This is the March 19th, 2026 regular meeting of the Fire and Police Commission.

Present are Commissioners Virgos, Evans, Fung, 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 Poussek.

Dector Da Doctor.

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 to speak in advance, please use the raise my hand feature in the webinar tools and unmute yourself when called upon to speak.

Each person will be given up to five minutes to speak.

And our first speaker is Emilia Emilio de Torre.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Emilio DeTore.

Uh and I'm the executive director of the Milwaukee Turners, and we are in favor of the proposed changes to SOP 460.

As you were probably aware, I and several other nonprofit leaders who work with immigration education immigrants were invited to speak at the request of the common council members who put forward the ICE out of Milwaukee package, of which this was a part.

We spoke unanimously in support of the package.

The Milwaukee Terraners have trained tens of thousands of immigrants and non-immigrants alike over the past several months.

And I'm here before you this evening after assisting with the training for staff who work with immigrants and refugees earlier this afternoon.

And just today they reported how frightened and dislocated these legal immigrants felt.

I'm hoping that the fire and police commission are in favor of these changes.

At a recent public meeting of the Mitchell Street Library the other month, Congresswoman Gwen Moore was very vocal about the obligation of law enforcement to uphold their duty to intervene and investigate.

Understanding that what that looks like in different circumstances clearly varies, but there are many legal precedents to do the right thing and hold law enforcement agents accountable when they do the wrong thing.

Zafroman showed us all today in his court victory.

We also know that going back at least to 1972's Byrd versus Brischke case, which established in federal appellate court that police officers have an affirmative duty to intervene when witnessing fellow officers using excessive force or violating a person's constitutional rights.

It remains a foundational legal precedent for officer liability under 42 USC section 1983.

And we see this in the successful Bivens actions, which are used to seek damages directly against federal officers like ICE agents who violate their constitutional rights.

And there are many other examples, but we know that failure to act can lead to being charged criminally, sued, or disciplined for failure to protect a victim's constitutional rights, in addition to the horror of witnessing or experiencing all of the terrible things we have watched on the news this past year.

I know that the people don't want this, and I know that the police don't want this, and I know that we need to make it as easy and legal as possible to protect and ensure the dignity of all people in Milwaukee, and I'm hoping that we can continue to count on you to do the correct thing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chard Velez.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Thank you for hearing public comment.

At a prior meeting, I noted that a complaint I filed invoked the procedure under Wisconsin statute 6250 subsection 19.

And I raised a question about how that statutory process operates alongside the commission's current rules.

Subsection 19 establishes a specific mechanism.

An agreed person may file verified charges alleging misconduct, and the commission is required to receive and make position disposition of those charges.

The statute assigns that adjudicatory function to the commission itself.

The concern I'm raising here is structural, not about the merits of any particular complaint.

Based on my review, complaints may be screened or terminated at the staff level without the commission itself receiving docketing or acting on those charges.

Where that occurs, the statutory tribunal designated by legislature does not exercise its function.

Staff is not commissioned.

Staff may assist, investigate, and make recommendations respectfully.

But the statute assigns the adjudicatory function to the commission itself.

So the structural issue is not whether a given complaint succeeds, but whether it ever reaches the body authorized to decide it.

The Supreme Court in Wisconsin addressed the FCC's complaint framework in Casciona v.

Welch.

The court rejected procedures that place barriers between the filing of a complaint and commission adjudication.

In their own words, the complaint procedure should not be an obstacle course that prevents adjudication.

The court recognized that the statute assigns a judicatory responsibility to the commission and that threshold procedures must not prevent complaints from reaching that body.

In Castaneda, the court also identified concerns with restrictive definitions of aggrieved person that excluded witnesses and others with knowledge of misconduct.

Any person may be truly aggrieved, the court wrote.

And whether a complaint qualifies as an aggrieved person under the statute is a question the commission must resolve per the court, not a precondition that staff may rule on.

A similar concern arises where complaint standards function as threshold screens that prevent plausible allegations of fact or misconduct from reaching commission review.

Additionally, there is a delegation question.