I swear, and um I also did some pretty wild stuff that I probably wouldn't do anymore.

Um, and so I do struggle with the fact that I don't necessarily know that um in some cases the sort of fear of getting caught is genuinely a deterrent here, but I also just don't have enough data to understand what is and isn't true here.

Um, and I think that that's something that I would like um this commission to have from the department and for the department to also dig a little deeper in terms of analysis um, especially in these lethal pursuits.

Um so I do want to let other folks talk.

I think I'm just sort of going through my framing in terms of what I'm thinking about when I'm looking at this.

Um, but the uh too long didn't read TLDR of it, uh, is that I'm in in support of your changes, Commissioner Spencer.

Okay.

Commissioner Spence.

Uh yes, um well said.

I'll say it.

The the only thing I'd add to this is this is an interesting opportunity to really engage public on a policy that impacts all.

Do you appreciate everybody that's come out with particular viewpoint on this, but I can tell you that there is a wide continuum relative to the residents of the city on this issue.

And it gives us the ability to actually do a better job of engaging people on whatever policy is on the table, and having discussions on the impacts of that.

Um because I can assure you that our elders are going to want to engage their constituents on this issue if brought forward, because they're the ones who pushed for a change some time ago.

That being said, um very optimistic that we can do a better job of engaging this community on such an important policy issue.

Okay, good, thank you.

And uh you already spoke, Commissioner.

Uh yeah, I can't really add anything to that other than I I think this specific paragraph or uh bullet number six.

We talked about the last time we talked about the CP and I think you brought it up.

I echoed that, and I that was something I believe in the end why you study that this does not this only promotes the reckless driving after the the stop like that.

So I agree with this is a great starting point, a great jump off point.

So yeah, I'm in full support.

Okay, on board uh officer, I'm officer.

Commissioner Burgos.

Okay.

I have a different perspective having worked through as a police officer, all the historical perspectives here.

Um we could chase uh when we couldn't chase, and now when we released the the troops to chase again.

Uh I'm not a numbers guy, really not.

Uh, but I've been there and investigated numerous, if not dozen, uh vehicle accidents, but which police were involved in, directly resided from pursuits.

Uh very sadly, some of them were fatal.

Um I know that three or four police officers personally that died in in chases, direct results of high speed chases.

Uh giving names if you want them.

Um there has to be some someone between where we where we limit the amount of chases.

Uh you know.

These these chases, I don't know what the actual time I thought it was like 90 seconds of average time of a pursuit.

Uh police officers are very if they get involved in a pursuit 90 seconds or so is not very long to determine should I turn this pursuit off or not?

Uh there has to be some and that's where policy comes in, whether we can chase or not.

Uh I'm I'm conflicted.

I mean, I I'm not I was never a vehicle chase guy, I never did, uh very few, less than one less than five, but um I understand the need for some pursuit.

Uh it's just I agree.

Some of these um I'm I'm a total agreement that we should have some more restriction.

I just don't know at what level.

And uh that's what the conversation comes in with the uh leadership of the department, because they're the ones that have to implement it, and the community and um community members, uh computer leaders.

I just don't know where we start.

You know, I'm not the numbers guy, I'm in data.

Data's okay, but that's not I've been there and investigated dead bodies laid on the ground, uh, police officers and citizens.

And that's ugly, ugly situation.

I I it's never leave me.

Uh so I know we need to have some very strict policy.

How strict I don't know.

Um the same same thing was said in the 2010s when the policies were changed.

All these uh uh we know that everybody's fleeing the police because there's no power, no chase policy, and it was anecdotal.

There was no data, it was all anecdotal.

And we forced the chief to chase the policy.

Uh I was in agreement back then until I started investigating the dead individuals and citizens.

So I look at it from a put purely uh uh human perspective.

I was there, I saw it, I investigated them.

Was it necessary?

It was one of the questions I always had to ask.

Was it necessary?

And uh never really got not uh sometimes, occasionally, there were some of those that were not very good answers, and we led to some very bad situations.

Uh I I don't agree that we should have no chases or very very restrictive chases, but we do have to have some strict guidance, so much more I think some more limits on what the chases are.

We have way too many chases, and I don't know where it starts and where it ends, but uh I'm totally agreeing we need to do some more reviewing of this policy, uh maybe more restrictive policy in place.

Uh we have way too many chases.

I do.

Madam Chair, can I uh just respond to something uh Commissioner Burgo said.

Commissioner, if if this is helpful, uh I did have our audit manager go back and look at the sample from our 2024 audit on vehicle pursuits, which uh was looking at 2023 uh pursuits or or incidents or data.

Uh and it was roughly um uh of the of the sample at least uh about 15 percent um fell into this bucket of post stop attempt reckless driving as the justification.

Uh so I don't know if that I'm sorry for the pursuit for the justification for the pursuit, correct.

Um so um if that context is helpful, uh now that's not to say that would be even from year to year or that the sample is 100% accurate, but um that's the uh I think uh uh the best estimate I I could give you as far as the what the universe that might be affected by this um uh policy or policy change recommendation might be.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner World Patterson.

Thank you for the opportunity.

I'm in a space of and needing more information to make a decision.

I know when I'm driving, I have this in my head that an intersection is very dangerous because of the pursuits, but I think that um I'm I'm that's in the toggle.

That's why I'm listening for the and how can this uh be a little bit tighter as well as I'm not for them being no pursuits, nor am I for the way it's happening now.

I think our streets need to be safer, but also I am not for giving the person that needs the pursuit, and maybe that's where um the decision making would come in that needs the pursuit should not be pursued.

It's I I just remember the little bit of time when I was uh doing a drive along and we had to chase someone that was speeding.

That was scary, very, very scary.

So I will um just yield to us being able to continue to have the dialogue so that we can come to a better sense of what this really will take for our community and what we really need in our community, and yeah, I'm not for dismantling it altogether, nor am I for the way things are now.

Thank you, Commissioner Evans.

Yeah, I I just want to say um I'm hopeful because hearing all the public testimony, hearing how our community is coming out on both sides of it, right?

Um I think I believe in a process, and I believe with um hearing both sides and working as a team and and and the leadership of Director Todd and uh deputy director and and making these uh recommendations and agreed come up with it.

I think all together in every case, whether we're commissioners or directors or we're citizens and we're sharing our I believe in the process that we will come to uh a situation where uh yeah we're we're not letting people uh commit homicides and things like that, and we're not going after them, but at the same time we're not going after people uh for things that uh we can use uh our investigative tools uh to locate the the the criminals, so to speak.

So I just want to say that I am hopeful and I do believe in the process, and um and I just want to thank everybody for their commitment doing what's best for Milwaukee.

Okay, and uh I'd like to allow uh the department uh is there a representative from the police department who can um comment or weigh in on this no Heather Heather's here, Heather Howe.

Okay, or or yeah.

Do you want uh assistant chief Sarno or do you want the chief of staff?

Chief Norman.

Any comments?

Yeah.

Oh yeah.

Uh yes, uh thank you, uh commissioners, and uh appreciate the dialogue that I um was uh uh was present for tonight on both sides uh from the public and you all.

Um we're uh we're uh confident with the changes we made so far that was uh presented to the fire and police commission about a month ago and then subsequently to uh the public safety and health committee.

Um I look forward in the future in presenting uh additional data to you all.

Uh to your point, Commissioner Fungo.

I would just like to point out that you did provide me with um some things you wanted to see in the presentation uh prior to it back in October, and I was able to hit six of them uh with the exception of being the pursuit routes with respect to the incidents that resulted in fatalities, and I provide you with an explanation as to why that couldn't be done.

If there's things that you would like to see or made available, please reach out to me and let me know what they are, and I can look into it.

Uh, we will continue to pursue uh mitigation technology, something that the chief and I have spoken on.

We spoke on it last time through the Haas Mobile Alert and the um uh and the Star Chase uh GPS platform.

Um those things are moving through the city purchasing process now, and uh I we're confident by early spring we're gonna start to see some movement there.

So that is all.

Thank you.

Um okay.

Well, I guess I get a chance to talk too.

Um personally I'm in favor of this resolution.

I think that it is important for there to be uh policy that uh does not allow pursuits simply because of um uh speed away uh failure to stop.

Um there was I think a case where there was a um uh um uh car sped away when the officers were just stopping them for a uh tail light violation or something that like that, and it ended up being a tragedy.

So I am in favor of the resolution.

What I'm hearing, however, is that perhaps there's an appetite for uh more changes than what this resolution provides.

So um I'd like to know uh if uh if there's a motion to um approve the resolution, that's one thing.

If there's a motion to set it over for additional consideration, that's another thing.

And I leave it up to the commissioners to decide if there's going to be such a motion and what the results are.

I guess I do want to flag that I heard tonight that there were some specific policy asks um related to the inclusion of SOP 575, striking a line about um that would sort of restrict discretion related to whether or not an officer thinks someone may be about to commit a violent crime, addition to uh data or audit report out frequency um shared with the public, and then also something related to sharing uh the cost of um the cost of vehicle pursuits to the city, and um I think all those are relevant and uh I would be willing to discuss them.

I I think like for inclusion or for you know, we we could we have to talk about them.

And I know it's a matter of such frustration that it takes so long, but it does, and we do want to get it right.

Um so I just wanted to flag that.

Like I'm sort of open to further discussion about this, if that's maybe where we're at.

I'm not sure.

Uh then you can uh make a motion to well I don't want to I want to see what people think first about that before I tromp ahead.

Do we want to act on the resolution as it's drafted, or do we want to put it over so that other changes might be incorporated into it?

Madam Chair?

Yes.

I guess not knowing what the common council is gonna do, I'm I'm in favor of bringing something forward and letting conversation take place on the various pieces that came up tonight, or additional pieces that might come up during that conversation.

Until we put something I'm sorry, I should speak into the mic.

Yeah, yeah.

Um until we put something forward, we're not completely sure.

Yeah, about what additional pieces are needed to drive that conversation on policy change.

Okay, well, uh as I understand the process, it would be that if we adopt this resolution, it would then be uh allowing the uh department to accede to it or not.

If they do not accede to it, it then is presented to the common council in the form of a council member or the president of the council putting forth their own resolution, which then has to be passed by two-thirds.

That process will go through committee, safety committee, and certainly the um there'll be time to add into that.

Okay, so it's not as though this language is the only language that the common council would be able to consider.

Uh we can send uh uh additional information to the council, we can have uh more information provided at public safety.

Uh but you're you're right.

If we table it, if we put it off, when are we going to get to the you know, to some action on it?

Uh so I appreciate that.

Yeah, and Madam Chair, I I don't want to suggest that we can't come to a resolution with leadership within MPD.

That may be right.

We may that may be where we land, right?

But I I just think that having something that we can bring forward for discussion now is better than delaying.

Okay.

I think Commissioner Burgos has something to say.

Go ahead, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um he assistant chief's comments.

I would assume that the chief does not agree with the policy the way it's written.

Uh so uh are we ready to go forward with this battle?

And uh at the way it's written.

Because if the if the chief of police and and the command staff don't agree with the way we're suggesting, and we haven't gotten the input into it, uh then uh it's gonna be a conflict that's gonna have to be settled at you know municipal level, like you said.

Are we are we prepared?

Are we ready?

Are we satisfied with the writing that's that we have now to move forward in uh disagreement with the chief?

Any other thoughts here?

I think Commissioner Matthew.

Oh, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

That's my point that I think that there are a few more ands that we can include versus um going forward with what we have now.

So I appreciate us being able to talk about it openly.

Um but it seems um that if we could get as much buy-in so that we don't have to go back and forth, it would make more sense to me because the police department has to implement it.

Okay, so uh any other comments at this point.

Um, then I can um I guess we can do a few things.

We could uh send this resolution to a committee, and they can hold uh additional meetings in committee, which is available for public comment and for consideration, but it's a you know it's not nine people, it's what what are five people?

Five people, and it's uh more flexible in terms of scheduling and and that type of thing that may be a way of keeping it live and not letting it linger um so that uh we get that additional input or data or comment that you're or the ands that that uh might be uh of interest to include um, but I hate to just you know say we'll take it up again.

I think that we have to keep working on it actively.

Uh so do I have a motion to send it to what committee would it go to?

Accountability.

Well, yeah, oversight and accountability, which meets uh I believe the third or fourth week in March.

Next.

Can I say something?

Sure.

So I do want to be clear though, like I think that the list that I laid out is representative of what was asked in the meeting.

Um so I just want to be clear to everyone who's here who stayed for this portion, like that will be in the committee discussion.

Um obviously you are of course welcome to come to any open meeting that you would like to, but I want you to know that the things you brought forward um will be discussed and taken seriously.

Yeah.

Well, my feeling is is that what we've got so far is great.

The only question is should it be should there be more uh restrictions placed on Jases?

Um or is there some language that you know can be added that make the intention more clear?

Um, but I think we know unless I get a motion to approve the resolution is written and chair.

Yeah.

Um I'm going to make a motion to or this resolution to oversight and accountability.

Oh, to refer it to committee.

Yes.

Okay.

I think I feel good about that because I don't think the language is all the way there yet based on uh like and I do also think it's really hard to write as a group of nine people.

Yeah, it's much easier to react to like a a really solid draft.

Um and again, this is a step in the right direction, but I you know, I think it's not all the way there yet.

Maybe and for the record, the next oversight and accountability committee meeting is on March 24th, which should be a Tuesday.

Okay.

So we would need a second on the second we have a second.

Okay.

So we have a motion to refer to the oversight committee and a second, and I will take a voice vote on that.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Please proceed with the agenda.

Madam Chair, may I ask a procedural question about the committee?

Sure.

Um, so once this is sent to oversight committee, um, does it then, and sorry, I may have missed this.

Does it then uh presumably we would have a discussion about um the items that we heard about today?

And then do we make a recommendation back to I guess what is the what is the actual procedure to make a recommendation back to the full board for a vote?

Yes, so you could um recommend approval as is, uh though the committee could or you could uh recommend amendments to it and approval as amended.

Yeah.

Okay.

Then it would come back to the full FPC board, which could either accept the proposed amendments and approve as amended, or do something completely different, or go back to the original.

Yeah.

So and um then we could take this up on the uh first agenda in April.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I was just trying to get a sense of what the time frame was here.

Yeah.

All right, and the idea is that that the committee can help actually firm up the language so that when it comes back to the big group there's something robust we can respond to that.

And also it gives you another little period of time to seek out any data that you think uh can be helpful and that has not already been proced.

Um input from the uh MPD, yes, exactly.

Right, yes, yeah.

Right, right.

That and okay, thank you.

All right.

And uh we have uh handled this item and please proceed with the agenda.

So now we're moving back to item 12 FPC two.

Oh, I'm sorry, just quickly, Madam Chair.

We have to take a vote on that.

No, we have to send it to the case.

I think we said uh voice vote.

Did we didn't second you first and you second?

Yeah, but we didn't take it.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought I said you did.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Uh okay, we did.

We did.

Okay.

I I mean I'm getting old and my memory goes, but I do remember that.

Okay.

I remember okay.

All right.

All right.

Uh we are going back to item 12, which is FPC 212428.

Communication from the Milwaukee Police Department relating to recent changes to MPD standard operating pro standard operating procedures or instructions.

The changes uh include amendments to three policies, uh standard operating procedures zero to zero two zero jury duty, SOP 340, uniform uniforms, equipment and appearance, and standard operating instruction for federally controlled equipment.

Uh Assistant Chief Sarno, are you with us?

Can you give us the uh summary of what these changes are?

Uh yes, ma'am, I can, and I'm still here, still kicking while I'm with all view.

So um I don't really have anything extra to speak on with SLP 20 jury duty as the changes uh regarding that are administrative with respect to SOP 340 uniforms equipment and appearance.

The section that was changed now includes language on facial coverings and masks, and the fact that they're only allowed in certain circumstances, including but not limited to cold or extreme weather protection during assignments, requiring a member to be outdoors for uh period of time, protection on assignments to prevent the spread of diseases or virus such as COVID or TB, and protection to prevent exposure to hazardous materials.

There is a note in bold at the very end that says facial coverings and masks shall not be used for the purpose of concealing identity.

Uh SO the SOI and federally controlled equipment.

We had to update some things due to some recent uh federal regulations that have been changed.

We had to put a definition in here regarding un and aircraft systems, namely drones and the advent and rise of that technology.

We had to add the words federally provided funds, the definition of federally controlled equipment.

We move some language uh from in the application use of federally controlled equipment to read uh and this had been in there before.

This is not new.

The department shall obtain approval by resolution from the City of Milwaukee Common Council prior to attempting to procure any weapons, ammunition, explosives, or pyrotechnics, specialized firearms, ammunitions, explosives, or pyrotechnics shall not be acquired with the intention to be used for crowd management purposes after the equipment is required.

And then the last, or I'm sorry, second to last change.

Uh we the department shall provide all required certifications and assurances to the Office of Justice Programs.

That's OJ OJP, and receive approval from the Bureau of Justice Assistants, the BJA before using funds for certain controlled equipment, including unmanned aircraft.

The department cannot use asset forfeiture program funds to purchase, operate, or repair a drone that is manufactured or assembled by a covered foreign entity.

And then the last change we made, um, this is one we made on our own.

The department shall not transfer sell controlled equipment to a non-law enforcement agency.

The previous policy as it was written, did allow for it.

Uh we determined that that's probably not the best practice, so we changed it.

And that concludes uh the uh my summary for the updates.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions or comments?

Yes.

I've got a couple.

Um it seems like based on the language and the policy that um acquisitions through the 1033 program fit into this policy, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

And so um any, I just want to reiterate what you said and what the policy seems to say, which is a firearms, ammunition, explosives, and pyrotechnics all have to be like getting those when they come from Fed programs or Fed money.

It has to be approved by common council.

Is that true even if I know this is a I know this is the policy about federally controlled items.

Um is that also true if you acquire firearms, ammunition, explosive, and pyrotechnics with non-fed money.

Does the common council also have to approve that?

No, that is not true.

Okay, that's important to note, I think.

And then um also wondering if the common council uh is if there's a required approval from the common council for the unmanned aircraft and drones pieces.

Uh well, if it's obtained through federally controlled funds, then yes.

Okay, because I didn't think that those were in the list of firearms, ammunition, explosive or pyrotechnics.

So that's why I was asking to clarify.

I can verify that for you just so um there's no confusion.

Um, and I can get back to you, Commissioner Spencer.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

The drone technology is new as as you know, we just kind of um begin to scratch the surface on that and go down that road.

So in some cases, we're still learning as we go as well when it comes to that technology.

Okay, I want to thank uh the department for making the policy change about masks so that it is now clear that officers are not allowed to wear a mask unless it fits into one of those necessities of controlling contagious disease or you know, saving you saving someone from frostbite.

Uh so I I appreciate that because I think that's responsive to what we heard in a lot of public comments over the last several meetings.

Any other comments?

Madam Chair, just a few.

Um on the uh on the SOI, um AC Sarnell, are the SOIs currently listed on MPD's website with the SOPs?

Um I'd have to double check.

Uh the last time I looked, I did not see the SOIs on there.

I don't have a reason for you, Commissioner, as to why they wouldn't be, but it could be I just missed them.

Uh we can look into that.

They're not on the website.

Oh, I think um that's something that I would appreciate um being made uh available on the website um since they are public record, obviously the redacted version or whatever you have to do.

Um about the um I guess as a follow-up to Commissioner Spencer's question, um, I just wanted to make sure I have this right.

Um does the department also need to get common council approval um for items that are coming through asset forfeiture dollars, and then would that apply to all items or just this list?

Well, the the common council uh specifically the finance and personnel committee is responsible for doing the transfer of the asset forfeiture funds to our account.

So sometime on the next month or two, we'll be presenting what the our asset forfeiture requests will be to the finance and personnel committee, uh, as we done last year per the SOP.

Once that is uh transfer is approved, uh the budget director and I will present what that looks like to the fire and police commission just like we did last year.

Okay, um, so we'll hear it after it's approved.

Yes.

Okay.

Um and then uh a question about um I I appreciated um the change made to say that specialized firearms, ammunition, explosives or pyrotechnics shall not be acquired with the intention to be used for crowd management purposes.

Um is there any auditing or anything to ensure that that's true after the fact.

Well, the uh s uh I don't have the uh I just have kind of the uh highlighted version in front of me, but I believe page four of six of the SOP or the SOI, excuse me, because it's a six-page SOI talks about what the audit auditing and accountability of federally controlled equipment looks like, and uh I'd have to revisit it just to see what it exactly says because I could probably use a refresher on that section myself.

I was only prepared to speak on the changes we made and to why.

Okay, no problem.

I'm looking at the roll call version too, so I can't see that page either.

Um then um I I also wanted to echo uh Chair Horowitz's um gratitude uh to the department for changing uh the the change to SOP 340.

Um I have been thinking a lot about um what identification of law enforcement and being transparent about who you are and what you're doing somewhere um does for public trust, especially in a moment like this um in the current federal environment and in the moment in history that we're in.

Um and I I know that in some other jurisdictions, including Minneapolis, that departments um or sometimes entire city governments have put out sort of a visual guide to the different um uniforms and badges that the police department um and in some cases other city departments where is that something that uh the department could consider.

We have actually created two videos in Spanish and English.

Um in collaboration um with uh Ford Latino that um outlines exactly what our uniforms look like, including our detectives.

Um they were included in some talking points we've been distributing about um immigration enforcement at town hall meetings.

Um happy to send those to the commissioners as well after this meeting, and it would be helpful to distribute those in all of your spheres of influence.

Okay, thank you, Heather.

That would be great.

Yep, that's all I have.

Okay.

Ask and you shall receive.

Okay, um, and there's nothing further.

Uh Director, please proceed with the agenda.

I will now read the item under Department of Emergency Communications, which is item 14, FPC 212430.

Resolution relating to the promotions of Janice Brown, Amy Pachowski, Charles Lockwood, and Ashley Dragger to the emergency communications officer 5 position.

Does any member of the department which wish to speak uh regarding these promotions?

This is Tony Bueno with the Department of Emergency Communications.

Thank you.

Uh this this I just want to call attention to the fact that these will be the first promotions to our topmost uh emergency communication officer position.

Uh ECO5s, these individuals have gone through a number of trainings, have spent a lot of time being trainers as well for our new uh employees.

The Echo 5s, ECO5s are cult makers, our police dispatchers, and our fire dispatchers.

They can do any position on the floor.

Um it's a huge achievement uh for them and for us.

Very good.

Well, we continue to be uh in awe of the changes that are being made.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh we will need a uh second.

Great.

You beat me to it.

Any discussion as this is uh promotion, I'll take a roll call vote in alphabetical order.

Commissioner Burgos.

Aye, Commissioner Evans.

Aye, Commissioner Fong.

Aye, Commissioner Schneider, aye, Commissioner Spence, aye.

Commissioner Spencer, aye, Commissioner World Patterson.

Aye.

And the chair votes aye.

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

I will now read the items under the police department, starting with item 15, FPC 212431, resolution relating to the appointment to the police officer position.

Uh, and just for uh informational purposes, uh, this is an appointment that that will be made to the um March 30th class uh or class one of 2026.

Uh it's simply off a different eligible list, that's why it wasn't included with the uh the group from last time.

Oh, okay.

But it's someone who has gone through all of the testing.

Okay.

Um is there are there any questions, comments?

I'll take a voice vote if I get a motion and a second.

So move.

Second.

Great.

I'll take a voice vote.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed.

Item 16, FPC 212432.

Resolution relating to the extensions of the probationary period for the police officer position to extensions.

Thank you.

I think the letter from the department is um letters are uh fairly clear that they use ex uh probation extensions just match a period of time that the officer was absent due to uh believe of absence of some kind, and that is uh more or less the the usual way of uh protecting the department from uh losing the ability to make a full assessment during probation.

Uh so I don't think we need uh much more information than that.

Um commissioners have any questions or comments.

Okay, time for a motion.

So move.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Um we have a second second.

Okay.

I will take a voice vote on this item.

Uh all in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Item 17, FPC 212433, resolution relating to the reappointment request of a former recruit police officer.

Okay.

So this is a uh recommendation by the department by the chief to allow this uh individual to join the next recruit class and try again, basically.

Yes.

Um, that uh they're convinced that this individual is progressing and doing his all to get into the get his uh I think it is his firearm firearm qualifications retest.

That's correct, and I just as a point uh of information.

Um I believe A.

C.

Sarno told me uh uh recently that they've had a really good success, maybe even a hundred percent getting through the recruit reappointees.

That's it.

Is that right?

I hope I'm not overstating that.

I have a big recall.

No, you are uh you are accurate.

Um this uh this is so this reflects uh really good change that between MPD and uh the FPC that we made changing this rule, allowing um some people just need a little bit of extra uh time in the academy, a little bit of extra teaching and instruction.

Um you know, as you know, if they do fail a mandated LESB test, our hands are our are tied, they have to go, but by changing the rules and changing the process and bringing them back into the next academy class, we've seen we've had great success with then uh now getting them through, and uh we look forward to continuing that because uh our community needs them, they need these cops in the street.

If you were at the graduation, which I spoke at, talked about public service, we need them out on the street.

So thank you.

Okay.

Well, with that, uh I'll take a motion.

So moved.

So moved.

Any second okay.

Um, and that is a voice roll call.

Roll call, yes.

I'll take a roll call vote.

Uh Commissioner Burgos.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, you can do a voice vote.

I don't know why I said that.

Oh.

Oh, okay, okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Sorry.

All right.

I take that back.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Item 18, FPC 212434.

Resolution relating to the reappointment request of a former police officer.

Yes.

Move to place this item on file.

Second.

Um, all those in favor.

Well, let me just let me just explain that we did have uh an extensive uh closed session, an executive session in which the uh individual uh was able to present uh her side of the story in terms of why she departed the department and now wants to come back, and also a complete review of uh her record with the department and information from the uh assistant chief.

Uh so I think that you know the public should know that we we did do some due diligence on this request and uh by placing it on file, it effectually says it effectively means it's not gonna happen.

That's correct, but it's denied.

It's denied.

Yeah.

Okay, so we have had the motion in the second, right?

Yes.

All those in favor, please.

For placing it on file.

Placing it on file.

Okay.

Uh please signify by saying aye.

I any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

That concludes the agenda.

Oh, thank goodness.

Second.

Second.

Nobody's gonna object to that.

We are adjourned.