This is the May 7, 2026 regular meeting of the Fire and Police Commission.

Present our Commissioners Virgos, Evans, Fung, Spence, Spencer, World Patterson, and myself, Commissioner Horowitz.

Commissioners Raimi and Schneider are excused.

Also present our FPC Executive Director, Leon Todd, and Deputy Director Jay Puse.

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 unmute yourself when called upon to speak.

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

And as usual, we will we will begin with uh people who are here in person.

Uh we do have a new public comment form, and I I think there may be some confusion about the additional uh comments and uh uh line where you indicate support or or oppose um an agenda item.

Uh, those were meant for for those who did not wish to speak but wanted to uh uh submit uh uh a written comment or note their uh objection uh or or uh support in writing.

But uh it appears that uh that may not have been clear.

So uh we'll see if we can make the uh the public comment form uh clear in the future, and then I will call out everyone's name, and if you do not actually want to speak, you can just so indicate.

Uh but we will begin with Emilio De Torre from uh Milwaukee Turners.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh good evening, members of the Milwaukee and Fire, uh Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission.

I'm Emilia DeTore with the Milwaukee Turners.

Um, it's no surprise to you that Milwaukee is in the midst of a surveillance crisis.

It was clear through the year-long push against facial recognition technology that residents don't want to be surveilled by law enforcement and military contractors through weird public-private business relationships.

And I'm not even going to get into the personal abuses by individual officers.

What we are hearing about Flock is more of the same.

Last night, the city of Appleton voted to end their usage of Flock.

Just this month, Oshkosh and Sturgeon Bay refused to renew their contracts, and Verona also.

Dane County will terminate its contract in May.

Mass surveillance.

There is a web of over 92,000 flock cameras and counting across the nation, and this creates a drag net surveillance of all people, whether or not they are suspected of a crime or wanted for any particular reason.

The cameras pick up everything in range of their view, not just license plates.

They use AI to hone in on the licenses, but everything is covered.

This has been shown extensively, and regardless of the data accessible through the agreement with MPD.

Flock information is shared with the federal government.

Flock CEO Garrett Langley says that groups that monitor flock locations and speak against the use of Flock, like DFLOC, are, quote, terroristic organizations whose primary motivation is chaos.

A troubling response from someone we are paying to entrust with such power to surveil us.

His backers like Mark Andreessen are big donors to the current president and to deregulation of tech and cryptocurrencies like this surveillance.

They have clear financial and political interests in the expansion of this tech.

Flock claims that it has never been hacked.

This is completely false.

Musician and engineer Ben Jordan used a commercial search engine to show how easily you can identify and access the administration interfaces of Flock cameras, identifying where they are, and none of the data or information was encrypted.

No username nor password was required.

They were publicly facing and accessible by anyone.

You can click and see every single person, vehicle, place, and activity that the cameras captured over those 31 days.

You can watch the footage in real time or access historic footage, not just select police officers, anyone could do this.

He watched a man rollerblading and then looked at his phone, and the camera's AI automatically zoomed in on the phone.

He watched a couple arguing in a market and then used easily accessible Flock public data and facial recognition technology to identify who who they were, that they had traveled 45 minutes from home to church that day, that they had just had a child, and had debt based on that new baby.

One of them had just finished medical school, and the other was suffering from chronic irritable bowel syndrome.

All of this from Flock Hammer's.

Given how Flock has created and is marketing their new product Nova to provide law enforcement and one stop shopping for an aggregated database for synthesis and sharing, given how Flock financial backers are also supporters of our current federal abuses and practices, and given how Flock's website says that federal agencies are partners with, and I quote, can establish one-to-one sharing relationships with other law enforcement agencies.

It is incredibly dangerous and unwise for us to continue to use this invasive product that forms such a large surveillance web to be integrated with other federal surveillance already being used to threaten and criminalize immigrants and political dissenters.

In Carpenter versus United States from 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that accessing historical cell site data information tracking an individual's movements over an extended period constitutes a fourth amendment search requiring a warrant based on probable cause.

The current power and applications of Flock go far beyond this.

In cities like Syracuse, New York, their local ALPR system was searched 4.4 million times by police around the country without a warrant and shared with ICE, despite the intentions of their common counsel and despite promises to the contrary.

This is just one example.

It is being weaponized against immigrants, people seeking abortion access, demonstrators, and can be used for other problematic things we haven't imagined yet.

Please follow the lead of our neighboring cities and cease the use of flock.

Thank you.

Brian Verdeen.

Good evening.

Good to see you all.

Thank you and thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Spencer in particular, for bringing this matter more forward in regards to uh stopping some of these unnecessary police chases.

I was reminded of um when we were campaigning for the passage of uh uh SLP 575.

Um we had some private meetings with uh people who had been victimized by the police, and one of those victims was uh Larry Jody Jenkins.

He was murdered by John Bartlett, and uh so the family came to me.

We met with uh former uh commissioner uh Chair Fallone and one other uh commissioner.

We brought many families to the to these private meetings.

But uh the auntie of uh Larry Jody Jenkins, he said, we don't know you guys.

The community don't know you guys, and I want the community to know you guys.

I remember I said last time, come on down to the Clinton Rose Center or the Washington Park Center, have your meetings down there, and we'll bring you a big crowd.

But uh, so um I'm grateful, uh uh Commissioner Spencer.

I'm like, wow, someone knows one of our commissioners now, and I thought you did a fine job, but I'm also uh was convinced that um by the way, Larry Jody Jenkins was murdered by the same cop who beat the crap out of uh Frank Zulie Jr.

and ended up spending uh getting a 23-year sentence for for his involvement in that.

Um, but so I was thinking, Commissioner uh Spencer, that you've probably been getting a lot of pushback already.

Uh God knows the Milwaukee Alliance Against Race and Political Repression has gotten a lot of pushback from citizens, oh Chase, get the criminals, you know.

Everyone thinks there's just criminals everywhere in Milwaukee.

Get them, get them, get them.

And you know, my uh rather unscientific survey when I do follow up on the different uh neighborhood chat center, is generally the white males in our city.

Get the criminals, get the criminals, get the criminals, you know.

So my God, you know, so people tend to be four chases until it happens to their family.

You know, and then all of a sudden, oh no, maybe we shouldn't uh do some of these unnecessary chases.

So I want to thank you again, uh, uh Ms.

Spencer.

Uh and then I think the press is still not doing us justice in terms of like it's just not uh Commissioner Spencer's uh proposal.

This was voted unanimously, press.

This was voted unanimously by the fire police commission.

Uh so it's not just Spencer's initiatives, the entire uh uh commission that is moving in unity, and I thought it was really good.

And frankly, Mr.

Uh Burgos, I was I was sure you was getting a lot of pushback too.

Like, my God, why are you guys signing with those?

You call us activists.

Actually, we're upstanding citizens, homeowners of all of my kids go to public schools.

Uh, I've lived in this city all my life.

Uh a former teacher and a professor, you know.

So I'm not just an activist, and all of these folks aren't here, aren't just activists, we're concerned citizens that want a safer city, you know.

So, so and uh Sister Howard, I think you'd be great on TV too.

If you get I really do I was like you'd be great you know to be able to put this forward to the community.

This is not to stop police chases.

But it is to try to you know modify it a little bit.

Mr.

Spence you're the one who said can we compromise somewhere and I was puzzled when you said that but this is actually a compromise and I think it's a good compromise you know so let's let's keep pushing forward on this matter and lastly I just want to say that I'm in full support of the efforts to stop these cameras from uh spying on us when we're driving down the streets to so-called flock uh cameras let's do away with those two and as a uh brother from uh said you know let's join our our neighbors uh around the Wisconsin and get rid of these cameras and let's lastly so to get rid of Act 12 okay and Mr Verdina I will I do want to follow up with you offline uh I do just want to discuss the idea of getting the FPC out in the community so I think that's a good idea so uh I'll be I'll be reaching out uh Tiffany Stark's function hello everyone I am gonna report I don't have uh an actual written statement I'm winging it but I um I also just want to say thank you to all of you again we're in a holding waiting period right now waiting on Chief Norman like I said I hope he does the right thing with this we're not asking for these chases to stop we're asking for safe more safe measures so people can get home to their families and not die for something that's stupid.

So if not I already got my paper here ready with the five older people on the health safety public health safety committee that we will be calling so it's not a surprise how I feel about a lot of things and because I've been so focused on my daughter's father there's other things I wanted to talk about and even with the police chases the mental health aspect people do not understand and I'm fighting with people on Facebook all the time and I want to thank you Brie for your wonderful um story or your response to what to debunk the BS about this and being able to give your comments and of course people are gonna come and I'm fighting with people on Facebook all the time but what people don't understand is the brain and I studied the brain because I'm a social worker and the whole response when you're in a heightened situation fight flight freeze.

And these are young people their brains are not most of these people are young and their brains aren't fully developed so I'm trying to constantly education educate people on that and also the fact that you know I'm not very happy that there's no public forum for the city common council to have comments we have to come here and I'm very disappointed when the decision was made to put this um curfew on food trucks without any public input um I'm sorry but the issues that we're facing downtown have nothing to do with food trucks.

People are angry we have a mental health crisis going on and no one talks about mental health at all it's like we're putting all these band aids the food trucks oh we're gonna build a little fence do you want to lose money build a fence no one is gonna come downtown like no one asks the community for feedback and input but I know is it is it done purposely we don't want to talk about mental health probably because there's no money and there's lack of providers but until we figure that out we're gonna continue to have these problems.

When someone got out of the concert they went to their car and there was an accident and they pulled out a gun and then the other person pulled out a gun.

What does that have to do with the food truck?

You know, none of this has to do with that.

We're missing the mark on mental health, and it makes me angry.

Um, because also we want to look at the symptoms and not the cause.

Like when I work with veterans back in the day, we wanted to treat the drugs and alcohol.

We didn't want to deal with their PTSD and trauma.

We missed the mark.

Now we do that because that's they're self-medicating or they're dealing with other issues.

A lot of these people have trauma.

Brains are developed differently when you have trauma.

People don't have basic needs.

They're struggling to get through.

They're angry.

The issue is anger and the inability to regulate your emotions.

That's where all of these problems stem from anger and inability to regulate your emotions.

And the guns, yeah, that's an issue.

There's way too many guns, but the gun comes second.

The mental health or the situation comes first.

The gun is secondary.

And we can keep locking people up, but guess what?

That's not working.

We've tried that, and people come out worse than they came in because they're still not giving mental health services.

So it just really makes me mad because I'm a mental health advocate.

This is my career.

And I just to see this on TV and how you're how they're missing the mark.

It's a mental health crisis.

It has nothing to do with food trucks.

Figure it out.

Ask for the community feedback.

We can come up with solutions.

We can come up with ideas, but there's no format, like you you know I've been saying, with the common city common council.

We have to come here.

They don't ask us.

So that's all I have to say.

And once again, thank you so much.

I'm saying positive that we're gonna get this recommendation passed, and if we are not, well, we'll raise hell and we'll be calling them.

So thank you.

Alex Larson.

Oh, good evening, y'all.

Good evening, Kate.

Um, just as a point of clarity, I want to lift up the fact that the police department should cancel its contract with Flock, but I just want to clarify that contracts themselves are not under your purview, correct?

That's under the purview of the common council.

Yes.

Like the finance personnel committee.

To a certain extent.

And then the audit function and the I guess the SO the procedural function lies in this body.

So we do have an audit unit and a flock audit is one thing that we are working on uh as part of our 2026 audit plan.

Uh and that will um, you know, I I don't know what the audit's gonna show until it's done, but it could contain uh recommendations uh for policy training, things like that, or um it'll also assess the compliance rate with the current policy.

So secondly, I want to lift up the letter that's from the four older people that's attached in the legislative file.

Cause I think this points to the fact that we have a governance gap where the contract lies at the common council, whereas the oversight function sort of lies with the FPC, and something like a community control over policing surveillance ordinance would kind of merge the two so we can have wholesale discussions over whether we need these contracts and have the oversight function be all in one place.

Um executive director Todd, I just want to point to historical examples during your tenure of how we've looked at other departments and sort of gleaned best practices and data from them when we've talked about past SOP changes to you know, banning chokeholds or no knock warrants or SOP 575 or the um this pursuit policy that's just recently come to pass.

All these are sort of like, you know, looking from out looking at outside municipalities and see what they do different and trying to, you know, advocate for how can we mold our city and mold the discussion around public safety and make it safer for everyone.

The thing with CCOPs is is that we also have 26 municipalities that already have this established, and I don't know if that's an LRB thing or if that's like a FPC researcher thing, but that would be ideal because at the end of the day, you know, tonight we're talking about the 31 ALPR cameras that exist through the city, but they are a cog and a much larger surveillance ecosystem that exists throughout this city.

And I would make the argument that we don't know the full extent of what's out there and what the department has access to, and that's again goes to the need of why we need a public forum to discuss all these things.

The contract, the oversight function, and the audit functions all in one place.

And there are 26 other places that have that sort of governance in place.

And I just want to give a shout out to the four alders that wrote that letter that have called for okay, how do we get a roadmap from where we are now to having these structures in place?

So I just want to lift up those two things because, as I wrote to you previously, and as you know I said, this there is a much larger ecosystem than what we're just discussing tonight in that communication file.

So yeah, I would just like to reiterate I'd like to lift up the fact that this flock contract should be canceled, and I'd like to lift up the fact that we need a governance model that allows us to have discussions to cancel these contracts in the first place.

Um thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ariel Winter.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Hi, my name is Ariel Winter.

I'm an organizer for the ACLU of Wisconsin and also a resident of the Fourth Aldermanic District of Milwaukee.

Unfortunately, through my job, I have become all too familiar with Flock cameras and other surveillance technologies, and that's what implored me to speak on half them on behalf of my community today.

Lots of jurisdictions across the country, including several in Wisconsin, have recently terminated their contracts with Flock, and here are the reasons why.

On April 15th, Surgeon Bay Common Council did not renew its Flock contract.

At the end of April, Oshkosh Common Council initially approved renewing a Flock contract, but less than 24 hours later, reversed course and voted unanimously to rescind the agreement once they learned Flock the Flock representative made false statements about the capabilities of their products, specifically Flock's ability to create heat maps and track daily driving patterns.

Also last month, the Dane County board, by a vote of 32 to 1 cut funding for Flock after concerns brought up during public comment.

Residents shared their concerns about sharing sensitive information with ICE.

They specifically know that while Dane County has said that it does not share Flock data with ICE, the county has a history of sharing data with other jurisdictions that do.

In the city of Verona, they voted to terminate their con their flock contract at the end of 2025.

Verona residents argued that the claimed public safety benefits were not worth the privacy risks within Verona system.

Hundreds of searches were still being tagged as federal, even after the company claimed to have limited that access, similar to Dane County's claims.

Additional searches were linked to agencies identifying as ICE, raising further questions about oversight and enforcement.

The same thing just happened in Dayton, Ohio too earlier this week.

I also want to note that when the city of Verona contacted Flock to take down the cameras, Flock ignored their request while still actively sending out sales reps to Verona to get them to sign a new contract.

Just yesterday, the mayor of Appleton issued a statement that the city is stopping its use of Flock safety products due to concerns about the integrity of Flock's underlying system.

An example from Georgia, Flock's home states.

Residents of Dunwoody spoke out against the city's contract with Flock after discovering that Flock had been accessing the cameras in a pool and a gymnasium at a local Jewish community center.

Story goes like this: Flock technology enables private companies to integrate their cameras with local police agencies, similar to our dear to district cameras.

The Marcus community the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta shared its cameras with the Dunwoody Police Department.

In January, city officials were alerted that the Dunwoody Police Department had granted access to the community center's cameras to external police agencies, despite the network being marked in Dunwoody's system as do not share in all caps.

Then through open records request, a Dunwoody resident uncovered records of FLOC employees accessing the camera feeds from gymnastic rooms, pools, and fitness centers at the Jewish community center.

When city officials confronted FLOC, they learned FLOC employees have been using Dunwoody's Flock Network for potential sales calls with other law enforcement agencies, but city officials said not to worry because Flock said they would no longer use Dunwoody's cameras for demonstration projects.

I have detailed instances of FLOCs making Flock making false statements, an instance of city officials unable to contact Flock after acquiring the products and instance of FLOC employees using cameras for potentially nefarious purposes.

We need framework in the common council and FPC to discuss, like we are tonight, any surveillance technology the city has or wants to acquire to really underscore how important it is for the city to provide this comprehensive oversight now.

On June 4th of last year, Flock published a blog titled Flock Safety Q2 2025 Law Enforcement Product Summary, in which there was a section titled License Plate Reader Cameras Can Now Become Video Cameras.

I'm quoting in a move that will transform the largest network of license plate readers cameras, license plate reader cameras in the nation.

Flock announced that every existing Flock license plate reader camera can soon become video enabled at no cost to the customer.

Again, quoting Flock customers don't have to do or pay a thing, said Flock Safety Chief Security Officer.

This will be a no-cost software update, we just push over the cloud.

Commissioners, we need a comprehensive framework to discuss community oversight over police surveillance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Amanda Merkway.

Good evening.

My name is Amanda Merkway.

I'm the advocacy director of the ACLU of Wisconsin.

As others have pointed out, any conversation about Flock automated license plate readers has to include a discussion about procurement processes and the use of sole source contracts, the oversight roles held by the Common Council's Public Safety and Health Committee and Finance and Personnel Committee and the FPC.

The realities of how ALPRs and other surveillance tech are integrated together through products like FUCS, the incorporation of artificial intelligence into these integrated platforms, and the absence of SOPs in place governing many aspects of Milwaukee's surveillance infrastructure.

Take facial recognition.

It was used for years in secret, many times without disclosing FRT use and discovery, all without an SOP in place.

There was no transparency in any procurement process because MPD had other jurisdictions running the searches.

MPD's contract with tactical support equipment inc for cell site simulator, also known as Stingray Equipment, was extended until September 2028 and increased by 165,000 to a total of 1.45 million dollars.

That's a sole source contract that waived finance and personnel committee approval.

The software is proprietary.

To my knowledge, there's no SOP governing the use of cell site simulators.

MPD has a contract for FUCS, a company that was acquired by Axon, which is a real-time crime center platform that integrates private surveillance cameras, drones, automatic license plate readers, and other feeds into a single police accessible interface.

Soul source contract.

To my knowledge, no SOP specifically governs the use of FUCS and its AI-powered search functions.

MPD acquired an open source intelligence tool ahead of the RNC, entering a contract for AI powered software from a company called Babbel Street.

Reporting from 2024 from the Wisconsin Examiner notes, Babel Street draws on a wealth of online information to gather intelligence for police.

An aspect of the self-the software known as synthesis allows MPD to understand the profile of key influencers based on attributes such as person or organization, location, occupation, interests, areas of influence, and communication style, which are all automatically tagged for millions of accounts using an AI model while still giving the city an option of manual tagging.

Babbel Street also allows MPD to pair keyword searches with geofencing, thus alerting the department to posts within a specific geographic area.

MPD's new open source intelligence tool also enables data to be extracted from the dark web, parts of the internet, which are not intended, or which are not indexed in search engines and require specialized internet browsers to locate.

I found no SOP governing the use of AI intelligence tool without a warrant.

Finally, Flock cameras.

As of September 2025, there's 31 MPD Flock cameras.

Um I was able to get a list of the locations through an open records request, but no clue how these specific locations were selected and how many other cameras MPD and the Fusion Center have access to with ALPR capabilities outside of those 31 Flock cameras.

MPD's sole source contract with Flock Group Inc.

was increased from 100,000 uh 100,400 to 182,900 back in February for the contract that runs through January 26, 2027, a contract term extension that was already granted without finance and personnel committee approval in 2025.

It's our understanding that the requirement for single or sole source service contracts to be approved by finance and personnel committee under the city charter was not applied to this contract amendment on the grounds that the contract involves services related to proprietary contract uh products.

As every previously, we desperately need a framework for the transparency of uh existing surveillance technology because the common council and the FPC may not be privy to the answers to some very basic questions about these technologies used to surveil Milwaukee residents.

How does each surveillance technology work?

Well, first, which ones do we have?

Um, how do how do they work?

What is the intended purpose of each technology?

What's the fiscal impact of each technology?

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

If the technology is not uniformly deployed or targeted throughout the city, what factors will be used to determine where where the technology is targeted?

What potential adverse impacts does the surveillance technology have on civil rights and liberties, and what standards must be met by government entities when sharing surveillance data with third parties, whether that's a private third party or another government entity.

As the March 11th letter from Alders to the FPC noted, a framework adopted by many jurisdictions across the country called community control or police surveillance or C COPS could provide the FPC and common counsel and the public answers to these basic questions and ensure transparency and basic democratic accountability.

Milwaukeeans should not be surveilled in secret, it's not good governance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Peace, everybody.

How y'all doing?

Um, first and foremost, I wanted to speak to the placement bias with the flock cameras.

These cameras was found by Christopher Newport University to be placed disproportionately in so-called black and brown communities specifically.

So the surveillance is largely going to be in those particular areas that they label crime areas.

The problem I have with that is that it's another target on our people.

And the second thing is the intensity of the surveillance.

There's a very intense all day.

It surveils, there's also been misconduct on the police side with these flock cameras.

I'm not going to mention specifically what officer, but one officer had used the flock cameras 179 times to stop their own ex or what have you.

That officer later resigned and was prosecuted or in the process of being prosecuted.

So we see that this defective technology has no real significance in our communities, especially if there's going to be targeting specific populations and demographics of people.

That's never something that I believe that your aim should be, right?

So I believe that if there is going to be any kind of justice around this issue, banning the usage of it is all together, is probably the best way to go.

Um, completely opposed to it.

Uh my community is completely opposed to it.

And also it's assisting other law enforcement agencies and being able to do their jobs when they don't need that assistance, if that makes sense.

The FBI, ICE, all of those people are using these other gateways to gain access to other people, and this is what's happening with this crisis with the ISIS situation with the immigration crisis.

Their study targeting uh people.

And mainly, everybody that came up here, they spoke, they spoke very eloquently, and uh appreciate everybody that spoke before me, so I don't want to be redundant, but what I do want to say is is that you guys are all people.

You all are human beings, and we know that our Fourth Amendment rights are already being infringed upon in this administration by every which way we possibly can think of.

So if there is a another additive to that that's only gonna create more frustration, somebody got up here and spoke about mental illness.

People that live in high impoverished areas that we live in, the so-called black and brown people, they come from horror circumstances.

Of course, they're gonna be paranoid a lot.

So that will probably lead to law enforcement chases and things of that nature.

Because I know when I grew up in in uh 12 years old, I know I was beaten by police at twelve years old.

So naturally every time I saw police, I took off.

So I'm pretty sure that if there are officers and schools and all of these other areas where they're having these negative interactions with officers and things of that nature, that anxiety is gonna be always up there to assist them in that particular regard with putting more flock cameras there and putting more stress on those populations is also exacerbating the circumstances in the community that creates more violent opportunities for things to happen and other people that are innocent bystanders are harmed by that.

So with that being said, I appreciate your time, but I really want to uh make sure that we put an end to all of this excessive surveillance.

I don't know what the purpose of it is.

We do need to vet those things through the community because if the law enforcement's job is to protect and serve our people in the community, then there shouldn't be there should be some type of uh community input on things.

We had something that was back in the days called um it's not community control over the police, but we did have community insight where we had listening sessions with law enforcement on some of the endeavors that they were going to be implemented in the city that will probably and potentially affect the residents in that community.

And I'm thinking that something like that needs to happen here in Milwaukee if that makes sense.

So I appreciate your time and patience.

God bless.

Nicholas X Doherty.

Good evening.

Greetings, commissioners.

My name is Nicholas X.

Doherty, I am the confront of mass incarceration coordinator at the Milwaukee Turners.

I want to start by saying that living under the invisible chains of white supremacy is a painful and demoralizing experience.

When it comes to structural violence, Milwaukee has broken records.

Milwaukee being a city with a majority non-white population is suffering and in pain.

Milwaukee has consistently been ranked as one of the worst cities in the country for black people.

The black community in Milwaukee is socially isolated and hyper segregated.

I say that to say that people on the outside looking in don't understand what it's like to live under these conditions, therefore they lack empathy.

So we are looking at crime through the wrong lens.

Crime is an indicator of oppression.

What causes crime is unmet human need.

When people have unmet needs, it is human biology to survive.

This room would be packed beyond capacity, way more than what it is now.

If people for margin, I mean with people from marginalized communities, still most of our people don't have time to come because of structural violence, has them worried about where their next meal will come from, how they will pay their rent, or where they will sleep tonight.

In other words, when you have to survive, it becomes really hard to focus on freedom, justice, and equality.

But when you're dealing with a white supremacist mind, survival gets framed as criminality, poverty gets framed as irresponsibility, and large areas get stigmatized, which gives the pretext for mass surveillance.

So today, I am here to oppose FLOC technology, which is an aspect of that uh oppressive mass surveillance apparatus.

Flack technology is a form of social control and does not address the needs of Milwaukee.

Instead, it communicates to Milwaukee residents that aspects of government and law enforcement view large portions of the population as enemy combatants.

This kind of surveillance technology is the same kind they use on battlefields as counterinsurgency tactics.

Um and now the police act as a domestic military implementing battlefield tactics tactics on poor and non-white communities all over America.

There has been, I mean, there have been over 53 cities, including Appleton, that have either discontinued this technology or rejected it altogether.

I think it would be in the best interest in Milwaukee to discontinue using flock or any other automatic automated license plate reader technology.

So I am asking you, uh, the commission to oppose this technology.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Hey, good evening.

I think tonight I'll start with use of force.

Um so I think we need to broaden our view of what forces.

From the conversations I've heard, it's about like the weapon being drawn and the use and things like that.

Absolutely.

I think all of that is use of force and violence.

But also, just in my observations of the world, like what escalates things is like when people, how people talk and what people say, and so like even the uh the words that people are saying, I think can be forceful uses of force and violence.

And I know like it's hard to think about all that and document all this and everything, but I think that absolutely needs to be considered.

Of how are people interacting with each other when police come into a situation and it's tense and there's a lot of stuff going on, it's like the how something is said, what something is said, names that people are called, all those things can escalate situations and create violent uh situations and um escalate things.

And so I think when we think about what is force, what is violence, um, who is using that, it's like I think we need to include that in that conversation and and and think more about how what people say will um can affect and escalate situations, and that how that should be maybe considered violent and use of force.

Um, so yeah, that should uh hopefully we can talk about that as as that comes up in the agenda.

Um then I'll move on to Flock.

Um I don't think we need an audit of Flock.

I think we know um through all the things that people have been saying through all the um other municipalities that have um said we're not gonna renew our contract for Flock.

We we see the things that are going on there, we know what what we'll find in an audit that it's not good.

We don't want the surveillance, we don't um need all the those extra things that that flock is uh all the extra surveillance that is happening with with flock and other ALPRs.

We know that it's not always accurate, we know that um it's using secret, we know the harm that comes from it, and then beyond that, it's just the will of the people of like people are coming saying we don't want this, and and so it's like we don't need an audit to show us that this isn't wanted here, that um that there's harm that comes from from the use of flock and other ALPRs.

Um, so yeah, um, the um the mistrust that is already between the community and the police is just exacerbated when you have already over surveilled um communities having like, where is this coming from?

And it's it's being done in secret.

We don't know um what's happening.

It's it just adds to the mistrust and um and obviously it's the will of the people to not have any more of the surveillance, and so let's cancel this contract with Flock and all ALPRs.

Thank you.

Carlos Dixon.

All power to the people.

If you believe that, you say it back.

Come on now, the people in the Congo need to hear y'all.

All right, I can dig it.

I want to start by saying shout out to Vader Philanthropies.

Okay, they write up the street on Third Street.

They are a great organization, they hand out a bankroll to a lot of our institutions in the street.

At the same time, they publicly support the state of Israel.

But I digress.

How are you guys doing today?

Y'all all right?

My God right here is all good.

Mr.

Leon Todd, man, you look a little tense up there, brother.

You gotta relax, okay?

All right.

I'm nervous by nature.

What can I say?

Me too.

Oh my gosh.

All right, look.

This is my third time coming to these meetings, right?

And what's bothering me tonight is not just the police pursuits.

It's not just the use of force, it's not just the surveillance, it's the realization that many of these folks in here that have been coming here for years.

It's crazy.

Uh asking the same people or the same institutions for the same little piece of humanity.

Uh, while the conditions outside keep getting worse, at some point we have to ask ourselves are we changing the system or are we becoming emotionally adjusted to the oppression?

Because every month we come in here talking about policy.

We talk about oversight, we talk about recommendations.

Meanwhile, poor people are still being chased through neighborhoods, still being brutalized, still being monitored, and still being extracted from.

Random traffic cones, random construction setups, random cosmetic projects all over the city, and every single cone, every truck, every contract, every consultant gets paid.

But when the people ask for safety, when the people ask for housing, when the people here ask for mental health resources, when the people ask not to be haunted through their own neighborhoods by high speed pursuits, suddenly the city is underfunded and we have to come into these type of environments.

And I saw someone recently say they're in this room too.

I don't want to call them out, but if you're not at the table, you're on the menu.

Let me make something very clear, okay?

I'm not here fighting to sit at anybody's table.

I'm here for the people who were never invited into this building in the first place, the poor, the exploited, the people, the people surviving violence while professionals hold meetings about that violence.

I call it uh making rules about us without us, all right?

And I need this entire room to understand something.

People are losing faith in these institutions, not because they're irrational or not because they're extremist extremists, but because they can feel the contradiction, okay?

You cannot surveil a population into trust.

You cannot police people into dignity, uh, and you cannot keep asking suffering communities to be patient while budgets continue to prioritize systems of control over systems of care.

At some point, this city and everybody in this room, we must decide.

Do you exist to protect human beings, or do you exist to manage the consequences of exploitation?

Because those two are not the same thing.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Okay.

Hello, good evening.

I'm speaking in opposition to the continued usage of Flock technology and the usage of any automated license plate readers.

When the public began speaking out against expanded police surveillance, including Flock last year, Milwaukee had the opportunity to be a leader in this arena by ending its contracts and removing Flock's hardware.

Now, with city after city ending contracts or rejecting flock due to community outcry and common sense, including many cities in Wisconsin, Milwaukee is falling behind.

I'm not surprised exactly because MPD has repeatedly demonstrated or outright told us that they don't care about public opinion.

So having stated my opposition to Flock and all ALPRs, I'd like to raise items I and I'm sure the community are still awaiting updates on or feedback on.

First, what's the deal with facial recognition technology?

A voluntary moratorium implemented by a deceitful department is not where the book should stop.

I want to see a full ban on FRT usage in Milwaukee.

Wherever others stand on this, we still need a policy governing its use in Milwaukee and by MPD.

Second, we've not heard a formal reply from the FPC to Chief Norman's propaganda trip to the genocidal Zionist entity this past December.

The community spoke clearly to demand accountability, and we've not heard a formal response or position from the commission.

I would like one.

Relatedly, at the last meeting, you all discussed limiting public comment and said you'd welcome presentations from community groups.

How does a community group go about getting on the agenda and what's the criteria there?

Even though I wasn't able to attend the last meeting where you debated this restricting of public comment, and even though the time limit remains unchanged, which I support, I do still have some thoughts.

We know that many of you resent public comments, especially when they make meetings go long.

We know because you've said it to our faces and at times into the mics when you think we can't hear you.

Take today, for example, before the doors opened, we heard someone, the chair, I believe, lamenting that it's all the same people here tonight.

Even if it's our right.

Maybe it wasn't you, but we did hear it on the virtual.

So somebody lamented that.

So you lamented that it's all the same people here tonight, even if it's our right to give public comment.

I just want to be clear that we wouldn't need to return every meeting if we felt heard by all of you, and if MPD wasn't allowed to operate with near impunity.

As has been said before, if anyone here on the commission is not happy in this role because of long meetings due to us, the people exercising our rights in one of the few remaining forums accessible to us, then quit the commission.

You're paid to be here and we are not, and instead of seeing that as valuable to healthy communities, many of you have expressed it as a burden.

I implore you to understand the power dynamics here.

You are stewards of one of Milwaukee's last gasps of democracy.

I am painfully aware of the power dynamics myself, particularly as a Palestinian fighting to prevent the gossification of Milwaukee, and doing so by appealing to a commission chaired by somebody who's a member of a local Zionist organization, the Milwaukee Jewish Federation, that supports the genocide of my people.

And that tidbit is part of your public FPC bio, chairwoman.

So every time we hear anybody grumbling about us, every time you contemplate limiting our voices, you are aiding in the death of democracy.

And we are here because we believe in our rights.

We want to be here, we want to see a better community, and I implore all of you to change the attitudes around that, because it is not an easy thing to be here, even if you see us every single time.

And I would like for you to stop treating it that way.

As one of my neighbors said, we are residents, we are homeowners, we have kids who go to school here.

It is our right to be here.

And if you don't like it, then quit.

Thank you.

Stephanie, there's no last name listed.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Again, hi.

Um, okay, so if I could repeat everything that Emilio and Amanda and others have said, I would.

Everything we need to know about the efficacy and quote unquote safety of flock cameras is there.

And we keep having to say the same things.

If you're tired of hearing them over and over again, we're equally as exhausted by having to raise the same critical and salient points over and over again with no significant shift coming out of this body or the MPD or from the MD.

Though there is still the endless push to push it forward and the strive to push it forward.

This tech and access to it is continuing to evolve and widen at a pace far in advance of us having the proper safeguards in place to prevent its violent and potentially deadly misuse.

If we consider this current period as the beta testing of what the use of flock can be, we are getting the results of that testing.

Any potential benefits of this tech do not outweigh currently the harms, period.

The stalking of private citizens by those who purport to protect them, the unprotect unprotected sharing of the data, usage without a warrant, hacking, and as we know, these cameras can be easily software updated to use FRT, which is already a battle we have been fighting and have put a moratorium on in Milwaukee.

All while Flock itself as a company is making a push in courts to not have to disclose where these cameras are being placed.

The community is crying out for help, as you are hearing, not for Flock cameras.

No one is asking for that, or very few people are asking for that.

Why is this not being heard?

People want to be protected by the from the violences that are being committed by those who are in positions of power.

We do not want these cameras here, and they do not make us feel safe.

Um, and then additionally, I just want to add because I thought of this, was it this week?

It was like a few weeks ago, I parked in front of the federal courthouse or something, and I didn't know I was in the zone where uh law enforcement cars are supposed to park.

And as I was getting out, a um cop came out of the vehicle in front of me and I was fixing things in my car, and he said, You can't actually park here, these are just for law enforcement vehicles.

Um, you'll get ticketed and towed like right away.

And I was like, Oh, okay, thank you.

And I got out, and when I got out, I realized that both of the cars that were parked in front of me that are these law enforcement cars, had their license plates scratched out, which we know is a move by cars to not be read by automatic license plate readers.

So if our cops themselves are doing it, what is that?

What isn't this supposed to keep us safe?

Isn't this tech that they want us to have?

So if the cops who are the people on the inside who want this in place don't actually want it being used on their vehicles or tailing where they go, what does that tell us?

And I want that to be responded to.

Thank you.

Rihanna.

As was previously mentioned, I've been here, and so many other community members have been here so many times speaking out about flock and other surveillance technology that is being forced on Milwaukee citizens.

And what it boils down to this is this why do we need a citywide mass surveillance system that tracks where ordinary people go, who they associate with, and what personal decisions they make, as Emilio spoke about as well.

That should concern every single citizen in Milwaukee, especially when there have been so many instances of how these cameras have been misused, hacked, or otherwise just used in a disturbing way.

Investigative reporting from 404 media has repeatedly exposed serious concerns about flock safety practices.

Their reporting shows that federal agencies and immigration investigators were able to gain access to flock camera data through local police partnerships, creating what many experts describe as a backdoor national surveillance system.

404 Media also revealed that Flock considered using using hacked and breached personal data in its investigative products before public backlash force the company to back away.

That should alarm everyone.

A company willing to even consider integrating stolen data into policing tools should not be trusted with sensitive information about Milwaukee residents.

There are also growing concerns about cybersecurity misuse.

Reports have documented stolen police logins, unauthorized access risks, and officers using surveillance tools improperly, as I'm sure you're well aware.

And across the country, citizens like Appleton, Oshkosh, Verona, Sturgeon Bay are beginning to reconsider or remove these cameras because communities no longer trust these systems.

The MPD are trying to sell us on why we need a mass surveillance system that's being sold as a public safety tool, and I don't buy it.

As technology is advancing, our civil liberties are rapidly disappearing.

Where will it end?

As others have noted, we need a comprehensive framework for oversight and real community control of police surveillance.

Get flag out of Milwaukee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

For the commissioner's information, there's also been two additional comment forms submitted by uh community members that indicate opposition to uh to flock cameras, but they indicated they did not wish to speak.

Uh Bridget, do we have anyone online virtually for public comment?

Yes, we have Julie online.

All right, Julie, if you'd like to unmute your mic and then you can give your comment.

Thank you.

Uh Bridget directors, commissioners, beloved community.

Chaplain Julie Kercio, Milwaukee County resident.

First, I am for a ban on the use of flock cameras and any FRT by the MPD for the reasons folks have shared tonight and at all the past meetings.

Secondly, I am for any additional restrictions that can be implemented to reduce the plague of reckless police car chases in Milwaukee.

And third, I am well aware that during these dystopian times, international law remains an illusion.

However, international bodies still exist, like um Amnesty International, the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders, I could go on, so many others.

But what do all of these international organizations have in common?

They have all recognized that the genocidal apartheid Zionist regime that is currently occupying Palestine is a chronic violator of human rights.

That's right.

The genocidal racist Zionist entity known as Israel is internationally recognized as a chronic violator of human rights.

You may ask what does this have to do with Milwaukee?

Exactly.

Exactly.

Chief Norman.

Chief of Staff Huff, anybody on the commission who supports those two.

Why in the world would the chief of the Milwaukee police department train with the racist genocidal regime of Israel, an internationally recognized violator of human rights?

Reports from Amnesty International a decade ago documented widespread constitutional violations, discriminating enforcement tactics, and a culture of retaliation by the Baltimore police department.

A police department that received training on crowd control, use of force, and surveillance from the genocidal entity called Israel.

Just like Chief Norman, why was this allowed?

We keep bringing this up.

What is being done to ensure this never happens again?

If we are currently stuck with police departments, I believe they should receive training from partners that will train on such things as de escalation techniques.

Working with the mentally ill, the mentally challenged, training on constitutional rights of people using nonviolent protests to express their opinions.

Things like that.

I grant you you'd be hard pressed to find an ethical police department.

That would be an oxymoron, I guess.

My God, though, of all the places Israel, you would think people would have the basic decency to not train with such an evil entity, but here we are, and we keep bringing this up.

What can be done by this commission to ensure that such egregious training never happens again?

When will the public be informed of what the chief was doing over there?

What other training options or entities are available?

Do you all investigate any training organizations for efficacy or ethics?

Who is involved in the decision making amount about where training is received?

Or is it just a matter of accepting from any entity that wants to buy you off?

Pay for your trip, take you sightseeing, put you up at the Ritz Carlton.

I mean, I get wanting to train outside of this corrupt and dying nation.

But Israel Judas Priest.

How about checking out police training in Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand?

Have you checked out any places that are highly ranked by their citizenry?

Highly ranked for their global reputations.

Please, we keep begging you to be transparent about what happened on that trip and what can be done to ensure it never happens again in order to protect and prioritize the safety of the people of Milwaukee.

Will it be put on the agenda ever?

So that it will be formally addressed, or are you going to keep ignoring our concerns?

Free Milwaukee from dangerous policing, free Palestine.

It's all connected.

I thank you for your time.

I did just want to briefly comment that that public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to make their opinions known and their positions known to the commissioners.

Even if they are not on the agenda, people are free to reach out to the FPC department and ask to speak with myself, and I'm happy to uh to do my best to answer questions.

So I did just want to say that.

Bridget, is there anyone else virtually for public comment?

There are not, Director.

All right.

Keep the schedule the way it is.

There being no further comments, this concludes the public comment portion of the meeting.

Uh Director, please proceed with the agenda.

And I request that item number 10 be moved up.

I'm sorry.

That's what I'm talking about.

Yeah, right.

We're gonna move.

Oh, it is.

Oh, he's requesting that it be left.

Leave it alone.

Okay.

Why?

Why?

Because we don't have the things to talk about.

I don't agree.

I don't agree with that.

Yeah.

I would like in recognition that that's the major interest here tonight.

I would like to move that out.

Okay.

Item 10, FPC 212509 communication from the Milwaukee Police Department relating to automated license plate readers or Elper.

This is again item 10 that we're taking out of order.

It's item 10 under new business.

Uh and we have with us today from the Milwaukee Police Department Chief of Staff Heather Huff and Risk Manager James Lewis.

And I believe they have a PowerPoint that I will help them cue up.

Yep.

I will say preliminarily that we cannot have outcries from the audience.

If you have more to say in response to new information, please put it in writing and submit it to us, but do not disturb the conduct of this meeting.

Oh, it's not in here.

You don't have this, I don't think this is in the file.

It's not in the file yet, right?

It's not in the file now.

It was this submitted for their file.

No, I gave it to Lee.

Oh.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Could we have this added to the file after the fact?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Okay, go ahead.

So good evening, commissioners, and thank you for this opportunity to discuss all of the different auditing functions we have put in place for our flock system.

I do want to start out and acknowledge all of the public comments.

The Milwaukee Police Department appreciates the public comments that are made.

And despite disagreeing on many issues, we take all of these comments to heart and we take them seriously.

So thank you to all of those who came out, and thank you to all those who are staying for this presentation.

It is really important for the department to find a balance between the interests of what we believe is public safety and the privacy rights and surveillance concerns of those in our public, like those who have come to speak out today and those who have come to speak out in the past.

We do not discount those opinions, and therefore our presentation today focuses on many of the different auditing functions we have put into place in the past few months that we're happy to share with this body and with the public.

But key to the investigation that led us to the organizer of those was license plate reading cameras.

And so they were a valuable tool in bringing justice to an individual who is causing great harm to many residents in the city of Milwaukee, many residents who asked us to do something.

The second example I want to give is that in the news, right along the same time, there was a city employee who was shot while they were on duty and for carjacking.

In that case, license plate readers, flock cameras, led us to the suspect vehicle, and we're able to apprehend those who caused great harm to the city through violence.

Used correctly, they are a valuable tool, and this department will not back away from that position because we really believe in it.

That being said, we also recognize that we can do a great deal of harm to the public trust if misused.

And we had a recent example where that occurred by the hands of one of our employees.

What we we will say as a department is the second we became aware, we acted swiftly to hold that member accountable, and that member is no longer part of this department because that is not how we want to use these tools.

Since that time, we have implemented a number of things, and James is going to go over them with this body and with the public.

And what I want to say to that is we do our very best, and when those who cause harm, including our own, our member caused harm to the public trust, our members caused that member caused harm to this department, we hold them accountable for that behavior, and we will not stand behind it.

So we agree with the public and we agree with the comments here that the misuse should never occur.

I'm going to turn over to James, but I also just want to say from the department's perspective, having a risk manager is a great thing for us in all kinds of ways.

But in this way, James has really taken the lead on taking a deep dive into all of the different things we can implement to ensure the appropriate use of our flock and license plate reader cameras, and ensure that appropriate auditing is occurring on a regular basis to make to do our very best.

That it's always being used appropriately.

We can make no guarantees that there isn't going to be a person doing a bad thing anywhere, including in our own department.

But what we can guarantee is we're going to do everything in our power to be able to implement the tools to find those individuals who are causing harm and to hold them accountable for that behavior.

So, thanks to James, thanks to all that he brings to the department in risk management, and this is just one example of the many ways that he makes us better.

James.

Thank you very much, and thank you, members of the commission, for hearing this file and giving us an opportunity to explain some of the responses to the letter that the common council added to this file.

I just want to set the stage a little bit about what this presentation is.

This presentation is an attempt at a line by line response to the questions posed for the questions and the topics posed that relate to the department.

Some of that letter is you'll recall from reading it, direct the FPC to do certain things or speak to over site in a way that isn't appropriate necessarily for the department to opine on.

So I've done my best to sort of parse that out and look at the questions that we can be responsive to, so that we can show uh this body, the common council, and also uh anybody who may be watching the steps that we've taken to uh mitigate risk to ensure that the use of our Alpers systems is compliant with policy and is doing the best public service that it can and leveraging the public safety uh technology that it provides.

So I'm gonna go through those questions right now, and then at the end, um excuse me.

Uh I'm happy to answer any questions that I can.

Um, I'm also happy to provide follow-up if there's questions that I'm unable to answer from the top of my head, but I will do my best.

So thank you.

Um first.

Ah, this is a little zoomed in.

Okay, well, I'll read the question.

What specific training is provided before anyone is granted access to the department's ALPER and similar technology?

Uh the answer to that is that um we had turned off all of the use of flock in February, and before any users were admitted back into the system, they were required to uh undergo a training from the few the captain of the fusion division.

Uh a video was produced for that training.

Um, there's an emphasis on associating each query with a valid and accurate CAT or case number.

Uh, that is reflected in our policy.

It is an important piece tying the query to some function of public safety.

That is the requirement of the policy, and that is what the members have been retrained on.

Um, I'll also point to we have an ALPR user agreement.

This is uh republished here.

Um, but this is the agreement that any member who said, yes, I want to be a police officer who has FOC access, uh, was required to um go line by line uh and initial these things.

Um but what those um what this user agreement sets forth is that the purpose will be for legitimate law enforcement purpose, that whenever there's a query made that it will have an accurate CAT or case number, that the system can be revoked from the members' access at any time for any reason.

Um number four is that they have read and understand the procedure and expectations of the SOP, and that they understand that their use of the system needs to be compliant with that policy.

Uh also number five, this is one that I came up with that if if you're asked to make an ALPER query for another member, you are responsible for the workup of that file as if it is your own query.

So the accuracy of the information submitted for the query is the responsibility of the submitting officer.

And then number six is more of just a reminder, but it's violations of this agreement or the policy are subject to discipline.

The member then signs it, the member's commander basically vouching for that member, then signs it.

Those members who submitted those are then vetted again by fusion before they are allowed access to the ALPER technology.

That vetting includes whether or not they have incidents of misconduct that would make it inappropriate for their use.

We were sensitive to that.

And so fusion goes through those applications, not just for this policy, but also for the right people using this technology, given we know how you know what it can do when misused.

So the next question is how is ongoing use supervised in real time and who is responsible for reviewing searches and access logs?

James, I'm sorry.

I don't know if it's if there's text that's cut off, but I think if you hit escape on the keyboard, that'll take it out of slideshow mode, and maybe that'll be a little easier to see.

Is that better?

Is that better for give it a shot?

I see it.

Okay.

Well, alright.

So the question is how is ongoing use supervised in real time?

And who is responsible for reviewing searches and access logs?

So the baseline question of that is the work location supervision.

So that's your frontline supervisor.

They are primarily responsible for the review of queries.

When we send an audit to a work location, what we are asking that frontline supervisor to do is to supervise their members' use in a way that is leveraged by the data that we've gained from the audit.

And so that's the first line of defense against this.

We also have uh systems controlled by the intelligence fusion division.

This is where the system uh is housed.

They are the entity of our department that is primarily responsible for the administration and oversight of the use of this technology.

Also, we have a section called the compliance management section, it's a section that I oversee.

We provide supervisors with lists of queries that are subject to audit.

We also do follow-ups so there are times where the audit will project to me something that says this is of concern, and I pose it to supervision to say what happened here, and I am looking for a specific response.

And if the response that I'm getting from supervision doesn't match with my expectation, what I then do is say what was the reason provided for this outcome that sort of deviates from what I would expect, and is it rational, is it reasonable?

Did I learn something more that I didn't know before, or is this something that merits more follow-up and the need for removal or for referral to discipline, which I will cover through these questions.

How frequently are audits conducted and are they proactive or only triggered after a complaint?

So the regular cadence for our audits is a monthly cadence.

Um there is a good reason for that, and I will get into it in a little bit, but it has to do with building the data set so that you can trend patterns over time.

Um within that monthly cadence, however, if a complaint is received by MPD, whether it be through a district location, through IAD, or if the FPC were to alert us to a complaint that says for some reason the complaint implicates flock, uh we would review immediately what that complaint sets forth, including doing a deep dive query into that plate to see whether or not it's been compliant and it's associated with a case, whether or not the nature of the complaint and the substance of that context matches what our documentation is or is not, and then the results from that would be a very swift investigation.

We have not received any complaints.

I did check with IAD before making this presentation.

There were none of record that we're aware of.

However, if we did receive those, we would not wait for the monthly cadence to happen, we'd dive right into it.

What disciplinary policies exist for violations and are they consistently enforced?

Um, like I said, on that user agreement for the ALPERS uh system, it has an explicit acknowledgement that misuses or violation violative uses are subject to discipline.

Um our discipline matrix, which the commission is very uh aware of, uh, does ensure consistency and enforcement.

Uh, we also have our statutory framework for meeting out any discipline must meet the standards, the seven standards of just cause, and that's by statute.

And then I want to highlight two core values, and so these core values are guiding principles that um all members must abide by.

And the first of that is a competency core value, it's a 104, and that means that police investigations must be based at a minimum on reasonable suspicion or the occurrence of an actual or possible criminal offense.

All investigations shall be conducted in reports prepared in a prompt, thorough, and partial and careful manner to ensure accountability and compliance with the law.

A second core value that is applicable to these types of searches is another competence core value, and it's a 105, which is that all department members should be familiar with department policies, procedures, and training, and then expected to conduct themselves in full accordance with them.

We have a robust SOP on this use.

Um so anybody who violates that specific SOP is um could be disciplined under a 105.

Um, but that 104 competency uh piece, I think you'll see it a little bit later in the presentation.

But when we require officers to make investigations that are based on reasonable suspicion or the actual occurrence of a crime, um, what we're saying is is that in order to use the Alpers system, and this is in the uh user agreement, it must be for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

And that ties back to 104 in well, what does that mean?

That means that you have to be able to articulate what you have.

You have to be able to document what you have.

All of that's in our policy as well.

Um, but when it comes to discipline, the charges that you would expect to see for misuse of this just off the top line, not taking into the context of anything else that may have happened or the circumstances, all come back to this competency court value.

So you may have further things that could be implicated in any give given or particular case, but the misuse of um not associating this with that bare minimum standard of what law enforcement uh investigations are supposed to be based on, tie directly back to this, and that's the disciplinary framework that we use.

And the commission and any of you who have heard discipline are familiar with how these core values that that's where the charges stem from, and then we test them against the seven standards of just cause, and the disciplinary matrix ensures that over time, discipline that's meted out appears consistent and whether or not it's appropriate in any given case to deviate from what we call comparable cases.

Um that's just kind of a high-level explanation of that.

What safeguards are in place to ensure those systems are not used for immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant.

Um this is uh the the three sort of paragraphs here that I have.

Um these are direct quotations from our SOP 130.

Um, but what they get at are they set forth that immigration enforcement is not the job of the Milwaukee police department.

Immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government, and we do not unilaterally undertake immigration enforcement, we don't routinely reinquire into immigration status, and we also have a note for our officers that most immigration violations are civil and fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, so local law enforcements have no right to arrest in those matters.

That again ties back to that competency of 104 and having a legitimate lawful purpose for making any query of a ALPERS system.

Again, when you're talking about immigration and civil immigration specifically, which is what this covers without a judicial warrant, you would be violating SOP, you'd be violating the user agreement, and you would be violating our immigration policy if you make queries enforcing immigration.

Again, we can't arrest or detain for uh immigration violations of the law, and we explicitly say that administrative warrants are non-criminal, they're not signed by a judge, and they can't be used by any department members as the basis to detain or arrest a person.

How is the city ensuring compliance with local policies, state law, and constitutional protections regarding data access and surveillance?

This question that was posed is a is a very broad one, and so I want to hit on some of the local things that we are charged with as a department as far as surveillance goes, but also we have state and federal oversight outside of this body that audit and hold us compliant for any use of data.

So in our sieges compliant, that's that happens on both a state and a federal level.

There are plenty stories of eight local agencies, not MPD, that when you don't comply with those federal audits and you don't pass those federal audits, they take away basically the information and access sharing.

So we, as an agency, use also our Wiley Egg accreditation, which dovetails into the exact type of policies that CGIS compliance tries to get you at, which are that you have systems and metrics and accountability in place that says if you're gonna have a policy that you measure and you comply with it, but also that if you're gonna make access to surveillance systems, that you're abiding by those rules as well.

I also want to point out that per local ordinances, Milwaukee City ordinances in multiple different chapters across the city, the um certain surveillance equipment, cameras, and things like that are required to be at certain premises.

We have a license investigation unit there present at most licensing hearings, and they um talk about compliance or noncompliance with those requirements of those ordinances.

And then finally, with constitutional protections, I just want to set the stage.

It did do a little bit of research before we came here because I wanted to see how the Seventh Circuit has provided guidance, whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court or appellate courts have issued public opinions on those.

The information is pretty limited, given that this Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is relatively new in the scheme of the history of our country.

But uh a quote that I found that then ended with like a nine citation string site is that there's nearly uniform consensus of courts that have evaluated the constitutionality of Alpers and held that their uses are not Fourth Amendment searches requiring warrants or probable cause.

That that helps bridge the gap between policy and then what we might expect from Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, where our policies requiring us to have that minimum level of police uh investigations tying to probable cause, tying to reasonable, or excuse me, tying to reasonable suspicion or the occurrences of crimes, that's where this system falls in.

And so when we're talking about compliance with the constitutional protections, we do have to look to the courts because the courts are what guide our decisions here.

And so we don't have any case law on point that says this is these are clear Fourth Amendment violations, and the string sites that support this aren't just from the Seventh Circuit, but they're from all across our country.

Alright, now getting into the MPD audit and review.

Um so we have our monthly Alpers uh audit, and it we've increased our audit in robustness.

Um I can say since we started addressing this in early 2026.

Um, one of the problems that I saw with our with our previous audit system was that it necessarily wasn't tied to some sort of data point that's saying where should you look?

Um, when you have lots of points of data sorting that data and making sense of it before you do a deep dive is a really good way to ensure that you're making like if you're looking for a needle in a haystack that you're being directed where to look and not just saying, well, I saw something over here and I didn't find it.

So the things that we kind of looked at were number one, the system itself, the vendor, the technology, doesn't didn't have a great way of doing audit.

Um I'm pretty sure that they're trying to get better at that, but we couldn't wait around for a software system to improve.

And so I recruited a team of uh analysts from our OMAP division, and so when Heather gave me credit for this, I really can't take credit other than being like a general contractor because so many people worked on this to get this audit into a place where it really does let us leverage it, and um we do we identify outliers, we look at volume trends, we look at patterns, we look at Z scores, which is just a mean of means and getting you standard deviations to say this looks weird against either other people or this own this this individual officer.

Um we also were able to sort data using our alpha numeric case system to see if you're submitting a case number, is it meeting that bare minimum alpha numeric pattern of what we would expect a case number to look like?

And if it's not, you know, we want to be having our supervision take a deeper look at that to see why that might be.

So that's kind of like the high level what we did with it.

Excuse me.

When I talk about outliers, we have three major categories of outliers that for us that compliance management triggers, these are the cases you should look at.

So we have our case number outliers.

So when our Z-score is higher than three, that's always an indicator.

That's three standard deviations away from what we usually expect, or like the average of how someone's using it.

There's a lot of reasons why a case number might become a high Z score.

A high Z-score on its own doesn't tell you much about anything other than this is the place to start to look.

A homicide suspect case number is gonna have a lot of queries in it.

There's gonna be a lot of people looking at it and working those cases.

A district level robbery will have less.

That's just the nature of the division of work and the way that our department investigates things.

But when we look at those things, another thing I like to look at is if it's only one officer in that case number and the z-score is really high, that tells you that there's something to look at there.

Because if the z-score is really high, that means a lot of things are happening in that case.

But if it's just one officer, that doesn't tell me much more, other than okay, there's probably a really good reason for this, or there's something to look at.

Um we want the supervision to unpack that high Z-score with one officer to be able to tell us, okay, this was what happened in this case.

And in most of the cases, what we're looking at there, like the most common thing that will get you that outlier is a critical missing person with a known license plate where the officer is going to be refreshing that page multiple times over in the same day in that shift because they are looking for that car because an abduction happened, somebody's missing, there's an alert for that car, and they want to find it.

Another way in case numbers we look at this is if there's 10 or more queries by an officer.

So what that means is associating multiple plates into a case number.

There's reasons for that in investigations.

Sometimes actors don't act alone, or that there's multiple victims, multiple suspects, and we're trying to figure out what happened here.

But there's always that that is another data point that you can use to say, what is this?

We need to unpack it and look a little bit more at it.

Uh, the other thing is is that when we have case numbers that are being queried for 25 days or more, that's kind of why this monthly cadence is really helpful.

Um, because typically a 25-day or more case is going to be a more involved investigation.

Officers who are spending that amount of time on that type of investigation, we would expect to see supplemental reports, we'd expect to see um detailed uh investigations into why this is happening.

So that's another outlier that can happen.

Um that was a lot, but like the same concept happens with license plates.

And so if you have one officer searching a plate, that is indicative potentially of um either misuse or something where this officer is uh assigned and there's a reason for it.

So another thing I want to add to this, when we were building this audit, we certainly looked at the officers' use that triggered this misconduct.

Like we were aware of this pattern and how this happened, that certainly helps informed what is it that you want to look for when you find volatile use.

Um, unfortunately, our department has a use case for that, and so unpacking it and finding that, okay.

Well, when one officer searches a plate over a period of time and they're the only officer looking at it and it hits a high Z-score, there's something there.

Usually what we're expecting to see is some report that says why that is, an explanation of it.

Um, but again, so we lower the threshold for five or more queries by an officer to be like after that point, that's something I want a supplemental or an initial report.

I want it very clear about what this is, and again, that 25 day or more pattern, and so if you're keep looking for this car, we need to see what case number it's associated with so we can figure out why.

Um, the other and last sort of area, this is certainly like if we had proprietary product here, this would be the one that I would say is um incredibly powerful and made by our OMAP team.

This is the assessment of officers' searches of case numbers and plates against their own pattern and searches.

And so if you're an officer who, when you get assigned a case or if you see something, you search that card two or three times, and then one day you search something 40 times.

That makes your own use of really high Z-score against your own regular patterns.

So we establish these patterns over time of how do these officers usually do cases and then measure high Z-scores against that individual metric.

And there are officers who, by the nature of their assignment, have high volumes, and there are officers who don't.

And so when those things ping, we want to know about that because it's outside of the typical expectation that we have for that officer.

And that tool over time gets better because patterns and trends change over time, and that tool will allow you to see how that pattern changes.

Kendra Christensen is the OMAP supervisor that was instrumental in all this work.

We must give her credit.

So the other, this is less of a question.

This gets more into the high-level bullet points of the um of the letter.

So this is what the letter asked was for purpose limited tied to documented casework.

Our answer for that is tying and associating those plates to some sort of documented report or case or CAD number in our own record system.

That ensures that supervision has that opportunity when it's directed to them to be able to say, I know what happened here.

You don't want to be having to unpack those things from months past or weeks past without having a case number to associate it to because people forget.

And so the whole point of having a case or a CAD to tie it to is so that when you are reverse engineering the query, you have a lot of different information points that you can tie things back to.

And again, our user agreement requires that this plate association must happen.

James, quick quick question.

And I the reason why I ask is this sounds a little complicated, and I mean that in a good way, but who is doing the audits?

Is it so it's it's dual track because we go back to that slide?

This slide.

So the work location receives from compliance management section what they should look at.

The work location, the district, then dives into that and tells us what it is.

So instead of having the work location say, hey, make sense of this sort of complex data sorting and use all this leverage system.

What we do is we prepare a spreadsheet of the user, the district work location, the plate number we want them to look at, the case number we want them to associate it against, and then we also make notes about, like I said, what our expectations for that thing may be.

Um, and so that way we kind of keep track of why we picked it.

So sometimes it's outlier, sometimes it's this case number doesn't match exactly what's going on with it.

Um, we want to keep that in line so that we can when we get the things back and we're testing out what the supervision said about it, that it gels with what our expectation was at the beginning.

Thank you.

So the division of labor is no, we can't do this all alone, it is a team effort.

Uh, I believe I was on slide 11.

Flagging and supervisory exploit uh escalation.

So we basically have two um sort of independent things that can they're not mutually exclusive.

Um our recommendation for removal is a process that is an administrative process.

Um, when we see things in the data that say, yep, that falls below the expectations, that's certainly not a case number, that's you're not going to be able to walk this one back.

You put that case number in there and it's not right, it doesn't work.

Um, we can administratively remove a user, and that's in the agreement that they can be revoked at any time.

Um discipline also requires that why.

So if the why is, well, okay, the member transposed a number in this, that's gonna look a lot different than the member didn't know what they did when we talked to them, right?

That member is going to be investigated for discipline.

The member who um may have added a di an extra digit to this 10 alpha numeric code um wouldn't necessarily expect discipline unless this becomes a pattern over time.

Um, so that is how we flag those things, supervision then gives us some of that context for it, and then either an internal can happen a policy review at the district level can happen or we can take some administrative action um to preserve the system and then uh one of the recommendations in this was a clear firewall for immigration enforcement so just some reminding again like this does tie back to our SOP at 130 so you can't use immigration status as a basis for a criminal investigation we explicitly prohibit civil enforcement of administrative immigration policies so there is actually a uh a policy governing this and again we have our core value that I tie it back to um and I believe that that is going to answer the questions in the letter that were pertinent to MPD um so thank you for bearing with me I'm certainly happy to entertain questions I don't know madam chair how you want to um facilitate that but happy to answer.

Well I'll start by asking the questions I have um you uh indicate that the fusion division is doing the training I think the public should know what is the fusion division who's in it what do they do sure so the intelligence fusion division is uh a division of our criminal investigations bureau uh so they are a entity they have sworn in non and civilian employees in it um they work with um like in the poll camera operators they work with um crime analysts and mapping and trends and things like that um the fusion division is basically like where all the information comes together and then it's made sense of and it informs how we deploy directed patrol missions crime strategies in districts um and also looks for threat assessments and things like that so there's a lot of things happening in fusion um that's where the software landed and some of the oversight from it has shifted away from that entity which is more of an operational entity into the compliance management section which is more of an administrative oversight uh body better prepared to handle those types of things is are all members of the fusion division MPD employees no I don't believe so who else is employed in the fusion division um well I don't know the exact number of the breakdown of it but I believe that uh the Southeastern Wisconsin terrorist threat assessment network the stack um works out of the fusion division they're not our employees though so all of the MPD employees who have access to our MPD systems are either sworn or civilian employees within MPD so these non-mpd um individuals who are working at the fusion division do they have access to the automatic camera reading system?

No our members the only members who have access um have an at Milwaukee.gov email address they are our employees and any employee who works as a uh task force officer or something like that from any other entity they're not uh granted into our network access and when we purged it we ensured that that was part of who we would have um we looked for that we wanted to make sure that that was not happening because we were sensitive to um the data sharing stories from other agencies we're sensitive to um a federal officer having access could um have the appearance of okay we're crossing over lines here into the things that we're trying to hedge against which are we don't want this to be used for an immigration enforcement we don't want this to be used outside of our department um and so the the users for it are all Milwaukee city employees okay so they have to uh sign the agreement and go through training and they're located the access is located in all the district uh offices.

It's they don't have to go downtown in order to use it.

No, correct.

It's in their um MDCs, which are the uh patrol computers.

Okay.

But also to be clear, not anyone should can say, sign me up, I want to do this.

It has to be vetted by their chain of command, and there has to be a valid reason why it's important in their work.

Okay.

But it being on the computer, how do you ensure that other people don't have the ability to hack into it or access it without authorization?

Yeah, there is a multi-factor authentication in order to access both the computer terminal itself.

So when you turn the computer on and log in, you have your typical Microsoft access.

We also are desktop computers require us to have our badge and our ID to log in.

Um and if that is not on that like this particular laptop doesn't have that, but then I have to go through multi-factor authentication questions to just log into the portal, and then from there to access Flock, there's similar um MFA multi-factor identification, including um a you have to do a name and password, you also have to do um a separate device authentication.

So like it will send you a confirmation code and then you would type that in.

And and these computers, all of our department computers, um, you can't adjust the settings to not have it time out, so they will time out if you don't have use.

Um which is an important thing for sieges because people do get up from their desks to do other things, and I was like, I want to change this because I get up and do other things, and I hate having to log in every time, and I asked if that could happen, and they said no, because it's a CGS thing.

We want to make sure that the users who log in are the users who are on the terminal.

Okay.

And James, I was just uh reminded that we should stop sharing.

Oh I can do that.

Thank you.

Oh, I hope so.

Okay, um, so all of this, like the cameras are collecting this data, and the data is going into the software, and uh, is it limitless?

Is it timeless?

Does it go on forever?

What what's that about?

So um the only time that the department comes into the data is when it makes a query.

And so um the Yeah, but does the query does the data go back?

No, it's like is it is it urged from time to time?

I understand.

Yes.

So the the data that's captured by the camera exists for 30 days.

Within those 30 days, if a query is made from it, a result is generated from that.

Um, but if a query is not made for that particular instance and you drove by it 31 days ago, your information is no longer searchable in that.

So I can't go back and say I'm wondering what Chair Horowitz did in February.

I'm gonna see if I can get that.

I it won't return me any results.

Okay, all right.

Um more questions, commissioners?

Question.

Um this pings this for when you do your audits monthly, your office is the one that determines who to send to the districts, right?

Correct.

And then they get a summation, this is a problem.

Well, this is a questioned query.

Investigate.

Correct.

Because they don't have that access, they don't have that the knowledge of 3D 3Z scores, and and uh okay.

We're trying to help them look at the things that are the most concerning in data.

And this they these orders are every 30 days you do these audits?

Correct.

But what if something's happening right now?

Somebody's misuse right now this week, and can well that how would that would that be able to be flagged?

You have to wait till the end of the month.

It's difficult to generate outlier data in real time like that.

Um this is a brand new process, and the amount of data and the way that we've sorted it is um a lot.

It's certainly something that we can look into to get more real time.

Um, but again, even what the data will tell the data won't necessarily tell you that there's something that's misuse or criminal happening.

All it is is gonna be a data point that will require a like an iterative narrative process to see what's happening.

So each and every time you have a search or a query come through and it associates to one thing or another, there's a few more layers of work you've got to get to before you can make a heads or tails and a judgment call about whether or not this was consistent with policy.

And so no amount of data sorting is ever gonna tell you, other other than you know, plainly they didn't use a case number.

That's something that could tell you.

But even that on its own doesn't necessarily reflect that's that's that criminal officer who did that thing.

Um the the ways that I've seen it come through both before and after this audit process have been um cases where uh they've made inputs that just aren't the right one, like you put a in the case number C27.

Well, that's a 2027 case.

That number's gonna be wrong because it doesn't associate yet, but the six is right next to the seven.

And so that can happen.

How long you've been doing these audits?

Um, with this data leveraged approach, we've been we've took the month of March and the month the month of April.

So we built it in January and February and our systems testing it in February.

Is that took the longest amount of time to see?

Am I generating this?

And what we did was we compared it with uses of known instances of violations to see, okay, I know where that violation exists in the big main data set.

Is my audit gonna push it to me?

That was my big concern is am I building this thing in a way that actually um generates the lead that I want?

Okay.

Just knowing the uh workload of the supervisors, is there a follow- you know, you send this out to the sergeants of the district, those who are getting it right, those are doing the investigations, right?

The sergeants, not the lieutenants.

Um, my question is what is there we probably I've talked with the sergeant today about it, actually, and he said this is way easier than what we were doing before.

Um, because it's giving them exactly where to look, it's telling them exactly what to do.

And so before the audit was really like pulling your really randomization, there's some some power to randomization.

Randomization is not on its own a bad thing, but when you're dealing with um really specific rules and guardrails, and you can use data in a way that says here's where you should look, here's where you're gonna find the most non-compliance, which we're trying to detect.

That's what we want to know as the department is who's not doing this the right way, why are they not doing it the right way?

Is it something we can remediate through training and or is this something that needs discipline, or both?

And that not a question of of names, but but numbers.

Are you looking at you you have a monthly number that we're looking at outliers?

Uh, in what way?

I'm sorry.

Like, total number of outliers?

Yeah, last month.

Uh it varies, uh, probably roughly 70 on that so far.

Okay.

But again, those outliers are for a variety of reasons, including typos.

Yes, I mean, they're you said they're easily ex uh investigated, but that's 70 throughout all seven districts.

And divisions and all the fusion and everybody else who has access to that.

The investigative departments.

Thank you.

That's it.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Can I ask a brief follow-up to Commissioner Burgos's point?

Uh I I understand that real-time flagging and supervision is is difficult if not impossible.

Um, but to the issue of uh someone entering failing to use a case number or report number or CAD number, is there any technological uh reasonable way that that could get pinged?

For for notice um earlier than within a month, um, I'm just I don't know if that's I understand realistic or possible, but uh I've asked the question um to the vendor, and the vendor has said no.

Okay, um what what I requested from them was don't accept what isn't our correct alpha numeric number.

Um they said, uh, we don't really have functionality for that.

And so the uh the answer from what the department and what we're trying to look into as well is like a more real-time way of doing that.

Yeah, the pulling all of this data is a very momentous thing.

And it will this data this report this audit will change over time when we identify the outliers of today might not be the outliers of tomorrow, and we want to have this thing be fluid, um, to be able to catch those.

I don't know the data-based solution to build towards that, um, but it's certainly something that we can work on.

Um, I will say that's not to say that those things are never gonna get caught, but they will.

Yeah, we'll see it later, but it will be a few weeks removed from the actual instance.

And again, that being an outlier doesn't suggest that there's 70 officers who are gonna get referred for misconduct in public office.

That's not what that is.

All that's saying is you're you're searching this in a way that goes beyond the average of averages.

We might want to look at that.

Thank you.

Okay, I have one follow-up question of my own.

Um, when you said that the data is really only available for 30 days, whatever.

Not the data, the the um, yeah, the reading.

So, like what the what the camera is reading every day of what's passing it is available for 30 days.

Okay, our data that we keep on the logs of who's accessing what's I say institutionally forever.

Okay, all right.

And that's has to be associated with a an investigation with the case.

That is our policy, and that is what we're measuring against when we audit.

Okay, thanks.

Are we just going down the line?

Okay, sure.

Uh, I guess just a follow-up question to Commissioner Burgos' question.

When you said that there were uh 70 about 70 outliers last month, which I understand are not 70 instances of misconduct, um, what percentage is that of searches, like how many searches are occurring per month?

I ran rough numbers on this, it's roughly about 15% of total queries is what ends up in my audit.

So, so I think and I don't want to talk past you on this because like there's two different numbers at play here.

So there's an instance which is a use case, and then within that instance of the use case, there's a certain number of queries made.

And so if I hit if I type in a plate number and a case number and I hit go, that's one.

And if I hit go again, because I want to see if it's past that, that's two.

And so that number of times I've hit the button also factors into whether it's outlier use, because that I we've we consider those each and every one of that button hit being a separate independent thing that needs support, and so um of those 70, the number of times the button was hit was higher, and that's what that sort of 15 roughly percent number is the button hitting.

And I I want to make clear for the commission and the public, why would you press the button over and over again if you're not up to no good for critical missing?

Uh it's a tool that can be utilized, say if we have a plate number of an individual has taken a child, we want to continuously refresh, and somebody on that investigation might not usually do it.

They become an outlier and we look into it, and that was their investigation.

So that happened with the worker at DNS who was placarding the uh apartment that didn't have working sprinklers trying to save those lives and got shot at.

Um, multiple officers at the same time are looking for that.

So the the queries for that plate kind of generate outlier data, but when you look back at it, you go, okay, multiple officers from multiple districts and shifts are looking at this car.

That gives me a high degree of confidence that there's a law enforcement purpose behind this, as opposed to when it's just one officer looking at it, which still have a degree of confidence, but it's not as high as when you have all these different sort of independent places generating towards that in a discrete period of time, that tells you a lot more about why it's an outlier than when it's one.

And when it's one, that's one that might end up on my list of like, hey, district, you're gonna want to look at this.

Okay, that makes sense.

If one person's looking for something over and over again, they might be stalking.

If a lot of people are looking, hopefully they're not collective stocking.

Yeah, I think the amount of power that it would take to like create that is wow.

Okay, um, and then just a follow-up question to uh to Chair Horowitz's question about stack.

Did stack have access before?

No.

Okay, because there are things that come up on have I been flocked.com, which is like the result of open records requests that are saying that they're from stack in Milwaukee.

Yeah, so when we looked at the verified users, we did not find any members who were stack members in there.

We have members who are um whose role is also works with stack, but we weren't doing it in a way that stack members who weren't MPD members have access, if that makes sense.

And so whenever you have a task force, or any time you have government sharing entities or resources, the employee on the task force or the team is the employee of our agency.

So it's our MPD officer, they're subject to our rules.

They're also subject to additional rules outside, but the rules of FBI, for example, don't supersede our policies.

And where there's conflict, this is why we have contracts with them.

Our policies govern.

So especially when it comes to body cam, task force officers across this country who work for the FBI aren't required by the FBI necessarily to have body cam.

Ours are.

You can't be a task force officer and be in a patrol-led uh task force without body cam.

That's our policy, and we don't allow MOUs to be created without those types of guardrails in it.

We also have guardrails in those policies that say you will do no Section 8 enforcement, which is um of the immigration code, that you're not to be used in any way, shape, or form for it, and that it can end the agreement itself.

And so we have some protections that uh are built into that system, um, but no members who had access to our system, our network were uh stack members.

Okay, excuse me, employed by an agency who's not MPD, okay.

So it's the most likely situation that those searches that are coming up as stack are MPD officers.

I'd be happy to connect to like if you want to I I I'm aware of have I been flock.com, I've been through it, I've put my plates through it.

Um, and so if you can like just show me that too, I may be able to unpack that a little better than what I'm saying right now.

Okay, yeah, that would be really helpful.

Um, because this is the first, I guess, time that we're sort of substantively talking about this.

I do just have some questions about um the process before.

One of the main reasons why I asked for this item to be added was because I heard and assumed that there were changes that the department made after um this very public situation of misuse.

Um so I am kind of in some ways also looking for a little before and after and uh how we got here.

Um, in the past, when members were requesting access to get their flock login, that's how it worked, right?

Yes.

Um, what was the process for vetting that?

How many folks were denied?

Um I don't have the exact number of how many folks were denied.

Uh the process was relatively the same, just without the user agreement that I put forward there.

That's a document that I excuse me, that I drafted after um we built this audit to say, hey, if anyone's gonna use it, I want them to use it in a way that is auditable, and these are the rules.

Um there were uh trainings put on by the department.

Uh there were also things called training the trainer, which are not paying for a flock representative or a vendor representative to come out to the department every time a new user is granted access, but to have trainers within the department who have been you know verified and trained to say to the next person, this is how this system works, this is how it's supposed to be used.

I think for consistency's purposes, right, you want to have a sort of a one voice, one sound um training perspective to it, which is why we've done this additional video just to say to folks this is really the emphasis in the bread and butter of queries in this program.

If you're gonna use it, it must be like this, so that we are able to do some sort of substantive audit.

So I think that's an area where we would we've made an improvement over time.

Um it was not great before, it's better now.

Okay, and uh forgive me if this already came up for you guys in public safety, but I wasn't there that day.

Um, how many officers had access before and how many have access now?

Um the rough number I've got for that is I believe it was roughly 370 or what is what we had officers at before.

I remember it being under 400.

Um right now it's just over 100.

So we've made a significant reduction.

Um there are members who continue to write for it.

There were some members who I think reluctantly waited.

Um just to sort of see what happens, right?

Whenever something seismic like this happens in a department, you might want to be like, I'm gonna hold off and just not throw my name in right away and see what happens.

So we still have people who are making applications.

Um we also will see an increase in the number of supervisors who get access to it, um, a push we're making is for supervisors in patrol to create accounts for the purpose of audit.

I mean, a lot of them are saying I I just don't I don't want flock because I don't need to search.

Um and my response is yeah, but you need it to supervise.

So we're gonna get you into there.

So we do expect that number to go up.

Um, but the big thing is is really just vetting everybody and having some sort of signed acknowledged agreement that they understand what they're supposed to be doing, so that if they're exp if their conduct falls below expectations, we can tie anything back to you asked for this, you wanted to be a part of this, you said you would do it.

Here's your name, your signature, your initials.

Now we can hold you accountable if you fall short.

Uh, okay, thank you.

Uh and then and you'll audit the supervisor's use or any reason.

Any user who uh there's no distinction if you make a use, like when I look through it, it's not controlled by rank.

So if if a captain were to make a flock query, it would come up and get sorted in my data.

There's no distinction between rank.

Okay, great.

Um, and then can you just say a little bit more?

Was the audit process before was that random like a random selection?

Yeah, it certainly was more randomized.

Um, it happened at the work location level.

Um, it wasn't sort of centrally directed other than do it, like to tell someone, hey, you you've got to do this monthly.

Um the direction that we wanted to take with that, at least that I saw with it, was there's this great opportunity to use data sorting to be able to tell folks where to look, and especially um if if you're looking at something and you go, okay, well, I I know that this person is really good at this system.

So if I audit them, my audits probably gonna look really good.

I want our supervisors looking at the people who aren't our best and and are making mistakes because that's where we should be.

We should be working in areas of non-compliance to try to bring people into compliance.

We shouldn't be just saying, like, well, here's the A students, so everyone here can do really well.

That doesn't really carry the day, so that's kind of what I the purpose of directing them to do it is to avoid, well, it's random, but also I know that this person's really good.

Sure, okay.

And then uh were there other instances of misconduct that were found by those audits.

I don't believe so through those audits, no.

Okay, were there other instances of misconduct that were found outside of those audits outside of the big one that we know about?

Um so like when you say like sh yes, there have been instances where the case numbers don't match up, and like that's I guess when you say misconduct, are you talking about the um like obviously like criminal charges and all of that?

Um, like right now we're aware of the one.

I don't think that um it's fair really to say like sometimes if you transpose a number like that that's a violation, but sure, and that's not really what I'm worried about.

I guess you know, maybe misconduct isn't necessarily the word that you would use to describe this, but were there any findings of officers using the search function for something that was not tied to a case at all, for example.

So I will disclose to this body there is uh investigation pending, but I can't disclose any other information at this time.

Okay, and we will find out about that when the investigation 100% is.

Okay.

Um is are you able to tell me when that flagged for you?

I don't know.

Uh I would have to go back and look into that, and I um will get that back to you, but yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um, when an officer searches uh something in Flock, I understand that the department has is it 31 cameras in the city?

I believe so.

Okay, um, so there's there's like an interconnected network that also searches.

Is that a current understanding?

Correct.

How many devices are being searched?

I don't know that off the top of my head.

I can certainly get that to you, though.

Okay, okay.

Um, I would appreciate that.

Um there was mention of the fact that uh flock cameras can become, I guess, for lack of a better term, video enabled.

Sure.

Or any.

Okay.

I'm assuming your question was going to be are any of our cameras or any of ours in our network video enabled.

I didn't mean to cut you off.

But the answer is no.

The answer is our our Alpers cameras only do Alpers, they don't do anything else.

There are no cameras in our system that are Alpers cameras that are dual purpose, or have FRT or have placement in places that are not the roadway.

I know we heard in public comment about some gymnasium.

Um that's we don't have any of those, and that is not something that even if it were offered for free to us that we would be interested in, it defeats the purpose of what it is, and the purpose for what it is is to read plates.

Yeah, and I think that was not an instance necessarily of the that police department being sketchy, it was an instance of flock being sketchy.

So either way, it's um our cameras are designed how they were sold to us, which is this reads license plates.

We have other poll cameras.

We have, like I spoke about before, there are um requirements by ordinances for other surveillance cameras that we sort of keep track of as far as license compliance and things like that.

Um but as far as the flock cameras or Alpers cameras, however you want to call them, being um transformed into something that they're not, that's not happening here.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Um, and I this is probably an obvious question, but does the department have any intention of turning on video functions?

No.

No, okay, thanks.

Um, you mentioned that the cameras are all in the roadways.

How were the locations selected?

Um I don't have that information.

I didn't prepare for that question, so I don't know.

Um I believe that there was a news story of that, but like where they are, I thought Brian Paulson may have done something on.

Yeah, I think there's one about where they are, but not necessarily like what was the process.

I don't have that answer for you.

Um I could prepare that answer though and get it to you.

Okay.

Usually when I have this many questions, I will send them ahead of time.

I did not this time.

Um, we're not going anywhere.

Okay.

Uh and then has anyone I guess moving on to this period of time, um, you mentioned obviously there's sort of this new user agreement and the increased threat that someone might get removed from the system.

Uh, has anyone been removed yet?

Uh I did remove two users um based off of the April audit.

Okay.

And that to me is a good thing.

It means that piece of the function.

So once the audit comes back, so the audit for April is going out, and once that audit comes back, once I get the deep dive of like what actually happened here, I've got some flags for I've got follow-up for these things.

So um depending on what the supervisors find and what is written and then what I go and find, um, there may be more.

Um again, though, these are cases where the the case number that was entered doesn't match the expectation.

Um, and so they have to figure out what that is, but we're still gonna have them do that, but we're also saying on the front end, the officer didn't meet the expectation of the agreement.

So even if there is a good reason for it, we're not gonna have you a part of this anymore.

Okay, that makes sense.

Um, just a couple more things, I'm almost done.

Uh so I have never seen the back end of flock.

Um, so it's my understanding that there's you put in like a little search term or search justification in some type of field that sometimes says a case number, historically looking at have I been flocked.

That would sometimes say a case number, it would sometimes say a really vague word like investigation, it would sometimes seem to have like some sort of little code phrase in there.

Um I guess can you explain to me what that field looks like and what the intended function is of that?

So when you're seeing returns in have I been flocked that don't have case numbers, again, have I been flocked as a multi-state database, so we can't speak to any of that.

But if it didn't have a case number in it, that's something that falls below our expectation.

We wouldn't want that.

We want our returns in any sort of audit to have that case or CAD number that we can tie it to.

Um, when it comes to like the reason, which is um it it has been a drop down in some places, it changes depending on how the user of that agency wants to do it.

Uh in our case, we have we have one reason for it, which is investigation and then the reasoning for having a valid case number though is what is that investigation.

So stating the reason um with it being public and it being real time on some of those websites telling the homicide car that they're the homicide car is not a good idea.

And so we've restricted it but we've required that the case number be something that is in our system so that we can query it.

So if we go okay well this was an investigation with this plate it's kind of generating outlier data when I type that case number into RMS it's going to then generate a report and go oh this investigation or the charges or what we're looking at here is one of these very many things that we may do and it tells us all the information that sort of completes the loop of is this a valid and and compliant search or not.

Okay that makes more sense to me now because when I looked I didn't look at every month I looked at November 2025 and then March of this year and looking at November the sort of I guess what you're describing as the drop down field reason was all over the place and then in March it says other investigation for every single thing.

So thank you for clarifying that.

My last questions um are just about uh I think it's pretty well known that um I have um participated in lots of protests I continue to do that um very strong about people's first amendment rights um have there been any searches um in MP by MPD officers that you're aware of um that were targeted towards protesters no uh and again crimes being the basis for um making queries um even if someone were to potentially have you have civil unrest and and that those are not crimes like that's that's I don't want to sorry I may not have said that right civil unrest could be criminal depending on what's happening but somebody exercising their first amendment rights even if it's like okay they're jaywalking that's not a crime that's a municipal ordinance thing running flock for that would be violation of the policy it would be a violation of the competency.

So you asked if I was aware of any I'm not um I wouldn't expect that and if we did find that that would be something that we would investigate through IAD because it's a clear misuse.

So the guardrails on it say you cannot do that.

Things that you when you associate it to the case it's got to be for a crime and the same thing with immigration it's um civil enforcement of something that is not our lane is not allowed to be used in our system and if we find it it's certainly an investigation through IAD it may result in criminal charges too like these are things that I think officers are getting the message too like this can end your career if you're screwing around in it.

Don't screw around in it and we will find you.

Okay yes and I would hope that the answer would be no but I still had to ask um I did note I don't think our I think our SOP like clearly there is the foundation that you should not use it that way.

That's not part of a criminal investigation but I have seen other SOPs that sort of state more explicitly do not use this for immigration purposes and do not use this for First Amendment protesting.

So I understand that amongst SOP 130 and the codes of conduct there's all of the scaffolding for that answer to be true.

I just had to check um and then my final question um so MPD has some cars that have Alper cameras on it is that correct yeah how many are there?

Oh I don't I don't know that answer either but I can follow up with you when I give you the network total that you asked for.

Okay and then what is the use case for those cars?

Can you be more specific to the use case?

I guess so in my mind like if you're looking for yeah yeah.

Okay.

Um we have them as it's another tool.

Um the total number of users who are have access to that, though, the universe is very small.

They are for investigations that are led by the Criminal Investigation Bureau.

Um, and I think that the use cases are relatively similar to the um static flock camera.

The only differences is that it moves around.

So you don't have one fixed point, like saying, Oh, it's this intersection that's got flock, it's it's where that car goes, and so in patrol in a day in patrol, um, moving around is gonna give you potentially different reads than what you're gonna get.

So it's a complement to the system, but it's not um a static one place in time thing.

Okay, so I guess when I say use case, I'm looking for is the purpose to drive the car somewhere where you don't have a flock camera and park it there to see if something passes, or to drive around and more consistently collect the license plates as you drive around.

Well, there so they're cars in patrol, and so wherever that squad is assigned for that day, our city's broken into districts and sectors, and so wherever that squad goes, whether it's dispatched or they're having unobligated time and they're self-you know, going around and driving, that's what it's catching, and so the deployment of that car isn't I think like that.

It's not for the Alper use, yeah.

So it's a regular car, giving it a lot of the help around it.

Exactly.

So it's a regular patrol car, it's taking calls for service, it's responding to things, and as it's driving around, it also has um Alpers on it.

Okay, so then are those cars ever deployed to protests where potentially then you're capturing the license plates of parked protesters?

Um that's a difficult one to answer because like sometimes a car will get deployed, but not with the specific purpose of like, hey, Alpha's like let's go get that.

It's more of like we need a squad over here, so go respond to it.

Um I don't have any specific instances that I'm aware of or that really we can say, like, oh yeah, we we have done that.

That's not something that would be consistent with our policy because directing a piece of technology in a way that's inconsistent with the use of it itself would be that violation.

Um, that's not something that I've really seen, though.

So, no, they they just are a compliment to the car.

Like how the squad camera is like this there's squad cameras on every car, there's body cameras on every cop in patrol, like the those pieces of technology aren't like let's get a cop with a body cam here, it's it's just part of the squad that they're in that day.

Okay, thank you.

I think everybody's leaving because they're tired of my question, so I'll be done now.

No, you had some excellent questions, so always I have very few questions.

Um I found this to be very helpful in rounding out what we're trying to achieve and how we create an audible approach to something that's fairly controversial to part of our community, um, our challenge is finding a way to explain this to the entire community in a very concise format, because for those who come out on a regular basis, and just want to just point a privilege here.

Wasn't Chair Horowitz that brought up the question of consistent audience?

It was me who brought up the question because I'm a big fan of expanding the amount of people who are involved in these discussions, and finding ways to bring them in, and so when Chair uh executive director Todd brought up the whole concept of going out to other parts of our community, that's a way of expanding audience.

So it wasn't meant to demean people who are here on a regular basis because that is your right.

It's how do we get more voices involved in something that's important to all of us?

So I just wanted to put that out there.

That being said, I'm really curious about how we begin to package this whole discussion so that we can do a better job of of really engaging people on not just this tool, but any tools that MPD um sees as useful in helping us drive safety in the city.

Yeah, um, so it is a really great idea to be able to parcel this information concisely in a way where it's almost like talking points where we can share the story.

But the difficult thing is we want to be thorough in having these discussions.

And um and so what's challenging for us is not to be too concise as to minimize like what we're what it is.

Um it's a I mean the cameras and surveillance and outpers, it is a very complex topic.

And how do you make that into nuggets for just the anyone to be able to to take in without asking questions is really a challenge?

We can try, um, but um how many slides is the PowerPoint?

Twelve.

Twelve.

Do you think that's concise enough though?

I don't know.

I think I think to your to your comment more than your question, Commissioner Spence.

Like, I think that we all have this shared interest in getting better and having more information to let us make better choices and to have more informed conversations about these things.

Um and I think too, just having listened to this public session and these public comments, but also all these ones preceding it for the last several months.

I think that, you know, there is a brand here in Milwaukee that we are telling the story of, and a lot of times we're hearing criticisms from all across the country in these places who none of us have ever been to or know, and they're not our communities, and they're saying, look, this is happening here, it's concerning to us, we don't want it to happen here.

How are we as the MPD responding to that?

What systems are we building?

What are our goals?

And even if we can't get there perfection-wise, but what are we keeping in mind and the considerations we take when we make decisions like this?

So when I set out to build this audit, right?

I've heard these public comments.

I'm concerned too.

I live here too.

Um we're humans also.

Um we want to make sure that this product both leverages public safety, that it's used in an accountable and transparent way, but also that we have a way to take users who abuse it and hold them to account.

And and if it means removing them from the department depending on the use, that's something that um our chief is prepared to do, this department is set up to do.

Um we want to make sure that we're as accountable as possible on those things and also evolving the conversation over time, and I think that's to your point, which is we need as many voices who are thoughtful and caring about this topic to come and give us that information because that's how we get better as an entity.

Thank you.

Yeah, so thank you, James.

I I always appreciate the opportunity to hear you present about your work.

I find you to be quite serious and to take the take your gig quite seriously.

So I appreciate I really appreciate this.

Um I have a couple of questions and then I have a whole lot of statements.

So if there is an issue, and I think you just articulate one example of this, so I just want to confirm the removal off the system will happen.

Never apologize.

At what point when the investigation into the disciplinary stuff starts, because that takes a while.

Yeah, administratively from the jump.

I I had the audit downloaded on so the data dump, I think happened Tuesday, and Wednesday I actually got to look at it, and today I was like, eh, no, these we can't have these users go forward.

I'm just not gonna it doesn't matter really top end.

Yeah, it doesn't really matter what the answer is because even when all the if all those plates come back is yeah, that was associated to this thing, um, the the way that the case numbers were entered aren't gonna they're gonna generate outlier every time, and the rules are really clear use real case numbers, use valid case numbers.

Yeah, and what I saw in that was I'm administratively making a decision.

It wasn't a decision that just I James Lewis made.

I was involved with the inspector over that bureau, I was involved with the captain over that work location, I briefed it in executive briefing for for individuals, right?

We we made these decisions together, but they're happening very close in time to me getting that information, and be one of the reasons we included in the user agreement is it can be revoked at any time for any reason, and that's not disciplinary on its own.

That is administrative steps that we take.

It's not disciplined to get access removed.

Okay, thank you.

Um I just want to flag that I do have also like I think that I appreciate your questions a lot too, Commissioner Fung.

Um, I do have a concern about the use of um opera cars at protests, and I think that's something that needs to be talked about by this commission.

It's uh an adjustment to the SOP that could be made that prevents those from um going to um to protests.

I think so.

I think there's there's like a few different lanes here, right?

There's like okay, we have flock right now, regardless of whether people want it or not want it, it is here right now.

So for here right now, I am very glad to hear about these adjustments to the audit process at MPD that will allow you to catch things more quickly, even if they're just like oversight or oversight or abuse, whatever, whatever it is, we can't be having it.

So I'm glad that that's adjusting that there's a much tighter group of people who are using it, all that stuff.

I think that the other question, I think it's our or the other issue that are being brought up this evening is the question of whether or not flock is okay for this city at all, and also whether or not ALPRs are okay for the city at all.

And um, I'm pretty convinced that they're not for a lot of reasons, um, inclusive of the concerns about abuse, although I do think I do I'm I want to be really clear.

Like I recognize that's an improvement, that is an improvement.

Um I think flock is a pretty like crappy company in terms of the quality of the product that they've put out.

I'm worried about a lot about the hacking situation.

Um I do really worry about disproportionate surveillance, and I think the city should be worried too.

Like, we have the column settlement agreement for a reason, and so that's something the city's had issues with before.

Um so I just I I guess I want to say I do think it would make sense for this body to explore C COPS more, which is the ACLU model of having a community advisory board that specifically focuses in on and understands police tech in a way that's really hard to do.

Like it is a it it is complex, that is true.

And so, what we need is not fly by night, sort of like you go to IACP, that's International Association of Chiefs of Police conference where there's all these vendors and you like see the shiny cool new thing, and you're like, hey, the vendor said this is awesome, and so therefore, you know, we bring it back like this is a whole thing nationally with American police saying there's not chief technology officers, there's not always a good arms around like how to deal with this stuff.

So I think having uh however it should be structured, I don't know because I don't know enough about the details and infrastructure of C COPs, but I want to say I would like to see a presentation if we could invite the ACLU to present on C COPS here.

I think there could be a lot of utility to that.

And I also think like want to recognize like we have the CCC, we have the FPC, like we have a lot of this different infrastructure.

If we were to set something like that up, it needs to be set up in a way that doesn't just exacerbate the confusing governance.

You know what I'm saying?

So I so there's a bunch of things there.

Um I also want to flag, and I really appreciated Amanda bringing this up.

Like the city needs to reconsider how it handles sole source contracts.

Period.

I think it's a really like that's a really important flag.

It affects the department, but it affects lots of uh other city departments, I'm guessing as well.

And then I just want to say, like, I've been on the commission, I just it I just turned four on the commission, right?

In April, um and I don't think because the fire and police commission does not have the power of the purse, with one exception, which is setting the salaries for the chief of police and she goes chief of fire, so we like we have no direct line of leverage of power to contracts.

I've never seen us work on a contract.

I'm not sure it means we can't like make a recommendation or whatever, I'm not sure.

I think that's something we need to discuss, but I like on the one hand, I really appreciated the letter from the common council because I thought they really laid out good questions, and I think it really informed your guys' presentation tonight that was useful.

I also find it weird that we're getting a letter from the body that's responsible for contracts.

So, like, I also think in terms of like putting leverage in questions, like, if you want this contract terminated, the common council is who you need to talk to.

I'm not saying you can't keep talking to us about it.

You're more than absolutely welcome to.

I'm not trying to do that anyway to dissuade people coming here and speaking, but in terms of the actual ability to turn that off, it's the people of the power of the purse in this town, which is the common council.

Um, so I want to flag that.

I think that's it.

Can I just add one other thing?

And and this is more of a uh a comment for MPD.

Uh over the last year, there have been lots of discussions about technology and how it's been rolled out.

Um, I'm sure that MPD doesn't want the flack on it after the fact.

There's a way of getting ahead of this, and it's really finding an approach to discuss with community before these tools are rolled out.

How do we how do we do that in a way that is not a surprise to community?

I don't mind people disagreeing on whether or not uh a piece of technology is gonna be useful in public safety.

But can we do it before we actually implement?

Yeah, and we recognize that's the appropriate way to do it.

We did it well with the AI policy, we don't have it, and we were commended when we said, hey, thanks for having the policy first.

I just want to say we in the police department are an institution, we're also human, and right like things like facial rec is emerging technology.

And I did a presentation to some student group, and Jim Ozarski likened it to um, he's the city clerk, to like when clouds were coming out for storage.

Like, what is this cloud concept?

And and like all of these different departments were kind of like doing this thing, and then they're like, Whoa, this is like a big deal, we need to have a policy, and I I want to say to some extent, that's kind of how our technology is too.

Like facial rec is something that was emerging, right?

Like, we didn't intentionally just like let's hide this.

It was coming up, people started using it.

It was a useful tool, and then it expanded, and there were programs and departments that were using it in a way with a policy, and so when we came and approached this body and said, Hey, we've been using this thing and we really want a policy, it wasn't because we were trying to be deceitful about it, it was we recognized there needed to be a conversation, and we were catching up to that emerging technology.

And so, for that, yeah, you know, big, hey, I'll take the the hit, big mistake.

Um, but it certainly wasn't an intentional deception, and we know the better way to do it is to get ahead of it.

And um, and so we're we're learning these lessons, these conversations about flock and issues with flack have happened after the fact that we have these systems in place, and so what we're trying to do now is balancing all those concerns in light of the fact that we have this and we believe it's useful, um, and how do we do that and trying to find the most robust way to audit its use to do our very best to make sure the parameters of our policy are being followed?

And there's a lot more pressure on you guys because it seems as if every other month there's another piece of technology that can intersect with um public safety, the whole discussion around AI and how that interfaces with the bodies that we have on the force.

Huge discussion.

We don't know where that's going, but somehow, some way we've got to engage community on what 21st century policing is going to really look like with the intersection of all of these tools and sort of get buy-in uh at some level so that we don't have these competing uh entities, whether it's in City Hall or outside of these walls, um, fighting against something that we all want, which is a safer safer community.

How do we do that?

So it just it requires us to take a deep breath and ask what what have we learned over the last couple of years, and how do we do this better?

Yeah, I think that that's always a good consideration.

I can't hear what the question is.

Yeah, I want to just plug also um when you talk about dialogue and opportunities for dialogue every month.

There are at least seven opportunities across the entire city in every district to attend crime and safety meetings where you access to a district level captain who is operating in this world every single day, working in supervision, overseeing officers is available, and people can attend those meetings and bring these issues up as well.

So when we're talking about forums, just coming here, I think it's commendable to come here, but there are opportunities seven times a month at least to come and engage with the police department and have it localized too.

So depending on where you live in the city, you should know who your police captain is, you should know where the district is, and you should be engaged with that as well.

I think engaging in just that one forum feels a little like spinning its wheels.

I I think that we don't see robust attendance at those meetings.

And I want to plug it because those are real opportunities.

You're you're getting um executive command staff here to tell you what's happening.

If people really want to know what's going on in their individual district and raise individual district problems, the captains are available.

And and and that's that's another forum, it's another way to attend and engage and and make your voice heard and give feedback directly to the department.

Um so I just want to plug that because I think you know I'm I'm hearing it in public comment, I'm hearing it from the commissioners.

Where do we go next?

And I hear you on that.

The question is is are we for are we getting people to think outside of the traditional boundaries of policing?

I I've been to the meeting at incarnation, um on Keith Avenue.

And I guarantee you a lot of the people who come to that aren't thinking about these types of issues.

It's it's not on their radar, and somehow, some way we're we're just as responsible for this.

We need to find ways to get these things on people's radar.

We're looking at better systems.

What's it gonna look like?

What are the pros and cons?

What are the risks?

If we can do a better job on that, continuous improvement, we'll all be in a better position to offer value to the citizens of this community.

So it's not just you guys, it's all of us.

Okay, um, I think we have had questions from anybody who wants to ask them.

Anyone online?

Anyone um have I missed anyone?

Okay, all right, good.

Then um, this being a communication file, um, we will um keep this issue moving, uh, but right now we're gonna keep the agenda moving.

So, director, please proceed with the agenda.

Can I take my flash drive?

Yes, absolutely.

Um, and can we get a copy of the PowerPoint?

Yeah.

You can keep the flash drive.

Sure.

Okay.

And Heather, are the um uh promotees still here?

Uh they were right before we just go.

Okay, so we move those up.

That's what I wanted to assume.

They're waiting on one of the get them.

Okay.

So with Madam Chair, with your permission, yes, yes.

Can you grab them, Heather?

Your permission, we will take uh items 19 and 20 out of order under the police department.

Is that all right?

Okay, uh so the next item uh so I don't have first off, which is under the police department is item 19, which we're taking out of order, FPC 212519, resolution relating to the promotions of Matthew P.

Bell, Christopher J.

Fritz, Guadalupe Velasquez, and Craig J.

Tim to the police lieutenant position.

Okay, thank you.

Um outside this room so we can all hear uh accurately what's going on.

Um, and uh, okay, so that's 19.

You're there, okay.

Yeah, um do any of the commissioners have any questions or comments regarding these proposed promotions?

No, nope.

So you're looking for a motion.

I'm looking for a motion.

Move to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Okay, then I will take a roll call vote in alphabetical order.

Commissioner Burgos are Commissioner Evans, aye.

Commissioner Fong, aye.

Commissioner Spence.

Aye.

Commissioner Spencer.

Aye.

Commissioner World Patterson.

Aye.

And the chair votes aye.

Motion carries.

Congratulations, gentlemen.

And ladies and gentlemen.

Okay.

Now we'll move on to the other function.

Item 20, FPC 212520.

Resolution relating to the promotion.

I'm sorry.

Please continue.

Oh.

Resolution relating to the promotions of Sarosha, Oscar, Espatilla.

LL Contreras, Paul A.

Minor, and Jocelyn M.

Calmanson to the police sergeant position.

And apologies if I've mispronounced anyone's name.

Do any of the commissioners have any questions or comments regarding this item?

No.

No.

Nope, no.

Then I'll take a motion.

Move approval.

Second.

Any discussion?

No.

I'll take a roll call vote in order and alphabetical order.

Commissioner Burgos.

Aye.

Commissioner Evans.

Aye.

Commissioner Fong.

Aye.

Commissioner Spence.

Aye.

Commissioner Spencer.

Aye.

Commissioner World Patterson.

Aye.

And the chair votes aye.

Motion carries.

Congratulations.

Okay.

So that'll be a beginning.

Yes.

Because we have to kind of start at the beginning now.

All right.

Okay.

I will now read the items under 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 21-250.

Resolution relating to the April 16th, 2026 meeting minutes.

Item 3, FPC 212502.

Resolution relating to the job announcement bulletin for the Carpenter 4 position within the Milwaukee Fire Department.

Item 4, FPC 212503.

Resolution relating to the job announcement bulletin for the crime scene supervisor position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item 5, FPC 212504.

Resolution relating to the job announcement bulletin for the IT project coordinator position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

And item six FPC 212505.

Resolution relating to the eligible list for the building maintenance supervisor position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

This concludes the consent agenda.

Would any of the commissioners like to remove any of these items from the consent agenda to the regular agenda?

If there are no objections, the items on the consent agenda will be adopted by general consent.

Are there objections?

Hearing no adjunction objections, these items are adopted.

I will now read the items under examination starting with item 7, FPC 212506.

Resolution relating to the extension of the police sergeant eligible list.

And just as background on this matter, uh this list was adopted in May of 2024.

It has a two-year life cycle.

So it's set to expire on May 16th of this year.

Unfortunately, there was a brief, there needed to be a brief delay for the sergeant exam this uh this year uh due to other workload within the staffing services department.

So we are going to put out it is our intention to put out a job posting for this for the sec second meeting in May.

Uh and hopefully, and it's our uh our goal to have a new eligible list ready by November or December of this year.

Uh so the department is requesting that uh the current list be extended through December 5th.

Okay, because otherwise there won't be anyone that they can promote.

Yes, there would be a six-month approximate six-month gap.

Okay, any questions or comments?

Madam Chair, I just have a brief comment.

Um, I I do want to uh I'm not against this, um, and I but I understand that we're considering um other changes that would essentially expand the group of possible sergeants um via various methods.

Um so I do just want to note it seems like there are still a lot of eligible candidates remaining that haven't been promoted yet.

That's correct.

Yeah, there's a letter in the file that outlines um the current status of the eligible list and how many are still on it, etc.

Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to look at at the whole picture here.

Like is the idea that just so I make sure I understand is the idea of like maybe the changes to the candidate pool need to wait until after this list is exhausted or something?

Yeah, I guess I'm not quite coming up.

I I'm coming up to and not quite saying that as a decision right now.

I just I it is notable to me that there is still quite a large pool even before we make changes that would expand the pool.

Yeah, let me say that um about eligible is um if they get too old, then the um then you don't know what the people on that list have been doing in the meantime, and you know it's it's it's better to have currency with the list to some extent.

Um at least that's my um experience with it.

And and the you're saying that we cannot physically do another test until June, July.

Well, we'll we'll do the j well realistically, no, um, just with the workload that the staffing services unit has, something had to give a little bit, and it was the uh it was decided that this would be pushed back slightly.

Um, you need the sergeants come summer time for supervision, yes.

Uh, but there are plenty of names left on the eligible list.

Uh Commissioner Fong to your question, it is also the recommendation of the Milwaukee Police Supervisors organization that uh the list be uh renewed every two years, and they prefer to have new lists even if there is still a uh a goodly number of names on a prior list.

Uh they feel it gives people uh more opportunities to apply uh and allows them to get the very best candidates for supervisors.

Sure, and and I guess my comment wasn't necessarily against this particular item or the upcoming items.

Yeah, I understand.

Don't want to get five.

Okay, any other questions or comments on this item, item seven.

Um is there a motion?

I'm chair, move approval.

Second.

Okay.

I will take a voice vote on this item.

Uh all in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Item eight, FPC 212507 resolution relating to the approval of the fire cadet eligible list for the Milwaukee Fire Department.

Okay.

And this is for the class that will start in August of this year.

Okay.

Um, do any of the commissioners have any questions or comments regarding this item?

The eligible list is the result of a testing process.

Isn't that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Hearing no questions, I will take a motion.

Group approval.

Second.

Okay, good.

And I will take a voice vote on this item.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

I will now read the items under new business, starting with item nine, FPC 212508.

Resolution relating to common council file number two five one six six three.

Substitute motion modifying Milwaukee Police Department Standard Operating Procedure 460, use of force, and just by way of background, this matter was heard at the last meeting as a communication file.

Recommend adoption or approval of the motion which is contained in the file, which would modify SOP 460 to require use of force reports when members draw or display a firearm to uh effect an arrest.

Yes, we did discuss this at some length.

And uh it's tracked out in the um in the legislation details provided by uh Alderman Burgelis.

Um are there any questions or discussion that you wish to have on this topic now before we take a vote?

Okay.

Well then I'll take a motion.

I move approval.

Second.

Um this is a voice vote, I think.

Should we?

We've never done one of these before, so I had it set up as a um do it by roll call.

Yeah, yeah.

That's okay.

Commissioner Burgos.

Aye, Commissioner Evans.

Aye.

Commissioner Fung.

Aye.

Commissioner Spence.

Hi.

Commissioner Spencer.

All right.

Commissioner World Patterson.

Aye.

And the chair votes aye.

Motion carries, please proceed with the agenda.

All right, we've done questions.

Item 10, uh, we'll move to item 11, FPC 212510.

Communication from FPC staff relating to the minimum requirements regarding discipline for the police sergeant position.

Uh I have uh submitted a memo uh with some recommendations related to uh as the file suggests uh the disciplinary requirements for the sergeant position.

Uh it was uh it'll be it's my request that that matter be referred to the testing and recruiting committee, which will meet on May 12th, which is next week to discuss this as long along with the uh the other recommended change to the minimum service requirement for the sergeant position.

Okay.

And I'm happy to answer questions now.

Yeah, I was just going to move uh to send this to committee.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Okay, I will take a voice vote.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Item 12, FPC 212511 communication from the Milwaukee Police Department relating to recent changes to MPD standard operating procedures or standard operating instructions.

Uh there are five policy changes.

Um, no, four policy changes.

No, yes, five policy changes, which are SOP 263, records management for 67, conducted energy weapon, five seventy, I'm sorry, four seventy-five military deployment uh reintegration, 670, bomb threats, suspicious packages, improvised uh explosive devices, and then uh standard operating instruction for police chaplaincy.

Okay, I will say that um these are changes to the SOPs, but I don't think there are chain their policy changes, they're kind of readjustments and amendments.

Fair enough.

Of the same policy.

Okay.

Uh is there's a department member still with us who can explain these changes.

Okay.

This is uh Chief of Staff Heather Hoff.

I uh have left the room, but I am still attending.

Um, I can go over, they're all really administrative, but for SOP 263 records management, um, it's an update on how the admin bureau will appoint quality control reps, uh removing a reference to the CAD system um not being operational portions of the policy since this will now be handled by DEC updating references from technical communications to DEC for SOP 467 conducted energy weapon it's uh updating when the CEW that's conducted energy weapon battery should be charged or changed out uh what materials can ignite when a CEW is utilized and updating that the operator not the supervisor shall file a department memo explaining the circumstance of any damaged equipment because they're gonna know directly what happened to that equipment for military deployments SOP 475 we updated the name of the Department of Veteran Affairs we added the members commanding officer or design will provide the information about the deployed member at their work location on the military service banner.

Added in the absence of a military service mentor the members commanding officer will find an acceptable partner for the returning member and removed a reference to a website in the reference section that no longer exists for SOP 670 bomb threat suspicious packages we change technical communications to DEC updated the chart related to safe standoff distances so it aligns with the updated uh chart or guide book from the US DOT re we remove the requirement of the hazardous hazardous devices unit to be notified of the receipt of a bomb threat as they only need to be notified if a suspicious package or item is found and it's covered later in the policy and remove the responsibilities of the DC since we cannot dictate policy for another agency and finally for the police chaplain C SOI we only updated that to add chaplains are not to interfere with civilian employees or any hospital staff in the performance of their duties and for chaplains to respect all operational medical and administrative protocols and avoid actions that could impede law enforcement activities patient care or hospital operations.

Okay.

Any questions just one question madam chair uh chief of staff hub just my standard question whenever there is uh something updated that has significant redaction uh I can imagine why this one is redacted but uh could you please explain um the purpose behind the significant redaction here what is that the one in the for bomb threats suspicious packages and improvised IEDs yeah so uh there are large redactions because um some of that information is operational and getting it to the public is a hazard for public safety it then feeds anyone who wants to do bad things uh the information on how we're going to address those bad things thank you yep any other questions okay um thank you for your information uh I is there any motions that we need to no which communication okay good okay director please proceed I will now read the items under the Department of Emergency Communications starting with item 13 FPC 212512 resolution relating to the extensions of the probationary period for the emergency communications officer one position five extensions is there anyone from the department uh online for this yeah there's our director still with us so he's you're on mute yeah I thought I did that telling you what about the department uh the people following um apologize who are not performing uh they're not reading any expectations at present and they just require some more uh training time okay so um you want uh a further opportunity to bring them up to the expectations of the department.

That's correct.

Okay, any questions?

Just one question.

Uh Director Bueno, do you anticipate that three months um is going to be sort of your usual request for extensions of probationary periods?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, at least initially, I mean I I've requested other extensions, but typically in uh this kind of situation where it's a new uh a new um skill set being learned.

I think extension is usually enough to gauge uh performance community.

Um, thanks uh for being here, Director Bueno.

I um, as you know, in general, I'm a very big fan of the direction of the DEC.

I think um you guys are doing a lot of really good work over there.

I do wonder if, given how frequently this happens, that it there might be some utility to just lengthening the original probation period.

So that um I think that that can help with employee morale, like helping people to understand, you know, and and it's been trial and error a little bit because you're doing new like you said, you're training on very new stuff, but I wonder if maybe the probationary period should just we should just it be should be longer by three months.

So I just wanted to put that out there.

We'll take that into consideration.

Okay, is just on that point, it is that a DEC policy, or is that a general city policy from a probationary perspective?

It's an FPC rule, it's an FPC rule.

Okay.

So we could take a I turn that question back to us.

Thank you for asking the question.

Uh is there a motion?

Oh yeah, second.

Okay.

I'll take a voice vote on this.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any abstentions?

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Item 14, FPC 212513, resolution relating to the extensions of the probationary period for the emergency communications officer three position, three extensions.

Uh so we're in the same uh phase of things with this this group.

Is that correct?

Yeah, that is correct.

And because it's a three position, there's actually some nuances there where we had to juggle uh training schedules because of the uh cross training uh mismatches and overlapping.

So it's it's neutral there on that that this is uh happening that we we've found that we need to extend their training cat.

Okay, any questions or discussion?

Chair, yes, move approval, second.

Thank you.

I will take a voice vote on this all in favor.

Please signify by saying aye.

Aye, aye, any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

I'll now read the items under the fire department starting with item 15, FPC 212514.

Resolution relating to the promotion without examination of John T.

Kowalski to the vehicle operations training coordinator position.

Thank you.

Chief Lipsky, do you wish to make any comments on this promotion?

I really would appreciate the opportunity, yes.

Uh so John Kowalski has uh served for 24 years on the Milwaukee Fire Department, 17 of those as a heavy equipment operator, the last three as a vehicle operations instructor.

Uh his most recent field assignment was at ladder 12 on Titonian Locust, one of the busiest ladder trucks in the state of Wisconsin, uh a position he held for uh or location that he held uh uh or served in for four years uh by his choice.

Uh he is a doer, he's extremely mechanically adept, uh, and a natural fit for this position.

Uh he has driven me personally back in the day, and uh I'm still here to talk about it, so that's a good thing.

Uh high recommendation uh for your approval tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

The the Commodity is here.

Oh, okay, great.

Um thank you for coming out.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um, are there any questions or comments?

Is there a motion?

No approval, second.

Okay.

As this is a promotion, I'll take a roll call vote in alphabetical order.

Commissioner Burgos.

Aye, Commissioner Evans.

Aye, Commissioner Fung.

Aye.

Commissioner Spence.

Aye.

Commissioner Spencer.

Aye.

Commissioner World Patterson.

Aye.

And the chair votes aye.

Motion carries.

Congratulations.

Congratulations.

Please proceed with the agenda.

Item 16, FPC 212516 resolution relating to the promotion without examination of HEO Michael E.

Ballinger to the vehicle operations instructor position.

We're calling on you once again, Chief Lipsky, to tell us why you recommend this promotion.

Thank you so much.

Uh, again, he's gonna be backfilling the position vacated with the promotion you just approved.

Uh heavy equipment operator Bellinger's 22 year veteran, uh, the past 11 as a heavy equipment operator.

He has served the vast majority of his time uh in one of our special operations teams, the heavy urban rescue team, serving on 9th in Greenfield for many many years and serving most recently in the field uh for a good five years on rescue company to a highly specialized uh team requiring dedication and a ton of attention to detail.

He is a natural fit.

Uh he is a go-getter.

Uh and uh uh again, uh I'm the luckiest human being on the planet that I get to work with these folks and uh highly recommend for promotion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions, comments?

Any motions?

Move approval, second.

I will take a roll call vote in alphabetical order, Commissioner Burgos.

Aye, Commissioner Evans, aye, Commissioner Fong?

Aye.

Commissioner Spence?

Aye.

Commissioner Spencer.

Aye, Commissioner World Patterson.

Oh, I, which is me.

I saw you go aye.

Aye, okay.

I thought that's what you said, and the chair votes I motion carries.

Um item 17, FPC 212517 resolution relating to the appointment of Scott D.

Brow Jr.

Uh to the performance and training physical therapist position.

Um, do any of the commissioners have any questions regarding this promotion?

Position, yeah.

It's a an appointment.

It's an appointment, not a promotion.

Um, any questions?

Oh, is there a question?

Chief.

Are you on this?

Oh no, no, it's it's not a fire matter.

Um it is a fire matter, but it is a good appointment.

Uh okay, new appointment.

Okay, all right.

Is there a motion on this matter?

And second, I will take a voice vote on this item.

Um, all in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Item 18, FPC 212518 resolution relating to the revising of the sworn positions within the EMS division.

Um, why is the door shut?

Is that okay?

I'll go open it.

Yeah, it shouldn't be shut.

Um, thank you for noticing that.

Yeah, do any commissioners have any questions or comments regarding this item?

Are these just administrative changes or are they training and job related issues?

The chief of the chair.

Yes, uh, so these are uh about half clerical and half uh related to uh future proofing our job descriptions.

Uh we've run into a number of issues over the past few years where an existing job description did not conceive of a future software or technology.

And uh instead of running up against the brick wall on that every time, uh we spent a great deal of time uh coming up with language that that allows for us to continue moving forward uh and staying on the bleeding edge of technology and uh training requirements as they are brought down from other standard bearing organizations and certifying agencies, okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Uh is there a motion?

So moved, second, and this can be a voice vote.

Uh all in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye, any opposed?

Any object abstentions?

Motion carries.

The director, please proceed with the agenda.

I will now read the remaining items under the police department.

We have uh already addressed items 19 and 20.

So I will move to item 21, which is FPC 212522.

Resolution relating to the promotions of Molly Arnt, Jacob Brant, Amy Dayton, Tyler Krieger, Evelyn Marks, Chelsea, Owski, Autumn Wells, and Devin Wyda to the crime scene investigator to position.

Do any uh commissioners have any questions or comments?

I do have one quick question, which is this are these civilians?

Yes, okay.

I couldn't quite tell from the okay.

Any other questions?

A motion, so move, second.

I'll take a roll call vote in alphabetical order.

Commissioner Burgos.

Aye.

Commissioner Evans, aye.

Commissioner Fong.

Aye.

Commissioner Spence.

Aye.

Commissioner Spencer.

Aye.

Commissioner World Patterson.

Aye.

And the chair votes aye.

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Yes.

Item 22, FPC 212523.

Resolution relating to the promotion of Cassandra Armstrong to the police forensic services manager position.

Any questions or comments on this promotion?

Also, is this a civilian?

No.

Uh well.

Yeah.

Okay.

Oh, thanks.

Um, so uh any other questions, comments?

I guess I would just say maybe for when is it obvious and I just missed it?

I looked at the letters, but I couldn't quite tell if they were civilian or sworn, and I know that for forensics in particular, there's been this pretty significant shift into having uh civilian investigators.

I just want to make sure, like that that's obvious when we're looking at things like this.

The title forensic investigators, the civilian position.

They used to be identification technicians, yes.

So those have been the police officers.

But I think the new I think that the sworn officers are still there, still have that same title.

There are some that are have been grandfathered in.

Um do they have the old title or they have this title?

Because that's what I think Commissioner Burgos is suggesting that we'd be able to tell by the title.

So I don't want to, I don't want to be legit.

I just noticed it wasn't obvious.

And I guess I should clarify the position is a civilian position, and I am like 90% sure that the candidate is a civilian, but I'm not a thousand percent.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, but yeah, 999.

It would be good if the department.

I'm pretty sure wouldn't bet my life on it though.

Okay, any other questions?

Actually, you can uh real quick, you can be a thousand percent sure on those because we have officers grandfathered into the positions, but we would never we would not put new officers into those positions.

Okay, uh, because by MOU with the unions, okay.

Got it.

Or two.

Um is there a motion?

So approval, second.

Very good.

I'll take a roll call vote in alphabetical order.

Commissioner Burgos, aye, Commissioner Evans, aye, Commissioner Fung, aye.

Commissioner Spence, aye commissioner Spencer, aye, Commissioner World Patterson, aye, the chair votes aye.

Motion carries.

Please proceed with the agenda.

That concludes the agenda.

Thank goodness, Chair.

Yes.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Yes.

We stand adjourned.

Thank you all.

Thank you.