The June 9th meeting with policy oversection.

Chair will tell I can get this uh meeting started today.

That's three thirty one.

We'll start with agenda item one, which is called a order roll talk.

Commissioner Freedley here.

Commissioner Kyle Fisher here.

Commissioner Parker.

Commissioner Snyder, here Commissioner Wheeler.

The record notes, Commissioner Wheeler is not here today, but not this time.

All right.

Moving on to agenda item number two.

Approval of minutes of last time.

Okay, sorry.

Very different motion.

We have a second.

All in favor say aye.

All opposed, same signs.

Motion passes.

All right, next agenda is to adopt today's agenda.

Are there any concerns with the agenda of the stance today?

Do we have a motion to approve today's agenda?

Second.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Now we open ourselves to a public comment period.

We do not.

So we'll go ahead and now close the public comment period.

Moving on to one of our major items for discussion is the policy review.

Today we have three policies in front of us, we should all have copies of those policies.

Welcome to a copy.

Well now welcome.

I think five and six actually are probably one of the same.

So I will welcome the department to talk about the policy of the front of us, starting with order 27.

You know what?

I don't think that back.

I'll start with the order 413, if that's okay.

So um I want this up uh to have a potential conversation.

And so when I first started on the board, we were in the midst of reviewing the policies, and this policy was one that came up and was um the first time that I had dug into looking at the policies and understanding positive fact, I think.

And no regret in the decisions of the conversations that were done prior, but my concern is unfortunately we had an incredible experience in Minnesota where we watch how policies can positively or negatively affect what goes on, and sometimes in best case scenarios and sometimes in the worst case scenarios, and what I believe was a worst-case scenario that we all got to witness, some participated in, some watched, some heard about, and I am wondering if a deeper dive into this routine policy leads to be looked at, and I'm and I don't know exactly where in each of the the sections that my concern is, but specifically uh the umday that Rochester police department does not engage to support or not support enforcement uh with federal immigration laws.

Um I took that initially as like okay, you know, separation understanding that, but yet what I saw happen in Minneapolis and a little bit uh potentially starting here in Rochester, I saw the absolute omission of law enforcement in in uh what appeared to be criminal activity by citizens, and when I look at the current policy and it says under 413.2, they talked about um which is new, it wasn't part of the original policy that I was um that we the original policy now it says on the 413 that um authorized to enforce both civil and criminal investing violations.

So if I'm reading that correctly, it means even if federal law of federal immigration was working on criminal warrants or items at the Rochester Police Department would not assist engage in or be anywhere around.

So to me, that's scary.

Um, but I'm really concerned about the enforcement of the secondary tertiary behaviors that surrounded that.

So if you are watching, as we saw when uh ICE was going to one of the restaurants, it was noted that they were going to head over to a local restaurant to do a warrant.

My concern is not whether or not the war the warrant is valid, that's none of my business, but it was the coordination effort that potentially could have been unsafe to citizen, whether I was at that restaurant where I was trying to drive to that restaurant, watching blockade form, watched I was being thrown, all of these different things that I watched in Minneapolis.

I was nervous that Rochester police department in their hands off mindset would not engage to stop that, and that's what my concern is.

So I'm curious as to where or how, and maybe this is something to take away and come back another day, but that is where my concern is because I feel as though that was incredible to me.

Um, because if I was throwing a block card and then half of that stuff was happening, I suppose would be at my door.

If I if I was running a blockade and you couldn't go do something in your in what is enforcement, I would be arrested, and I just can't connect the two, and is that because of the volatile nature of our world right now and how it applies?

So that's my concern.

I just make sure that I understand what your voice says are you saying that the department did not take actions against civilians acting well.

Does this policy in the in the way it is written and the stance publicly that Rochester Police Department does not engage in the enforcement and I don't have it memorized or support or anything, if something was going on, it appeared to me in Minneapolis that because of all of this had to do with a federal immigration event, it was hands-on, and if that is the case, and that is how Rochester policy is written that they are not going to be involved in if something like that was to occur, I would like to add something to the policy that says even though you may not directly be involved in the serving of a warrant or detainer or whatever the correct legal term would be, you would participate in the protection of all and not allow violence to occur, would happen.

I would like to see something like that in there if you thought it was needed, unless it was addressed someplace else, if that makes sense.

I'd like to just additional clarification under 413.

That last section.

If requested by federal.

Well, if requested, so are you are you is I guess my question is is that is that is that 413.8.

If you were if Rochester Police Department was in Minneapolis and I lived on those streets, would that be the section that they would comfortably say I understand all of this is going on because of federal immigration enforcement, but we are going to under 413.8 disperse protect stop those magnification of those events.

That's what I'm unclear on.

Excellent questions.

I will hand it over to our program.

Yeah.

And this was the response that uh menstrual surge was was a difficult time for law enforcement and balancing the ability to protest and the ability to for law enforcement to do their job based on what their role is.

Um our protocol was not completely hands-off.

We did have a protocol that I issued to our patrol sergeants in the event of a uh ice interaction with the city of Rochester.

So we did, in fact, respond to the areas to make sure people were safe.

That was our goal.

We did coordinate, we didn't collaborate with ICE for their for helping them do their job.

But I will say it was a very difficult time to try and balance the competing interests of what was going on at the time and our obviously our community's interest for per se and for to remain law abiding and what some people all the noise that I'm looking at.

Your your example was a good one.

It was, but it was really trying to balance both of those interests and just make sure people didn't get hurt.

I think we were successful in that.

We had no major injuries or any injuries at all.

We certainly had interactions, we certainly had contentious times, but our approach was one that we would go uh and make sure people were safe.

So we did direct our officers.

In fact, we directed when that call came in for dispatch to contact the sergeant immediately in order for them to uh gauge our response.

So it was not completely hands-off.

Um, and and I will add that while we didn't coordinate, collaborate, certainly in immigration efforts, uh, we did communicate.

And I think talking to both the community and talking to federal law enforcement is what kept from happening in Minneapolis to happening here.

We didn't help them, but we we communicated to know what they were doing or what uh we didn't know they didn't tell us the houses we were going to, but they knew what our role was, and we knew that they what their role was here in town.

And obviously, we don't always agree on things, but our our response was uh measured, our response was uh was debated internally, and like it was it was a contentious time.

I like I said, I am I think we were successful in making sure people didn't get hurt, and that was our number one priority.

My concern is is that we were fortunate that there wasn't as many sightings as many opportunities for these events to happen, and I feel like that's where we got lucky here in Rochester.

But I don't I feel as though I don't know because of the world we're in, does it need to be identified that enforcement would occur if the blocking were the I don't know the right language as to the mob mentality that you know the stopping of traffic, the the throwing of objects, you know, uh all of those things.

I mean they don't may not have to be listed individually, but I almost feel like Rochester is presenting itself as a city uh uh I love compassion and I love all of that, but I also feel as we need to say, however, we understand things need to be saved, we will tolerate XYZ, and I don't know how to put that in policy, but I want to make sure that you, as an officer or the officers, have something in there that allows them that doesn't go against the core belief.

I guess if that makes sense.

If I may I think somebody mentioned it, I believe we do cover that in other policies.

Okay, so I often just say uh come on with certain things or operator.

Oh we live in this long way, in fact, alive.

Oh neutrality was uh I save I put them on in fights, all elected people out there, state level.

So happen I'm not I don't care about what we know about system exactly totally that I don't show up this given.

But the blue side would be good and spoken that time.

Another one we fight, another student by focusing on the sentences for the only students that was able to be laugh, but I think also the minute the case and we look at some of the LCTC with federal demand.

We had five uh load uh lawyers at that time was there.

Somebody would be paid that ice can or something like that.

So I don't, I know we probably can see that last year.

They can look at the big levels.

Well that police I don't show up.

They didn't come to us.

Um so I think somebody knows and 16 more at only stay in the middle that's linked in the night.

But what's to come down to show up how people that need help?

Even though uh Monday night will maybe start in the also like the 50, but although I'm not so much more than some ideas.

So I would like to see how the support for needs to get our data, yeah.

I just said we said how it.

So I think it's a big depth, big difference.

So I don't think we can have that.

Uh so when we needed help within the C police, you call dispatch for help.

I said the email book.

I said emails, so like competitive protect the opposite, but I don't know what it was uh someone independent.

I don't know uh recent some officers.

Well, that time was fear fairly high available.

Also I like to tell you for the easy we'll be asking them to vote in our most readings and they are maybe all that every time.

Well the time for ice issue, the time the people you know the fear for the biases produced in which it doesn't use one of those things.

As far as the specific examples for when you call it and we respond, then we can take that offline and I can discuss that.

Well, we will we have a good asking some help if we would be that image, so I would like to see something other officer yes, people they feel the work.

So you want all we need it to show up and to open the ask if I do that.

I mean, that's a general rule.

If there was no buttons, the unit ICS are talking about that a lot of time when we ask it down to play the ease, celebration officers, but that time we need a big help because if they see our community, most of the 67 using Europe, uh state of the City City institutions here, the people give more in a bonus sheet and the resolution, like that.

Yeah, uh, I don't think I understand my my question to you is your experience is it related to this policy?

No, no, it's I didn't know, yeah.

So in general, yeah, right.

The request for support community connections with the Ph department, yeah, would we or so?

I would recommend that that is a good conversation for the policy on community outreach and support or not emerging events, unless I just want to keep us focused on the immigration violation here for today.

Is there anything here?

No, look at the self-care.

And the only other question I had was this was new, I guess, added.

Um it used to it's my understanding that all of this was a direction in in arguing between the civil enforcement and criminal enforcement when it came to ice and all of the belief uh what is valid and what isn't.

I don't want to get into that at all.

Um but by adding criminal in here, does this mean that the Rochester Police Department if federal immigration had criminal warrants that you would not assist under criminal because for criminal warrants versus just civil that is that is on a case by case basis, and I think it talks about unless requested by uh by the federal agency, but as far as immigration, no, we don't we don't get involved unless unless there's somebody's uh there's a safety concern.

Right.

So that's that's really not a public state commissioner, but that would be similar global police should get involved in enforcement because it's only a federal well then.

That means that you're saying that Rochester Police Department should then remove each and everyone to create the liberty on whether or not you're going to support I don't think it's like a deferred immigration enforcement.

Yeah, I'd like to make a point of clarification when it talks about and correct me if I'm wrong, but enforcing is specifically serving a warrant or enacting an immigration or federal crime or issue.

This doesn't restrict RPD from doing their job enforcing civil disruptions.

So just because it's associated with a federal operation, right?

Whether people out on the street or not, so if they're being disrupted, it's not saying that they can't get involved at all, right?

They just can't that this is saying that they're going to defer to federal agents to have enforce, right?

They're not going to be going in the house to focus on handcuffs.

Right.

Right.

That part I understand, but this new language here says enforce both civil and criminal immigration violations.

I was looking at the previous, and I noticed that that did not say criminal last time.

And so I was trying to understand the distinction now of what that means.

For clarification, you're at 413.2, correct?

Correct.

And then you're looking at the left.

The license that you rochester police department differs and ends with violations, correct?

I would assume that's just a broadening of scope to make sure that enforcement of both civil violations and criminal violations are covered for the deferment to federal agents.

So if there is a criminal, I understand what you're saying going across the border twice, maybe criminal by federal, and you may not agree with it, but there's got to be other federal crimes that would constitute a more violent action and something that the sample.

Yes, I'm trying to understand.

It seems to me that I understand the civil discussion on why the Rochester police would not get involved, but I don't understand the criminal, and I may be reading at it incorrectly.

And so I think what this is saying is regardless of what federal statutes violated, whether it's criminal or civil, we are deferring the enforcement of those statutes, federal statutes, not locals to types.

The captain has said we that case by case basis at the discretion of a sergeant to see how much we would actually get involved, but if they're burning the city, then I would imagine giving up the local police department there to hold up.

But I think the way they added that is because the argument began that why this is a civil infraction, which in fact if it was true, but it wasn't true because coming across the border is a civil violation.

But like what said it's not criminal if you come back a second time.

That I understand the vast differences between laws and those that are not a public an issue of public safety.

Uh to those that to your point can be on the books, but not necessarily a violation of public safety, something of public safety.

I'm concerned that that broader of not being involved or not participating or supporting.

What if there was a criminal federal foreign on a very dangerous person here in town and it's immigration related?

Are you does that mean you would you would still not participate or support or be involved?

And I feel like that then leaves the door open to somebody.

If that was me, I know that unless I run into a federal immigration officer.

I'm kind of safe.

How is the public detective and that's it?

Maybe just what I'm hearing, I think is a distinction between the language that is referenced of civil and criminal immigration violations, and you are referencing some other types of federal criminal violations that are not immigration related.

So somebody who has committed a violent federal offense and they're indicted for murder.

There's nothing in this policy that would prevent that.

Is that a decision?

Yes, that's helpful and meaningful.

Yes.

So are there are there federal, would there be immigration criminal uh violations that the Rochester Police Department would not help enforce or participated?

That would be crimes in a sense threats to public stage violent crimes.

Maybe that's the non-immigration, solely immigration related.

That would be relationship.

That explains that when there's a public safety risk, um, we we have been involved as far as going there to see or making trip tourism.

Okay, so it's the distinction of my lack of understanding as far as um criminal federal enforcement are not related in a sense to violent crimes.

Correct.

That would be my take, and I think Mr.

Wheeler's example of how an immigration matter can become criminal.

It's crossing the border with without legal entry, it could become a criminal matter.

There are probably other examples of crimes that are tied to immigration status alone.

This policy is saying that RPD will not be involved.

Those types of criminal immigration related matters.

That explains the criminal.

So the only other piece to that was the um public safety rochester, keeping the peace and not allowing what happened, that he happens to occur.

So that was my two pieces.

So thank you.

I'd be like by the support to ask these questions if you have the other people back as well.

But get that clear.

Just a minor grammar thing on section 413.

Or after the period fine copy.

Uh, the user interface user experience for making grammatical and and small edits like that is difficult.

Our provider lexical is actually rolling out a better interface.

So and I've done this before where I think I have it corrected.

Um while I'm looking at it, then I publish it, and then it's still wrong.

And so they are making those changes.

There will be some grammatical errors uh through our policy manual.

It's it's embarrassing, I agree.

Um but we are we when we see those I preach you're pointing it out, we try to correct them.

But sometimes when we try to correct them, it still doesn't correct them.

So uh we're we're hopeful that it will be better in the new sense.

That makes a politician's asset as far as just the user interface, not a new policy.

Just one other thing that may have caught people's attention a little bit, and others can correct me if I have any of this wrong, but you may have noticed on the bottom of the page there's reference to copyright lexical and then a fairly recent page, March 24th, 2026, and in this discussion, there's been some reference to high or language and the changes.

And in this discussion, there's been some reference to higher language and the change.

If somebody changed it, um there's a little bit of a complicated backstory to that.

The reason that that more recent date is on there is not because changes were made on March 24th, 2026, but in the midst of the immigration activity and referencing back to policy, there was some recognition that the policy that was listed on the website was the old policy, like the old old policy.

This went back perhaps six to seven years ago where the full review of this policy with the assistance of an immigration lawyer, you've heard some of this story before that occurred some time ago.

We realized that the old policy was still up on the website, and had some communications, updated the policy to what had been approved years before.

There were no additional changes or review that was done in March.

We're just getting the whole policy updated, I think, through Lexable and then onto the website.

So I just wanted to explain that piece.

Um, and again, if I got any of that wrong, correct me, but um, it was uh uh it was uh it's a fairly onerous process.

It it was it has been to update that policy because of all of the redactions that have to be made.

So it was a manual in the past, it's been a manual redaction uh for those policies that need redaction, not a lot, but so um and so yeah, we when when that happened, we have been operating under this new policy since the time we worked on this together and issued it to RPD.

We did not just start under this policy in March.

Can I notice clarification?

I think that was helpful.

I was just sure.

Yes.

Okay, uh first of all, apologize and clean to also apologize for cancelling meeting.

So what happened with our data minimum calendar twice if you're taking one of course I will I will re reiterate the invitement that comes from April is the official one.

Please ignore all others unless you said otherwise.

Oh, thank you for being here.

Okay, I'll not know if anyone uh wishes the best of luck on keeping the city website up to date, especially with the thing redesigned.

So thank you for sharing that information.

All right, to keep us on track here, we'll move on to our second policy of numerical order of policy 427.

We've automated license plating readers.

Open it up to the commission to kind of change our minds on this particular policy if anyone has any thoughts.

Um three uh sub item B review and approve request to add a um should it not also review and approve or deny the request.

Is the distinction being that because of the word shall that the system administrator should have the authority to deny as well in relation to career?

Would there be a reason it would find the departmental copy?

Yeah, and I want to as far as review and approved request to access and use storage or the ALPR data.

We any officer is able to access based on the criteria that you see in the pup in the policy, and so it's when they get hired as a police officer and they're a regular police officer, they get access to that.

Um, if they're not that access is denied.

Um I I can I understand what you're saying.

Um but it only happens like when it also gets hired, they get access, and when they're no longer hired or part of the Rochester Police Department, they their account gets deleted and they're uh no longer have access to DAP.

Would you want to go over this policy first just as uh overview and then we can ask you?

Just say it's like you guys plan on implementing this.

We have well, yeah, we have already implemented this.

Right.

Um just like how you guys see this fitting into Rochester and what the policy has thinks I go over kind of a figure that I don't know if everybody here has experience with ALBR setups or what they can be supported.

That's for summary of policy reading.

Yeah, yeah, just the summary of the implementation.

Sure.

So we have ALPR readers in our in our vehicles, SWAT cars.

We have now two uh fixed ALPR readers on um 41st Street.

Um those data that those license plates that those ALPR readers capture are accessible by officers.

Um they are if there is a hit uh on a license plate, an officer can get notified.

Um if there's uh if there's investigation that an officer is looking to do an invest a specific investigation for a specific incident, they are able to access uh ALPR readers to determine um uh to determine potential suspects.

Um I think the biggest question uh that you as a body could uh could consider is what state law says and what uh state law allows us to keep data for 60 days.

Um there are options uh for that.

Um I guess I was looking for feedback specifically on that uh feedback and discussion um for consideration by the police department.

I think I have a lot of thoughts on this though.

It's a balance, yeah.

Yeah, and that comes from a background in computers and data science, that kind of stuff, having records of who drove where and when obviously on this scale, it's not as kind of why you only have two cameras that explain different specific stationary cameras.

I should say, um I would like to understand it as fully as I can just so I can understand you know the access, the data flow can access what lands of what is the restriction for accessing the ALPR system specifically to do like a lookup or a search.

Thank you.

And and and that would be contained in that procedure or clarified more in that procedure that's attached.

Uh an officer can only an officer can only access the data if they need it for an investigation.

Uh, if they're trying to access, they can't any other access of the data would be uh against policy.

Um also I think some of the confusion um we we being RPD are the only is the only agency that has access to our data.

Um nobody else, we don't share that with anybody unless there's a warrant, uh, but we don't share that with federal uh federal law enforcement, we don't share with anybody, it is our data.

Some of the things you may have heard about Flock, uh, we don't have FLOC.

Uh we don't have Flock cameras, and so we own all of our data, it is secured uh by our by our uh provider axon.

Um I have confidence in the security of it, and I've shared with you uh some of the some of the uh certifications that they've filed, and um we don't share the data unless uh we're served a warrant to share it, uh and it's our data to use, but even an officer doing an investigation when they want to look at ALPR data, they have to enter that incident number in that lookup to make sure so I can or whoever is auditing um the professional standards manager auditing it can make sure that it was used uh within policy.

I I would ask that for 27.4 be re-looked at then it states an ALPR may be used in conjunction with any routine control operation or criminal investigation, reasonable suspicion of probable cause is not necessary before using an ALPR.

So that to me kind of contradicts the incident number or needing a investigation.

Well, and I think there's a difference between using an ALPR.

Think of an ALPR, it's integrated into our squad camera system.

We're using it right on a 24-7, 365 uh day basis.

We are not necessarily going in and searching for things with that with that data.

So we are using the technology, we aren't necessarily looking through the technology than or the data.

The reason why I pull this up, you know, if that was more specific, I might I think I'd feel more comfortable for it because ALPR is referenced as kind of the general license plate recognition.

So if that's on the cars, right?

I mean you pull it up in the CAD system, that gets the notification.

But this could be argued that you know accessing an ALPR during routine control operation could be the stationary ALPRs.

And by accessing the that system could be accessing the tracking data.

Yeah, and I and I define that a different way how I we're using it every day.

Um we're not necessarily accessing the data.

Uh we're accessing the data in compliance with our policy.

Right.

But I'm I'm I'm willing to have more function.

Yeah, I I I think maybe just a specification of what use in this case.

Yep.

And maybe the station between creating the data and using it, right?

Access it that returns a warrant.

Is it a judicial warrant?

No, we don't need a warrant to access our data.

Yeah, it's uh request for data requires a warrant.

So 477 on department maybe security, which always focused on general chart, so for example what's the chairman.

So we found some security.

I would say uh public safety threats.

I would assume both the same based on how it's stated.

It's probably seven point three.

First paragraph, last six.

Right.

Not that I put up at airports and stuff like that that they run like TSA and all this stuff, but Rochester stuff maybe in the airport.

I'm not aware of any cameras that they're not.

Yeah, I'm not sure if we want to bring is uh police department the only entity that has automated license plate readers county.

Um some of the confusion too surrounding license plate readers has come up.

Um when people have said um I've I've I've had conversations, people think that we have flock cameras because it shows up on the D Flock website that Lowe's has those, those are not our cameras, those are most cameras.

They do have flock.

Um we we don't, but uh um yes, there are other ALPR readers uh operating in OMS in uh Rochester, Oxide County.

Um that RPU doesn't have access to or doesn't use, doesn't hold I suspect numbers eight time location pictures of license plates.

Uh I have a question on 427.4.10 B.

It states that the data is only matched with the Minnesota license plate data files.

So does that does that why the out-of-state license plates are not included in the local.

We don't have access to other we have access to um CIC data, uh, but not necessarily um the Minnesota capabilities that we have access to as far as ALBR lists and stuff.

We don't necessarily have access to out of state.

license plate data files and does that does that why the out of state license plates are not included in the local and we don't necessarily have we don't have access to other we have access to um c ic data uh but not necessarily um some of all the Minnesota capabilities that we have access to as far as ALBR lists and stuff we don't necessarily have access to out of state but we do have if somebody puts from another state puts a nationwide alert we would have access to that okay we would get an alert if if an officer happened to drive by or if they happen to drive by one of our campus am I correct in assuming that that is something state law outlines that that precludes us from yeah 13.824 is when I was referenced there that's a state okay with data retention supply in those cases as well so say I like one five would that still stay in the system but you just want to be able to look up details after 60 days it's gone we can't look it up we don't have access um related to lows I'm not saying section but that's section B it may be it maybe move the department to match by watching the police department or the city to the end of that sentence sure okay right now it it makes it seem like it's the department's responsibility to hold the report and the LBR the LPRs that are private um and I'm glad you brought that up state law approach requires us to notify BCA just like it says indeed we have done that and will continue to do that for all of our fixed ALPR cameras right if the question comes up well squad cars have it too I have already reached out to the BCA and their legal team they do not consider because within that 13.824 uh the state statute says you have to also notify the BCA anytime a traffic cam has ALPR technology installed or or coordinated with it um that does not apply to squad cars because the BCA does not consider squad cars surveillance devices so we have reached out I did reach out to VCA on guidance on that and that was their official guidance.

So the contrast yeah so are not fixed uh information is identified on that where what happens to that yeah um the alert will a hit alert will come to an officer's either squad laptop or through our uh ALPR software uh provided through axon those hits are are um are delivered to the computer now the officer still has to make and it's this is the outline in procedures officer still has to make a determination for example if the hit is a remote driver's license they still have to determine that the person driving the vehicle is the one who has the remote driver's license so they cannot stop just based on an ALPR hit they also have to do some uh some work uh to determine that the hit that they got is associated with the right vehicle so the plate matches and it associates to the certain person that that hit is alert or if that hit is for if that does that answer the question.

Yeah so I would wonder where that value was sent uh so it's sent how it's stored in a database uh yeah it's the gov cloud all of the data is stored there but the alerts get sent to anyone that's any officer that's logged into uh the system that's the same is that publicly released it is okay so that's the yeah and when you see NA for other devices um that is those other surveillance devices of which Rochester does not have any I did have in that same same session um c so 427 point four point one c um but you'd be able to define ex circumstances and look at where was that sorry for on um item C ALTR shall not be used to monitor a track individuals unless done so under a search warrant or because he thinks you have circumstances still think for that 427 point four or 427 or 427 point four point one restrictions not a recognition audits I don't something exact something where the essence and then homicide suspects domestic assault suspects who we believe are going back to try to harm somebody further is that outlined in another policy of design so far or exemplified as it is circumstances um yeah it would be outlined in additional policies but but the the agent circumstances typically are somebody's going to be seriously hurt killed if we don't take action would that be documented in the access uh process I know that you mentioned something about you know reason for access and then false our categories would that be documented that determination would be made depending on the ICR number that they put in to the to the search and the if everything's logged an auditable time date um when they searched it to so that would be a determination

Would that be documented in the access uh process?

I know that you mentioned something about you know reason for access and then false in our categories.

Would that be documented?

That determination would be made depending on the ICR number that they put in uh to the to the search.

And if everything's locked and auditable time date, um when they searched it too.

So that would be a determination uh on policymakers on uh maybe him over there to determine if this was actually uh an exigency if this was days later and the exigency is now uh no longer.

Right.

Uh that would be a determination really that'll be after the fact.

I just added to the best practice would be you would you would install under execution circumstances, but you would still go on the back side and get a search mark just so you're covered.

You you wouldn't wait.

Sometimes there's some delay to implement it, but you would still go and still get a pen legal.

This is also a lot of times it didn't uh those warrants that are that pen are uh I'm not well versed on what a pen warrant is like our narcotics investigations.

A lot of times they they serve and are granted those type of warrants where they can track people with uh that because of the result of the narcotics investigation.

Thank you.

Well, it's a like uh B city.

All of them 427.6 B.

Yeah.

Well, I'd alone is the city.

Our system, it's only our RP.

Well, our RPDM, we do have an MOU with Holmstead County.

Uh Ohmstead County is also able to state patrol does not have access.

Unless they have the right unless they request it, correct?

Are those requests for after the fact data or access to no most of the time it's for this?

It's after the fact that after the act data.

Do you have to have a pathway for access into live systems?

Real-time Olmsted County would state patrol with that.

Okay.

But I would say circumstances if something happened in state patrol's realm and they needed that information.

We would coordinate and collaborate with them to get them as quicker of information as we can.

I had a graphic.

But I I know they're they bother me too.

Uh just through the the ALBR hot lists.

Hot lists are listed as both one and two words.

I just want to make sure that that's uh aligns with the same definition.

Thank you.

I assume so.

I just highlighted thank you.

Again, this is one of those.

I don't know how many times I've gone in there and deleted that space.

Um keeps it for some reason.

It drives me crazy.

So thank you.

Any other thoughts on policy function on the LPR service time?

Very much for a lot of the discussion on that one.

On to our final policy of Divis on DO4 on records, maintenance, and release.

Open it up to the I don't know if it's I assumed it was a conjunction of ALPR selling for data release and retention, but uh I can't remember if this is a specific one.

I mean my understanding is it was in conjunction with the ALPR.

Okay.

Perhaps we can assembly look at it, and unless anyone has any questions.

Yeah, and you have sort of government data practice act, is that correct?

Okay, okay.

I think this might have been updated just to put an ALPR select junction with the section.

Uh 804.5 uh item A lists uh Minnesota statute for ALPR data.

Okay.

All right.

Well, we can move on from here for that.

That will end our agenda item on policy discussion.

Thank you all for your questions, giving their thoughts and insights.

As always, I'll always welcome the department to post questions back if they have any on any particular policies here as well on our anticipation and understanding.

Yes, you're probably just asked more in general question.

So do you want us to continue to highlight the firm random?

Yes, please.

Yes, please.

Like it's a it could be a full-time job going through our policy.

I am hopeful though that um at least by the end of the year lexical um has made the interface easier so I can actually see the corrections I make before I publish them.

So yes, please keep telling us.

Okay, thank you.

Another actually interesting question for you.

Is the department aware of any situation where one of those inaccurate errors can change the meaning of a policy?

I am not okay.

Of course, we would want to know that too.

If that's a concern of one of yours, yeah, please bring that for that's okay.

I don't know if any all right, so um whole business would be the continued discussion on commission rules and regulations.

Uh thank you all again for bearing with me over the past year or so that we've been trying to kind of re find and focus on the purpose of this body.

Um last time we had taken some time to look over these ordinance that allows us to exist at the city level, and we have taken some notes.

Uh I've taken some notes based on the feedback here, and what you have in the peak document in front of you, which unfortunately did not get in the agenda in time, is a proposal of changes that we recommended together.

And I would like to give the one some time to just look at those and come up with any questions and clarifications.

Um, I do want to say that uh support of Chief Committee's on all of these changes that are proposed.

Um, to give we choose to move forward and ask city council to amend the ordinance uh to dash 13.

So I'll get progressing silence, and if you want to read it, take a look.

And I don't know if you disseminated it, but it's for us to first decide if we want to look at these proposals and that would be the council approving them, then but find out too as well.

I think the condition would it should be very sure how they see and I think I had a rationale here as well.

Well, what other represented group groups need to have a seat at the table and as elected government, someone who elects the mayor who appoints members, it should be reflected on the community as a meeting at uh that's the rationale I went with them.

Obviously, go to the challenge there.

Um, not to undermine the value in the ethnic amendment, Lac E brings to the table.

It just does seem preferential that we're gonna do out of line with them.

Other groups who may also want to have representation, which are valid, but I do believe that the person that's pointing should be able to make those decisions as well.

Um that's the rationale, but again understood the I totally value it.

Historically, I can understand why how it came apart, came about by wanting to have one member represent the remote, but I do see how you have a wish of the change and the evolution of community could say, okay, there might be time to open up that seat to another correct point.

Ultimately the decision would be by today by the council.

All these changes would be council continue right.

So each one individually easier or as a whole or I would think bull is actually the simpler to that choose.

Right and that's where I was yes so let's start with all but if someone wants to pull something out and I am open to separating that out from the rest of the package I will stop progress based on small issues.

Have a conversation with handle ACP right to the board.

Yep.

I'm not too fast um I I am of the favor that if conversations need to happen they should be given the due diligence in time to occur um I again again not to undermine the value that the NAACP brings to not just the sport but to the community as a whole is a decision that I feel would be right for everyone involved and there are lots of really good groups out there who certainly as well maybe the chance any thing uh well center is what we're doing so it'll motion to work and see the motion okay so we have a motion on the table table one and approve the rest on this document or actually she she can remember actually no there was a question so I guess from the perspective of the whole board do we all need to agree on every section or is it a majority or how does that work I agree with that um but I want to have a conversation right if if there are any conversations to be had your time to talk about how you feel about these changes and our try to have the audience voice for it as a whole I'm I'm in this so with that there's no discussion today I would entertain a motion actually hold on so we'll wait till next time this was a whole package we could approve two through five we could either group two through five or we could vote on if you know what let's let's make it transparent and clear we'll add it to the agenda and the whole voting does document will then be in the uh minutes as well for public review and it'll be a simple chat to document that that's we can do the whole thing yeah I I would say either table the whole thing right or okay whichever way given that meeting something like that conversation okay I would entertain such a motion to table or to move the continue very thank you continue the discussion on this I'm not aware on the proposed changes on this document to our next schedule meeting as a voting item to then uh move on move or not lose the entire package to the capital for consideration for ordinance amendments did I get that right sir yes um just what was the second part of that after continue I just wasn't sure if you were trying to uh I would like to essentially have us vote on this document at the next meeting once it's been published on the agenda as an item to vote on yeah maybe that's just the only thing is you you really don't want to try to lock in whatever motion may be made at the time that you hear it at the next meeting okay um a similar motion could be made at the next meeting

I just wasn't sure if you were trying to uh I would like to essentially have us vote on this document at the next meeting once it's been published on the agenda as an item to vote on.

Yeah, maybe that's just the only thing is you you really don't want to try to lock in whatever motion may be made at the time that you hear it at the next meeting.

Okay, um, a similar motion could be made at the next meeting.

I I move to approve one, three, and five.

Okay, can you just sort through that at the at the meeting?

So it's it's probably not proper to vote continue and to try to prescribe how the body will deal with the item or at the next meeting.

Okay, but then we'll just continue the discussion.

Yes.

I mean, and at that time you could make your pitch as for why it should be all or nothing or whatever, but that's for the next meeting government.

Second, okay, all in favor.

Yeah, I all opposed.

Thank you for that.

I agree with this on that.

Um, yeah, so take the time.

Um, April, may I have I can if you wouldn't mind asking the feat for the copy he has in his email to that include in next the next agenda?

That way it's transparent as well for everyone involved.

Thank you all for the continued discussion on that topic.

Um, that is all we have for old business, right?

Is there any other new business any member of this commission would like to talk about?

Right, and on that front, are there any other policies that anyone would like to bring up for review in the next meeting at this time?

Uh do remember, don't have to say them today.

You feel like people can always reach out to people and have them include it at the agenda as well.

All right, seeing no other action items, no adopts.

Anyone in the audience here?

I will move uh entertainment motion to adjourn.

So all in favor, aye.

All opposed.

Your adjourned thing.