I know they did it. >> I said, "Why y'all?" No. >> Come over here. >> Yes. Told her to sit down. >> Good evening. My name is Lata Reeves and I'm the chair of the Community Commission on Police Oversight. Before
we begin, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members, staff, and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation. These broadcasts include real-time captioning as a further method to increase the accessibility of our meetings to the community. Therefore, all
speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. At this time, I'm going to call to order this regular meeting for Monday, February 9th, and
ask the clerk to call the role. >> Commissioner Mhenny, >> present. >> Shanfield, present. Newman is absent. Clement is absent. Palmer absent. Baker
>> present. >> Stewart >> present. >> Kennedy >> present. >> Barts >> present. Andre is absent. Williams Johnson >> present. >> Smith is absent. Uh Vice Chair Olsson
>> present. >> And Chair Reeves >> present. >> There are nine members present. >> Thank you. So let the record reflect that we have a quorum. Members, if you allow me to take a moment of personal privilege, I would like to ask us to do a moment of silence for all that has happened in Minneapolis. There has been
a lot of things going on um with the murder of Renee Good, the murder of Alex Prey. And while I recognize this is not an MPD situation, I do like to take a moment of silence to recognize the gravity what was going on in Minneapolis and that we're talking about the immigration policy today. So, if you
indulge me, let's take a moment of silence. I appreciate it. Thank you, Commissioner. The agenda for this evening's meeting is before us. I'm not aware of any proposed amendments to the agenda. So, let me ask if there are any amendments to the agenda from commissioners. >> Commissioner Baker, is your hand up?
>> No. >> All right. Seeing no hands, may I have a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? >> So moved. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Been motioned and seconded. The clerk will call the role on that motion to adopt the agenda.
>> Commissioner Commissioner Mhenny. >> A. Yeah. I >> uh Shanville. >> I >> Baker. >> I >> Stewart. >> I >> Canada. >> Hi. >> Barts. I
>> Williams Johnson I >> vice chen >> I >> and chair Reeves >> I >> there are nine eyes >> I thank you the eyes have it and the agenda is adopted. Next we have one set of minutes to accept from our December 15th regular meeting. May I have a motion and second to accept these
minutes. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. A motion and seconded. The clerk will call the role. >> [clears throat] >> Commissioner Melhaney. >> Hi, >> Chanfield. >> Hi,
>> Baker. >> I >> Stewart, >> I >> Canada, >> I >> Barts, >> I >> Williams Johnson. >> I, >> Vice Chair Olsson, >> I >> and Chair Reeves, >> I. >> There are nine eyes. All right, the eyes
have it and the minutes have been adopted. Next in the or is the order of public comments. will open the floor to any comments from the public, giving each speaker two minutes to address the commission. We'll be taking speakers in the order that they've registered. If you wish to address the commission
tonight and haven't already done so, you may register with the clerk's office at the side of the deis. If any speaker has printed materials, please give those to the city clerk. We also invite folks to submit written comments using the forms available from the city clerk to be included in the public record as an
alternative to speaking at tonight's comment section. Each speaker will be given two minutes to address the commission tonight. We have a timer to assist speakers in monitoring their use of time. With that, I'll open the public comment period. And our first speaker is
Andrew. Hello. This is regarding uh proposed policy 9110 voluntary transportation and ambulances. In some this policy states that anyone being voluntarily transported will be asked to consent to a search or be
refused transport. In Tennessee, a deputy would ask people he stopped if they would consent to be baptized. Yes meant a ticket. No meant arrest. When police give different consequences based on consent, it isn't consent. Voluntary
transport. It's more than just asking cops for a lift because you missed your bus. Community caretaker. That's where police say they have a duty to look out for the welfare of the community, not just arrest people for crimes. Here it's the police seeing someone walking home
at night when it's -20 and offering a ride or seeing a grandmother slip on the icy sidewalk going home from the grocery store and offering a ride. Another common type of voluntary transport is witness ID of suspects. Police will
detain someone but don't have enough information to arrest. So they will voluntarily transport the victim who witnessed the crime from who can then look at the person from the safety and anonymity of the squad car can identify that person.
It's not consent if you give up your fourth amendment right to forego these normal services. Cops say well they can provide their own transportation. I think in these three very common circumstances that isn't really an option. Police say it's for officer
safety, and that's important. But that alone doesn't override our rights. To classify every member of the community as a threat. Justifying a search without any reason beyond that they simply exist is the very definition of unreasonable.
And remember, this isn't just a general safety measure like locking your door. This is denying community members services unless they surrender their civil rights, protecting against unreachable search and seizures. And uh I say I'm almost done, so I will
hold off for a moment. Thank you. >> Thank you. The next speaker we have is Patrick. >> No, you're you're good. >> That was his two-minute timer. Yeah. >> U Good evening, commission. Um I would like to speak on the intimidation that
has taken place um in the city specifically targeting those exercising their constitutional right of observation. Um in the last month I have been driven to my home by ICE officers that I was observing four times most recently this
morning. I have also been addressed by name without identifying myself to the officers. uh both of these acts and other forms of intimidation uh tell us three things about the
mission as it is. One uh it consider it has as a core aspect to it a commitment to abuse of information on the part of agents. Two that there is a core belief in intimidation as a part of their mission.
And third, uh, a complete lack of professionalism in these officers training and conduct. I would ask that the commission in all, you know, by all means that it has at its disposal to further highlight these
problems to law enforcement partners and ask for intervention or at least the development of stronger policies to protect people who are engaging in constitutionally protected action. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Is it Harry J or Mary J? And forgive me, I just can't read the H or the M. [clears throat] Mary, >> just finish reading. >> Thank you. I'm just going to piggyback on some of the things that is that okay?
Um that Andrew said. Overall, I'm just concerned about what is the real intent behind this policy. Um I my practice in looking at policies is to look at other police departments to look at best practices across the nation and to look
at um how they've described these the elements that they've included in policies and that and I have to say I found nothing. Um the one that stands out was the Baltimore Police Department. They were under a consent decree. They
do not provide public transportation to anyone. They have a number of services that can assist people who need rides, be it to a medical appointment um or for some other reason, but the police department does not provide transportation.
This seems to be a slippery way of being able to conduct a search for no justifiable reason. And that plays into what could be a connection with what we're dealing with right now with ICE.
And I would not want to see that that happening. So, thank you. >> Thank you. The next person we have is Chuck Turic. Commissioners, when outside agitators and lawb breakakers come into our city, things
get more difficult for the Minneapolis Police Department. When outside agitators and lawb breakakers come into our city under the guise of law enforcement, things get even more difficult for the Minneapolis Police Department. And when things get more
difficult for the Minneapolis Police Department, the need for oversight increases and community trust in the police department decreases. Both of these bear directly on this commission's mandate.
Therefore, I suggest that what we and you ought to do is to brainstorm ideas for what this commission can itself do and what this commission can recommend that city officials should do to control
so-called law enforcement outside so-called law enforcement agencies for the reason I've stated this is within your charge focusing only on the Minneapolis Police department and its
policies might be fiddling while Rome burns. Along with millions and millions of people across the world, I am so proud of the residents of Minneapolis. Make us proud of this commission as well.
>> Thank you. Next person is Caitlyn Regentshide. I hope I got that right. The pause on the last name tells me who we're who we're coming for. Um, hello. Good evening. Uh, my name is Caitlyn Regenshide. I'm a resident of
the Lowry Hill neighborhood. Um, and I appreciate everybody's time and dedication to getting this policy and procedure manual updated. I can tell a lot of energy went into it. I read through all of the red lines. Um, in advance of this meeting, I took some time to make some annotated suggestions for improvements. I apologize. I did not
print enough copies for all of you. I honestly didn't know that you all would even be here or read it. I can distribute it electronically, but there are a couple going around. And there really are just a few small comments in it. Um, they call out lack of clarity and language here and there. Policies on
body warn cameras. I don't think that it's indicated often enough in the policy and procedure manual for MPD to activate their body warn cameras when interacting with ICE agents or with any federal immigration law enforcement, if we want to call them that. um some concerns for safety at school,
houses of worship and um medical facilities. We protect within the facility but not any transport around the facilities. So that might be bus stops nearby, parking lots, nearby on street parking. Um and then also just
some of the language of criminals I think implies that Minneapolis residents are the only criminals in these altercations. And so I would sorry excuse me I need a little water. Um I would just like to add a little clarity around there that there are criminal acts being perpetrated in these
interactions by law enforcement agents if you prefer to call them that. Um so I submit all of my comments annotations for consideration with a lot of respect with what's being done. I can tell that there's some very good faith and good spirit behind all of this and really hope that you'll take it into
consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you. The next person up is Zach X. Hello everybody. My name is Zach. I've had a really bad experience with the Minneapolis Police Department just expressing my First Amendment down at the Whipple Center. I've been attacked
several times down there. The police have done nothing. I've called the police several times. I was attacked at the uh Jake Lang event as well. I've seen uh videos of people calling the police telling them that we're getting attacked and the police just say that it's being monitored. My friends were
attacked and the police turn their backs to us. We are not being protected and we are not being served. Um I am down here to express my first amendment and I can't do that without being attacked anywhere I go and I'm sick and tired of it. I got a bulletproof vest on just to
express my first amendment and you guys want to tell me that's okay. It comes down from the government and you guys have no backbone. Jacob Frey Ellison and uh Mr. Walls, you guys have no backbone. You need to back up your freaking police because they're being cowards out there
because of you and they can't do nothing about it. And it's I had to spend 4 days in jail for defending myself and uh it's all because Ellison's Mr. Probable cause hold. No one else has that. It's it's a disgrace to our community and it's a disgrace to our
country. And uh if any of you guys want to feel good about yourselves, why don't you look into the probable cause cuz it's really pathetic that I had to do jail for defending myself. Thank you. >> Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, um
we we completed all public comments and we'll close the public comment period. The next order of business is reports. Our first report is from our police policy research and recommendations committee. That report will be given by the committee chair, Commissioner Shamfield, and there are 10 minutes
allocated. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh first, I just wanted to thank all of the folks who came had the opportunity to come uh uh and express their views. Thank you so much for doing that. Um we don't get a chance to engage uh directly during the meeting, but um I really appreciate you being here um speaking your mind, as
well as everyone who's here. Thank you for being here. Uh my name is Mara. I'm the chair of the uh police policy research and recommendations committee and um we have looked at uh MPD several policies in the last uh year and a half but in particular uh 9401 the police
authority in immigration matters. Um we uh it's been updated several times. We looked at it last in November 2025. Uh we reviewed the policy. We reviewed uh CUAPB's suggestions as well and we provided our uh collective uh feedback
to the uh implementation unit. Um and then they updated the policy. The most recent version is dated 121825. So just in December um it includes many of the changes that we recommended. Um in the uh link to here to the agenda is
a summary of some of the changes. Um I'll give you a quick overview. Um there were uh the the updates um represent a substantial strengthening of the separation of MPD and federal
immigration enforcement uh activities beyond prohibiting participation in immigration enforcement in in particular. The newer version of the policy adds several layers of oversight, accountability, and member guidance that create some operational structures um
and uh protect victim privacy and ensure command level awareness of the immigration related police activity in Minneapolis. We understand that the that MPD um has uh in in this moment um a
very uh difficult job to do. Uh they're in a difficult spot. They have a higher standard of conduct uh than the federal uh uh ICE uh authorities. What we would we wish we could hold ICE
to the standard um uh at a minimum of what MPD uh expects of its officers. What we would really like to see um or what what we're glad to see in the updated version um is uh uh there's a
new commander structure where um uh the watch commander is the sole point of contact. So that might explain why um uh messaging could take longer um but it it is perhaps safer. Um, and there uh is
a detailed step-by-step protocol when federal agencies request MPD assistance which allows them uh to to triple check before um rendering any uh assistance. We think this keeps uh the city of Minneapolis and our people safer. Uh we
know it's not enough and um we think the it may it may seem that that the police are um uh are not uh doing um all that all that they need to do and all that they can do. Um we also know that
right now their job is to prevent unnecessary involvement with immigration enforcement and protect the the city, the people and and then property here. Um, we know that they are we we are supportive of of peaceful protest,
lawful assembly. Um, and you know, MPD and the BCA really need access to um the crime scenes uh to evidence to cooperation with the federal government in investigations. Um, there are so many layers here. Um I would uh invite you to
uh look at the the policy this the um a couple other uh key uh improvements include um uh there are two additional paragraphs uh two new paragraphs um under the duty to intervene for excessive force that weren't there
before. Um so we think that policy is the first step uh practice is the next. So, we are here. We're going to talk tonight um uh here in a little bit about what that could look like and how um any some recommendations uh that we'd like to make. Uh and we really appreciate the
public's comments as well. See if there's anything else. I'll pause there. I'll pause there. Um uh our next meeting we'll be looking at 91 1 9-110 as um people are commenting about. So that meeting is on February 23rd and
we'll certainly take your comments. You can submit that ahead of time or or come then as well. We'll look forward to that. >> All right. Thank you. Are any questions from commissioners on the report? All right. Seeing none, thank you. I'll ask the clerk to receive and file that report.
Next, we have a report from the community engagement committee from the chair, Commissioner Stewart, and we've allocated 10 minutes for this report as well. >> Thank you everyone for coming. Um, on behalf of the commissioner body, I would like to also extend a thank you to those
that were willing to come and speak for your awards and for the community. Um on behalf of community engagement, uh at our last meeting, we did speak very briefly about the immigration laws and what we can do as our committee. Um, and we would just like to share that we are
working with all of our different neighborhood associations to be able to get materials out and make sure that we host um, neighborhood associations and co-host with the um, our committee community engagement to make sure that
your voices are heard and that we can bring it back to the full body and discuss it at our next meeting February 23rd. Um, so unfortunately I don't have a whole lot of information because we haven't had a chance to actually meet as a full body on that to bring forth what
we want to do with the community and hear your voices on what you would like for us to be able to recommend back to the full body. >> That's all I have. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any questions from commissioners? >> All right. Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to receive and file that report.
Next up is approving the rest of the 2026 calendar. Each committee has had a chance to review their calendars and the recommended changes have been made. This calendar also includes the public hearings which will be May 11th, 2026. Are there any other questions or
comments from the commissioners on the calendar? >> I have one. >> Uh thank you chair. Um uh I would like to uh make a motion to move one of the PPR R meetings based on some information I've received since the calendar was made. So that would be uh moving the
April 27th meeting a week later. So it would be on May 4th instead of April 27th. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Is that I guess PBR members um who are present here would be helpful if you could check your calendar, make sure that's not a problem. Um that May 4th is okay as opposed to April 27th. That will
allow us some preparation for the public hearing the following week. Uh and it will allow the staff support that's needed for the meeting. >> Would you restate your motion, please? >> Yes. A motion is to move the PPR meeting on April 27th to May 4th. >> Is there a second? >> I second.
>> Second. >> Thank you. Is there any discussion? >> All right. Seeing none, clerk will call the role on that change for PPR group. >> Commissioner Melhaney. >> I. >> Shamp.
Newman. >> I. >> Clement. I >> Baker. >> I >> Stewart. >> I >> Canada. >> I >> Barts. >> I >> Williams Johnson. >> I
>> Vice Chair Olsson >> I >> and Chair Reeves >> I. >> There are 11 eyes. >> All right. Thank you very much. Now that we had a chance to change that, is there a motion to approve the calendar as amended? >> So moved. >> Is there a second?
>> Second. >> All right. Any discussion? All right. Clerk, please call the role on the full calendar change. >> Uh, Commissioner Mahiny. >> I. >> Shanfield. >> Hi. >> Newman. >> I
>> Clement. >> I Baker. >> I >> Stewart. >> I >> candidate. >> I >> Barts. >> I >> Williams Johnson. >> I >> Vice Chair Olsen. I >> and chair Reeves >> I.
>> There are 11 eyes. >> All right, the eyes have it and the calendar is adopted. The final item [snorts] on our agenda tonight is discussion on police policy 9401, police authority and immigration matters. Considering what has been happening in our city, the commission wanted to bring this policy back up for
review and discussion. I have allocated 60 minutes for this topic. Anyone would like to go first? Any comments? Commissioner Sheffield. Just wanted to make a quick um uh procedure recommendation. Um I would love for people to take their own notes however you do that best, but if you would send
them to me after the meeting because we're going to be compiling them. So anything that um is really important to you um or anything you forgot to say uh during a meeting, I would really appreciate that. Thanks. >> All right. Thank you, >> Commissioner Baker. >> I would like to start. I had sent a
series of questions about two weeks ago to staff and about how 9-41 has been operated and I'd like to follow up on those and see if we have any answers available. So, per 9-41 section 3A6A,
uh, MPD is supposed to request identification from people who are not readily identifiable as federal agents. Have do we have any record of them doing that? Do we have any history like are they collecting that data?
>> Miss Pini, >> I am not certain. I know that under the separation ordinance, there's a couple different reporting policies or reporting procedures that are set up that then at the next regular city council meeting, they go to city council and report on them. I don't know if they
are specifically keeping track of this one or not. That's something that I would recommend. My understanding is the chief has come into your next meeting and I would recommend that his office or MPD respond to those >> and just jumping ahead. I mean that's going to be the answer for the next two
questions as well. >> If they're about 941 and the data they're collecting then yes. >> So I'm suggesting that the structure of this body has a fundamental flaw. If I I originally requested this discussion
January 8th after the first murder and if we can't within a month get a meeting where we actually have somebody who can answer questions that were provided two weeks ahead of time. How are we doing anything approaching oversight? We're looking in a rearview mirror and two
years from now or a year from now we might punish an individual officer, but that is not effective oversight or civilian oversight. We don't even know what the police are doing. As somebody who is obsessively doom scrolling, it sure seems like they're hiding and that
they're avoiding triggering the their duty to intervene. I have not seen a s single example of them intervening. And if after 60 more than 60 days of what could best be described as a
campaign of retribution and ethnic cleansing, we haven't intervened. It is to have the chief refer to the duty to intervene in a press conference at the be beginning of December to have us have
no examples of any actual interventions. I call into question his integrity of holding his officers accountable to intervene if we haven't seen it and and if we aren't getting any information when this is like the thing the entire
world is focused on and they've not reported any of that data. >> Uh Miss Pini I think it's going to be helpful that the questions the free the three questions that he's referring to Commissioner Baker is referring to that we give those to the chief for him to be able to have an answer. He has said that
he'll be at our next meeting on March 9th. And so I think it'd be helpful that he answered those questions directly and we compile them um succinctly from this meeting and make sure that he has them. I'm not sure if he's had a chance to look at those. If he has, I have no idea, but I know that we can give them to him now and ask them to answer them
at our next meeting. >> And I would recommend as a body that you send them directly. So it's the CCPO asking the chief directly for answers on the questions you'd like answered. >> Absolutely. Thank you. So further, we heard today an example of
ICE driving observers by their own homes. This is happening every day, multiple times a day in an environment where they have murdered two people. That's a death threat. We should be treating that as stalking.
These are civil enforcement agents. They're equivalent and actually less penalty for cheating on your taxes. [snorts] So, are we imagining a world where the IRS is allowed to do roving patrols and dragging people out of the
street and if you don't have your 1040 on you, they can abduct you until you can prove you have paid your taxes. Cuz that's that's the world we're now allowing. And to not have the Fourth Amendment, to not have the First Amendment, the Second Amendment. I mean,
we have no constitutional rights in the city of Minneapolis that are not enforced with a whistle. And part of that is because the police seem to be choosing not to intervene. The number of videos we have all seen
where outrageous force has been used. And the only intervention I have heard of in the entire state is when the chief of police in St. Peter got his buddy's wife out. So, this is more of the same of police taking care
of themselves and treating themselves as more important than the community. And every interview I have seen with the chief has been about how hard this is on the the officers and how they're outnumbered. We have 13,000 National Guard available to back up the police.
He's called on them when he needs to beat up protesters, when he need to beat up people who are defending our constitution. People were being called agitators, but are the last line of defense holding up habius corpus and our
constitutional rights. I have a list of statistics here, but like the highlights, twothirds of the murders in Minneapolis are by DHS this year. There are 362A habius cases that have gone through federal courts this month. 350 of them the people needed to be
released because there was no evidence whatsoever per Judge Lewis Kaplan. I have citations for all of these. This is not an entity that is doing law enforcement that happens to occasionally make a mistake. This is an entity that is doing ethnic cleansing that
occasionally picks up a criminal. [snorts] 73 per DHS's own number, 73% of the people they have picked up have zero convictions of anything. Not even a violation of um immigration policy. And
again, immigration policy is 3 years in prison. Cheating on your taxes is six. So, I'm going to pause. I want our police I I don't expect them to go gun to gun, but they need to be
maliciously complying with what the laws are. They should be parking outside of every hotel that has ICE agents in it and running the sirens all night to protect the ICE agents. They should be ticketing people who are driving wrong way down the streets. They should be speeding tickets. We have every day
gross violations and they are just saying, "Oh, we can't do anything." What little trust they had rebuilt after the George Floyd when three officers stood by as another one murdered. Right now, we are watching 600 officers stand
by as 3,000 people murder us, spray us in the face with gas, drag a woman so she loses her baby. I mean, yeah, I I'm just beyond horrified by the
failure of our institutions. And at the same time, The way our neighbors are responding is amazing and the contrast is just disgusting.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Barts. >> Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I'm not going to dispute, uh, you know, whether or not MPD is doing as much as it can, but I did want to offer an
anecdote from, um, the civil rights attorney, James Cook. He's a Minneapolis native. He's um, works for John Burrus out of the Bay Area. Uh, but he's been representing people out at Whipple. And, uh, I had a conversation with him about
his impressions of MPD during this whole episode. and his quote he's very impressed. Um so and you know this is an anecdote it's his experience but he did uh offer um a
couple of examples where one was where virtually all of the federal officers at Whipple drew their weapons on him and he said he credited the MPD officers on the scene with diffusing the situation. So they did step in and verbally intervene
to calm the situation down. So uh um I just wanted to offer that as an example of you know what may be possible um because certain officers are doing what they can. Um there was
another incident where uh the the uh person running the guard shack at Whipple would not let him in and MPD again actually was able to help him get entrance into Whipple. So >> thank you. >> Point of clarification MPD has not been
at Whipple. That is unincorporated county. >> My well he's a Minneapolis native. He's done he does dozens of police cases and um he said it was MPD. So I I understand that they have been out there at times
but that's coming from him. So >> Okay. Thank you Commissioner Clement. >> Um I was just going to ask Baker if you've done a ride along yet. >> I have done a ride along. Not during the current immigration surge. I've been patrolling and dispatching instead. I um
went on a ride along on Friday from 4:30 to well it was about 3:00 to 8 on Friday night and for and I'm W 5 North Minneapolis 4th precinct so I'm over there for anybody who knows near
North Point um the clinic over there and they're supposed to have 12 officers on at any given time and they only had eight that night. They literally just didn't have the officers in my precinct where I live, where I would need to call
them, where I need to be safe. They they just don't have the bodies. I also went with a few of the other commissioners to um the rookie training, or I don't want to say the rookie training, maybe that comes off as um [snorts] disrespectful,
but the the new officer training. And even there, they still had to do so much before they could go off and be on their own. One of the guys, one of the eight officers on a Friday night in North Minneapolis was his first ride. It's his
first time being on the street and he pulled someone over and we had to like tell him, "Hey, you got to find somewhere safer to do this." Like he was literally still learning. So, it's not that I'm trying to defend these bodies. is just also that right along during
this experience of ICE being here, right, and being working in the high school system and now working alongside MPD and doing this commission. I don't know if they have the man I don't know what other wards and districts look like. I just know what
mine looks like and they don't have the bodies. They they just don't. Granted, ICE has not as been as loud in the North Minneapolis area either. So, >> thank you. Anyone else, >> Commissioner Mhaney?
>> Thanks. >> Yeah, I think kind of anecdotally we've all heard like MPD doesn't have numbers. They don't have numbers. They're not responding to things. And kind of this is just one more example of that. And
it's scary out there. It's you. It's when I was arrested. I was arrested at Whipple on the Martin Luther King Day and when I saw the state patrol coming at me, I was thankful. At least it's somebody who is trained. At least it's
somebody that has any training, knows what they're doing. But it's still like we have madmen running around with MP5s. They're losing automatic weapons. Just losing them. like they they are actively
making our city more dangerous every single day they're here and we don't have any like to what we're saying we don't have any numbers saying what are the interventions I've heard anecdotally that police have deescalated but I've
never actually who which police who was it I don't know there were officers there and I settled down once they were there >> I guess my question also just looks more of like not even question but just statement like so for instance during the ride along I learned like how the
police make their schedules how does this work how they're able to choose the days that they work they can literally all choose to be off on protest days they can choose that they have the autonomy to do that through their union and I'm not saying I agree with that I I don't know how a business functions
where a group of 600 people get to choose their own schedule clearly they've got it not under control but I'm just saying like is it a bigger issue than just police not intervening. Is it a union issue? Is this something we meet with their union about? Um
where it's not necessarily in their control is more or less what I'm kind of trying to say. Cuz [snorts] if if I would have needed the police on a Friday night after I got done with my ride along and there's only eight of them and one's a rookie and they're all going to an ICE protest, which they need to be. I
wish we could they could be two places at once, but I've had a home invasion in North Minneapolis where I did need the police. So, it it's I don't know if I don't know enough about unions, I guess, but I don't know if that'd be something that
we can maybe ask a union representative from MPD to come here and talk to us and answer questions surrounding um what they're contractorally required to do. >> Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Sheffield.
>> Uh thank you, Chair. Uh to to build on what you're saying, uh Commissioner Clement, and this might sound um uh like I'm inviting everybody to hold hands and sing songs, but I actually think that there are some examples where that is helping. Um, but I also think it's
important for us to recognize that the officers that are on the squad or are on the on the force right now, um, if they were here in 2020, uh, when we were at the training, I was talking to one of the, um, uh, folks who who does training. And, um, uh, it became clear
to me that the officers who have been around since 2020 probably have a whole bunch of, uh, PTSD from the experiences they had on the other sides of the lines. I'm not saying someone's right. I'm not saying someone's wrong. Um but I'm just saying that there are a lot of
experiences that that everybody's having and I'm wondering if we could talk about what it might look like because Baker you said that um you're really proud of Minneapolis Minneapolis community members for showing up and I agree with that completely. Um, some some public commenters said the same. And so I'm
wondering if we might talk about some solutions here, like what would we what would it look like for the community and the neighborhoods and MPD to be working together against ICE? What might that look like? What would we like to see happen? Because we're now in the within and Miss Ply, please correct me if I'm
wrong, but w within our scope of our authority, we can make recommendations. Um, and and not just on policy, but on practice. Is that right? >> Yep. You can make recommendations on training on internal practices, excuse me, police department practices, internal controls, collective bargaining
agreements, and other matters contained within programs of research and study. >> Thank you. So, it might be worth um uh some conversation about what might it look like um dream big and then we can pair down to what's realistic. But what would you like to see? What would it
look like for MPD to be supporting people and for people to be supporting MPD? I >> Commissioner Kennedy and then >> thank you. Uh I just want to offer a brief comment that's kind of sitting
beside a lot of what a number of you have already said but maybe does fit well with what Commissioner Shanfeld just said. Um so first as one of the members of the PPRR committee I remember the very valuable discussion
productive discussion that we had last fall as we um participated in in amending the policy and we were happy to see that a number of the things that we discussed and the recommendations we made were adopted. I think we have a
good policy. this conversation we're having here tonight where there's a lot of uh anger and emotion about all the horrible things happening in our city is framed as a discussion of the policy and I think it it necessarily kind of comes off as as there's a problem with the
policy but one thought that I've had as this went on is we don't know what this would have looked like if this event had happened before our policy was amended or you know before the CCPO existed. And um I think we actually have a very
good policy. So I want to take a lot of what's been said tonight and suggest that the upcoming discussion we're going to have with the police chief, the opportunity to ask questions about how this has been implemented, any gaps the police chief or the police force sees, I think that's going to be very valuable.
And of course, if anybody has suggestions to strengthen the policy, I'm not trying to rule that out or say that that shouldn't be discussed. But I just think that there are um you know when we were looking at other policies in other cities, we couldn't find anything that was more progressive or
had additional protections. In many ways, I think it's fair to say that Minneapolis has a state-of-the-art policy on this subject. Has it been sufficient or protected people or the city? Obviously not. But um something else that happened tonight that I'm trying to work into what I'm saying here
is Mr. Turch's comments. He said something very well that I've been thinking, which is if this commission spends its time messing around with the policies while the city burns, we're not doing the right thing. So, none of this is to say we shouldn't be having this discussion
or that I think everything is fine. But I just I I want us all to keep in mind that it's not really about the policy in my view this month. maybe when we talk to the chief and can actually ask how has this been implemented or where's the data um that's that's a fair discussion
but we should also be thinking more broadly what else can we do what can we ask our city officials to do thank you >> so I'll say to that real briefly before commissioner speaks I think it very it's very very important that we talk about implementation and so how has the policy worked for them in the field considering
that this is going on in Minneapolis the policy was redone prior to this and they may have some really good information or insight as to is the policy sufficient enough and they may also be thinking about do we need to redo some things and so I think that'll be a good way to have that conversation on March 9th.
Commissioner Baker >> I I would agree that I think this is more of a practices discussion than a policy discussion. Um I forwarded to the group the Minnesota Justice Research Center recommendations. I think that's a great place for us to start talking
about practices. [snorts] Um some of their recommendations are a transparency campaign. So having collecting this data and sharing it with daily briefings. I think back to uh Governor Cuomo in New York during COVID
when he was doing a daily briefing of what was happening. I think it would be powerful to have an officer in a uniform talking about the blatant illegality of what DHS is doing on a daily basis. I
think data collection and sharing that publicly there in the separation ordinance there's a requirement that they have a dashboard that needs to be fasttracked that should be done by the end of the week. I mean I realize this is a government so end of the week is
unrealistic but like the that type of information seems critically important under the current scenario. Um, I also suggested um we know what the
license plate these ICE officers have. Um, to get a little spacey, I think we should do Amber Alerts when there's ice in a neighborhood. Uh, they're abducting children and they're doing so lawlessly. Uh we have the technology to push a text
message to everybody within a certain area. That does not involve gun going gunto but it is a bold and actually doing something rather than just my concern with the current approach which seems to be
lawsuit focused is this administration just ignores lawsuits. I mean, we um there was a ruling a week or so ago where a federal judge pointed out that there are 96 current rulings that DHS is
ignoring. There are 300 people who have been ruled to be released here in Minnesota that they have not released and they don't know where they are. So, even if we win a lawsuit, there's nothing that's going to make them comply. And so we should be creative,
clever, we should brainstorm. We shouldn't be doing just exactly what we've always done when DHS has shown up cuz this is not the DHS that existed 12 months ago. This is
Yeah. This is a bunch of This is not the DHS. this is not lawful enforcement and we should not be giving them the benefit of the doubt as if they are. So those are a few ideas I have of things we could be doing under the current policy just different practices.
>> Thank you. And I have had the opportunity to look at the memo that you sent from the Justice Research Center. So Commissioner Shanford has also seen it. Any other >> we say a couple of >> Yeah. I'd like to circle back on um Commissioner Baker's requests for
information and I'm wondering if it's possible um to move up the time frame some by asking for MPD responses to your data uh requests um by the Jan or February
23rd PPRR meeting so we could discuss them there. >> I would love I move that we request that there's information that we I make a motion that we submit the three questions and the subp parts that I have
previously submitted uh to the chief of police and request that we have an answer before the PPRR meeting. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. I've been motioned and seconded. Any further discussion on that particular motion? Commissioner Shamp?
>> Yeah, I think we should frame it um when I looked at your questions, Baker, I think you're you're hitting the right um points. I don't think there's data collection mechanisms for these things yet. Um I mean one thing that I know is if the policy was updated in on December 12th I mean um December 18th 2025. Um
and that it was rolled out a few weeks later that means the training was very short. Um we we asked when we were at the training facility and they said it was an online training everyone went through so that they could roll the policy out. Right. in contrast to the use of force policy which took months and months to roll out because everyone
was being trained um very thoroughly. So maybe some of this is around the training that people need in order to do the things in the policy. Um what I don't want is to provide I I I will vote um yes but I don't want to us
to just say hey police chief you have to give us this information. I think we also need to couch that in here's why we're asking for it and here's what we'd like to do with it. I think that might be helpful. >> I'd be more than hap, you are you are much better at crafting things with a um
a deafness that I do not possess. So I would be more than happy to let you rewrite my questions if we have the basic content the same. >> Maybe we can work as a team. >> Abs happy happy to. And thank you Paul for getting me uh forward motion with a proposal.
So, we have a motion on the floor and looks like we're not going to amend the motion at the moment until some further information is provided, but the motion on the floor is 223 to ask answer the questions, the three that you provided. And so, seeing no further discussion, clerk, can you call the role on the
motion? >> Oh, point of order. I'm sorry. I do have one more thought related to this before we vote. >> One moment. Yes, Commissioner Sheffield. >> Thank you. Um, in the MJRC uh recommendations, um, it talks about
ways that local government should be reporting violations of constitutional rights. So maybe we could add to it um ways in which we what other data we'd like to see collected. Would that be all right? >> Absolutely. >> I'm saying that out loud so we remember. >> Yep.
>> All right, Madame Clerk. >> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Melhenny, >> I >> Shanfield. >> Hi, >> Newman. >> I >> Clement, >> I >> Baker, >> I [snorts] >> Stewart,
>> I >> candidate. >> Hi, >> Barts. >> Hi, >> Williams Johnson. >> I, >> Vice Chair Olsen, >> I >> and Chair Reeves, >> I. >> There are 11 eyes. >> Thank you. That motion passes. Any
further discussion on 9401? Commissioner Baker, >> do we So, we've moved to ask questions. I would move that we also submit to PPRR to come up with practice recommendations, especially since
hopefully we will have answers to those questions and that we allow them to draft either a memo like we have had in in the past on behalf of the whole committee and move that forward and then get the chief's response at our next meeting.
>> Okay. So, do me a favor and restate your motion. Fair enough. be >> I am suggesting that we delegate the authority to draft practice recommendations to PPRR that would be submitted to the chief to get his respon and and with along with a
request for his response at the meeting we have invite our regular meeting in March. >> Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? >> Second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? >> Can you say more about what you mean by practice recommendations?
I mean, so the Minnesota Justice [snorts] uh research center recommendations that basically PPRR I mean I have a list of recommendations of varying level of spiciness and that we filter that through folks who are
less agitated than I am at the moment. Um, and we come up with recommendations for practices of how they're implementing 9-41 and we get the chief's thoughts on those practices at the following meeting.
>> Okay. Any other questions? >> Yeah, a little discussion. Um, so just looking at a calendar, so our next meeting [clears throat] is um the 23rd. So we would want to have something at the 23rd, the next BPR. We'd want to have something at that meeting um to
talk about, right? on paper. So I would So next week we'll be drafting uh that so that we can review it then on the 23rd. Do I have that right? >> Yes. Um can I ask staff are we allowed to say have multiple people submit to
one place and collate recommendations and then we would discuss those at the meeting. [snorts] commissioners uh through the chair could you please rephrase your question I was listening to mult all of you at the same time there so if you just rephrase your
question and then I'll try to answer it >> so I have some ideas of practices I'm sure other people have other ideas >> without triggering with with >> without without violating the spirit of
the open meeting laws rules. Is there a way we can collate these ideas and maybe categorize them? Um, I mean, if everybody sent ideas to one person, would that be okay as long as it's not back and forth or if we send it all to
>> Linda? Maybe. >> Uh, I'm going I'm so sorry to interrupt you. You said the right answer and I just want to stop you right on the right answer there. uh which is if you can all send things to Linda, not to each other, >> right?
>> And there can't be a discourse. >> Yep. >> But if you all have ideas that you want to gather prior to the meeting, you can certainly send them to Linda and she can provide them the day of the meeting to the chair and then you'll have them. I
mean, that that's your best bet with without putting yourself in a serial meeting situation. Would it be possible for Linda to categorize, you know, so if if there's three that are regarding hotels, put them together and then a few
days before send it to us and out on the limbs agenda of this is the raw list and that way we can each read it and and say, well, I like version B of this recommendation and I like version C. with that. >> Are are you suggesting that the that she
do the organize the data and that's if she's willing to do that? That's up to her and then to publish it with the agenda would be how you would see it. >> Yes. >> Yes, that would be okay. As long as she's not going to send it out to you ahead of time. If she's going to if
you're going to get it by receiving a published agenda, then that is you are publicly reviewing the information then. So, Okay. >> All right. [snorts] >> So my proposal is my motion is that we
delegate the authority to write recommendations to PPRR and that we have us uh what what day is the PPR meeting? >> 23rd >> the 9th. So maybe over the next week we
send ideas to Linda and then you have a few days Linda to coate them you know categorize them and then with the agenda you would publish them to so that we could look at them um at the same time
as the public and then come and discuss the recommendations. So, might I add that we should put an actual date and so to make sure that Linda has time to be able to do what she needs to do to get on the agenda and published for the public.
>> Point of point of order. I think we we still have um some time in our meeting tonight. Why don't we continue to discuss what the recommendations could be because those will go in the meeting notes tonight and we might actually have them and then they'd be real easy to categorize. Would that be okay? I'm I'm fine with tableabling this until the end
of our, you know, 27 minutes and then do that if if it's still needed. That'd be great. >> Sounds good. Yes. >> Cuz I what I heard you say was um like Cuomo style daily updates from a uniformed officer or someone. What? >> Yes. >> Yep. Yep. [snorts] Um some data
collection um efforts. Um what else? I would like to see increased enforcement around drunk driving, expired tags, and other afterduty offduty activities focused on locations frequented by DHS agents. Similar to the
way we treat New Year's Eve, you know, we we [clears throat] have stepped up enforcement because of that. >> Um, if there's a staffing issue, they have mutual aid agreements and access to the guard and other I mean like there
there's ways to augment their staff if they need to. Um, St. Paul and Bloomington have both had several DHS agents that they have caught for sex crimes, for drunk driving and other things. Oh, yeah. You don't want to look
at the statistics of the number of DHS agents who are sex crimes. It's way higher than the general population. Um, I another recommend. So, so yeah, increased enforcement for offduty activity. Um
the posting a squad car outside of a hotel, hosting ICE, you know, that's one of my spicier recommendations. Um I want to talk about how we can support patrollers and observers because right now they're getting threatened. They're
getting on Friday we had eight of them abducted and taken to Whipple um for driving behind people and blowing whistles. things the governor has asked people to do to document and and frankly the only reason there might be any
justice for Renee Good or Alex Prey is because of this activity. Um so does anybody have any ideas of how we can offer some support and protection to these people >> and these people are the constitutional
observers. >> Constitutional observers. Yeah. All right. Any thoughts or any comments? Commissioner Barts? It's >> this is more of a training recommendation, but um on the issue of
intervening um and I I don't know what training exists right now on this, but um you know, having officers do role plays and practice uh you know, assessing situations. So when it's as the policy says when it's there's a
reasonable opportunity to intervene you know how do they assess that and then what are the different you know tools that they can use to intervene you know verbal skills for example thank you
>> all right thank you anyone else >> so commissioner Baker >> sorry [snorts] one of the things I've tried calling 911 several times to get to is if an observer is being driven to their own home, I would like a squad car
to meet them there. Um, they've the challenge to actually talk to anybody who could even have that conversation. It took about four different phone calls and everybody just kind of passes the buck on that. Um, but I if you're an observer and you're
being driven to your own home, you know, a couple of minutes beforehand you can tell that they're taking you. That's a death threat. That's stalking. Um I I want to have an officer, if that observer wants an officer there just to
observe and and and be there as kind of a hey, we see what you're doing, DHS. Um I I'd love to come up with other ideas, but that's that's the one I've come up with. >> Okay. Okay. Commissioner Mhennaney.
Thank you. So, one thing that we've talked about are they're smashing windows. They are doing things that could be considered stalking. They are assaulting people. These are crimes. These are crimes of violence. These are property crimes. And if I call it in, I
should be encouraged. You know, this should this should be treated as a property crime. They smash my window. If there's no if there's not a provable reason why they had to smash my window, that is a property crime and that needs to be, you know, tracked and
investigated. And if we can say that DHS has performed 4,000 crimes in the past month, which is probably a low estimate, you know, they're assaulting people. They are it is there's a lot of violence
and it's it's terrifying, right? It's terrifying because they're going to hurt you. And this is what I've said. It's like there's things I don't do because I'm afraid of being hurt by them. I'm afraid of not being available for my children.
And that's the violence that we have to deal with. And it needs to be treated as violence. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? Commissioner Champfield. Um, [clears throat] I like what you're
saying, Michael. I also wonder if maybe we're collecting the information and the data because I don't know that MPD would be able to respond in the moment if it's part of an um an enforcement action even though it's illegal. >> But and because they're wearing masks,
nobody can we can't report that officer, right? Or that that um ICE agent. Um, so but maybe it's encouraging people to call 911 and that those then get logged and we're going to look at that data and say this is go back to say to DHS to say this is the chaos that's being caused. I
guess is that is that helpful? I'm wondering >> or is it information already being documented when they're getting 911 calls? I'm assuming that someone's documenting if someone's calling in and saying we think an ICE agent is following me home or whatever may be the case. Commissioner Baker, >> Minnesota state law prohibits wearing
masks to hide your identity. If somebody is taken to their own home by two masked federal agents, which is the typical scenario, MPD should stop that vehicle and ask them to identify themselves. Like the 9-41 says if they are not
readily identifiable as as immigration enforcement officials that we're supposed to ask for their identification. So great, let let's let's see that badge. Let's see the uh the identification of who they are if they're doing this so that we actually
have files of, you know, officer so and so and agent so and so drove this person to their own home and if they don't we're letting these people break our laws left and right be and I don't understand why and and and uh federal
supremacy can't be the answer. it. Yeah. I Yeah. Sorry. >> Okay. Anyone else? Commissioner Shanfield. >> Um I'm also wondering about if if the what we should be calling encouraging people to call 911 for maybe it's more
things, maybe it's fewer things. I'm curious about that. Um because I'm also wondering about the BCR. I we've talked a lot about them in the past because of their um really thoughtful approach to deescalation um to showing up without um uh guns and lights. Um wondering if
anyone has uh a sense of what BCR is up to and maybe there's some resources there that we could tap into. Any thoughts? Commissioner Stewart, >> I would hate to pull BCR for immigration because BCR has a strong dedicated focus
to mental health issues. um and to pull a resource that would be valuable. I don't know, you can do a ride along with BCR as well. Um, I think that people need to understand
what different entities do and what their scope of work is before we just start throwing out what different entities should be helping and assisting with because BCR is dedicated to mental
health crisis. And so I would highly recommend not including BCR because then we're taking another resource off the street to help with immigration. So I I I would highly recommend.
>> No. Anyone else? Commissioner Kennedy, >> I have a suggestion for potentially a different question we could um ask for some information on. So, I'm going to point everybody to an example of what
I'm talking about before I give you the details of the question. If you look at the final the red lines in the attachments to the agenda, uh so the red line version of the policy, page eight of 10, I'm looking at the page numbers up in the upper right hand corner.
It's just a page or two from the back of your packet. And so in uh section E, duty to report and then number one B starts out saying the member who witnessed. All right. So that was a lot of directions to get you to. I just want everybody to look at the
next line. So in the red line there, it says um the police officers are directed to uh put in the reports using the code ICEF F. So this is just one example of several things you can find in this new newly
revised policy. There are specific directions in multiple places for police officers to use specific codes. This one is ISF but in this policy there are other codes that are directed to the officers and I think maybe all of them or at least most of those are new. So
going back to the comments that we had earlier about um a question about training and that we know that training happened quickly here, not because anybody did anything wrong is my guess, but because they were trying to get this policy in place in good faith. Um do the
officers know this and are those codes being used? Because this gets to what a lot is being discussed up here tonight. We want data, right? We want to know what's going on. We want to know how we can fix it. uh we don't know what data we're going to get when we ask the chief. But I think besides asking for
the data, we need to ask were the officers trained on this. We might need to ask officers if they know this. How many reports, how many times have these codes been used? I think that might be in some cases getting to the same questions we're asking, but it's an
alternative way to ask that I think would be really illuminating to just get concrete answers. How many times have these codes been used over the last 60 days? >> Commissioner Kand, is that a motion? >> Yes, it is. >> And would you restate it for the minutes, please?
>> Uh, I would move that we Well, let me ask first. Are we are we adding this to something that we're asking for the response before the February 23rd meeting of the chief or at the March meeting? >> You can put whatever you want in your motion.
>> I saw at least put them together. >> In my mind, put them together because we'd want the same timeline, wouldn't we? >> I'm just very concretely unsure which one I should uh include in my motion. Which one do you think? >> I think we put them together so that we
get the as much data as we can for the discussion on the 23rd. >> Okay. >> Commissioners, >> one moment. >> If I could just sorry interrupt with a point of order. I just want to read something for for your help real quick here because you seem to be hitting right on the head. So, in the separation ordinance that was updated in December,
I think December 11th, uh there's a section in it, 19.40, it's called public safety reporting. And in it, it it details the kind of public safety reporting that Commissioner Baker was referencing earlier. Um so, what it says is for any use of city public
safety personnel, um etc., The administration must report the following information to the mayor and city council at the city council's next regularly scheduled meeting and made available on the city's public facing website. The report must contain the following information. And here's what it says. Number one, the source of the
initiation of the use of city public safety personnel, including but not limited to requests by a federal agency or officer, city department, office, or organization, or a 311 or 911 report. Number two, the decision-making process which led to the use of city public
safety personnel. Number three, the date and time of the start and end of the use of city public safety personnel. Number four, a clear timeline of the use of city public safety personnel. Five, the number of city public safety personnel present and total hours spent as part of the use of city public safety personnel.
I'm sorry to keep repeating the same words. Uh, six, the number of any arrests made by city public safety personnel and the rationale for those arrests. And number seven, the cost to the city of the involvement or assistance by city public safety personnel, including but not limited to the costs associated with the following
categories. And it gives categories uh such as overtime costs. So these seven items that I just read out to you are word for word from the separation ordinance section 19.40. And these are the things that are in the ordinance that have to go to the mayor and the
city council at their next available meeting as well as on the public facing site that you commissioner Baker was referencing earlier. So, I don't know if that helps anybody, but you can know that that is what has been asked of through the ordinance and what is supposed to be publicly reported on. So,
I will leave it at that. [snorts] Miss Bolini, I would ask that you send that uh my email. >> Happy to do so. >> Thank you, Commissioner Kennedy. >> All right. So, I'm going to move that uh
in the questions prepared for the chief uh to ask for a response for the February 23rd PPR meeting, we add a question regarding data for all codes required by policy 941
related to um police authority and immigration matters. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. motion in a second. Um, may we add language to to say in the duty to report section just to make sure we're
clear. >> So, the example I gave, I'm making sure I'm understanding your question. I think the example I gave came from the duty to report section, but there are actually codes required throughout the policy. So, as I was sitting here, that was the first one I could find to uh try to be
clear, but I think any code mentioned in the policy is what I'm curious about. Got it. Any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the role on this motion. >> Commissioner Mhoney. >> I.
>> Shanfield. >> I. >> Newman. >> I. >> Clement. >> Hi. >> Baker. >> Hi. >> Stewart. >> Hi, >> Kennedy. >> Hi, >> Barts. >> I
>> uh Williams Johnson. I, >> Vice Chair Olsson, >> I. >> And Chair Reeves, >> I. >> There are 11 eyes. >> All right, the motion passes. Thank you. Anything else from commissioners in our 11 minutes left? Commissioner Baker, >> I have three further recommendations I'd
love input on. Um, my understanding is MPD has a series of flock brand cameras that read license plates. I think they should notify schools and hospitals when DHS is operating near those facilities, those sensitive facilities that up until
a year ago were not places ICE could go, but now they do routinely go. Um, we should use that that data and and warrant those locations. Anybody have anything to discuss around that topic?
Excuse me, >> Commissioner Sheffield. Can you say a little bit more about like what the actions would be, what they would do with the tool that you're suggesting? >> So, these flock cameras are polemounted and they read license plates and they they can send out messages. Uh so they can use it to track all sorts of
activity. But there are databases of DHS license plates and we can just say, "Hey, [snorts] you know, uh so and so elementary, we just saw three DHS vehicles driving by your facility,
>> Commissioner Stewart. So, how then would we not end up where we are right now with MPD not using this equipment as a pattern of practice against black and brown people? >> The equipment's already there.
>> I'm going to ask my question again. How would we not have MPD place us back? And I'm going go all the way back. I'm going go back to Murder. How would we know that we would not be
where we are right now under a consent decree with Minneapolis Police Department misusing equipment and training that would not harm black and brown people, the very
people that you are trying to protect with this policy for immigration. Commissioner Baker, >> I hear the concern letting schools know that ICE is there with equipment and technology they've
already deployed. I I have not dug into what the policies around protecting misuse of that are currently so I can't address your question but I don't know that it changes the opportunity for abuse.
Um yeah, me being working in the schools, I have to say the private schools are doing that. They've already have a network where neighbors whomever will call the school and tell them, hey,
ICE is around. They shut totally uh block down the school. They will notify the parents, say, do not come. Do not pick up your child. They're safe with us. So, in private schools that I have dealt with, that's what they're doing.
Now, public, I'm not sure what they're doing, but far as the private schools that I work with, they've already have like a chain of command already saying, "Hey, if anyone in the neighborhood sees eyes within a fourb block radius, they notify the school, the school will lock
down [snorts] totally and start calling parents." Okay, Commissioner Stewart, which goes back to the original question that you asked on how do we engage community and what is the recommendation cuz we've
gotten so far far off course of what you originally proposed to the body which which is your original question of what are other recommendations that we can impose from community organizations and
I would like to see us get back on that portion. >> Okay. Any other >> I'm sorry. >> I would also like to say in a little bit of a comment to Commissioner Stewart, it it's kind of one of those things too
where and I don't know how to say this I guess correctly. So I guess hopefully it's a safe space. We do have to remember that although immigration is very very important and these things are very very wrong and we we have to remember that
Minneapolis PD has historically been so racist to black people, specifically black people. Yes, to everybody, but to black people in numbers that are not imaginable. And so to be pulling those resources of
eight cops on the north side and then having them sit outside of hotels for DWI enforcement, it it's now harming the north side, right? And so I I Yes, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but I don't
know if doing that is handing MPD a list of everything they need to be doing for immigration when they haven't yet solved these other issues. So, like, how do we how does that look? Does that make sense? That's not me saying that MPD should not be more involved. That's not
me saying that. I just don't know if consistently saying this is what MPD needs to do for immigration when they still have a whole black community they need to rebuild with. we we can't sit here and pull them away
from the community that they have harmed for decades over this other issue too. And so the question needs to maybe look how do we walk and chew gum at the same time. How do we do both? But pulling them away for
DWI support at a hotel is not safe for North Minneapolis. It it just isn't. They only had eight cops on that night. It's a north side. That's crazy. Just a thought. Anyone else? Commissioner Barts.
>> Yeah, I'd just like to second kind of the general sentiment being expressed that um I think that uh we'd be well advised to to focus on what's realistic. Um so that we're not
taking away from public safety. um uh you know I I mean we can we can propose things that but if they're not anywhere near realistic um I I'm not sure who that serves. So I know that I in the
next PPR meeting like the first iteration of of the review of this policy one of my focuses will be um you know hopefully keeping us
in the realm of possible. Um, but I do think that the concerns about, you know, diverting MPD from public safety in areas where where where they're very much needed um is important. And I also
did a uh ride along a few weeks ago on the north side and it is uh um it's a bit concerning the the the very few numbers of officers they have working over there. Unfortunately, um there's been a lot of progress uh
through cooperation with with the feds in the past about taking some of the the bigger um more challenging um criminals, for lack of a better word, off the street. So, the situation on the north side, as far as I'm aware, is
improved a lot. Uh but yeah, I I just I I think we need to focus on being realistic. Thanks, >> Commissioner Baker. And then Commissioner Sheffield, >> there have been 3,000 kidnappings, three shootings by DHS agents. The criminal
safety issue of Minneapolis at this moment in time is DHS. They are order of magnitude more violence inflicted upon our community than the community is doing to itself.
>> Commissioner Champfield. >> Yeah, heard. And also it doesn't mean that all crime has stopped. It doesn't mean that there aren't other places where the resources are needed. And so I think what we will do based on the suggestions from um and the the points of view that I've heard uh this evening
um is when we look at the this compiled list of recommendations, I would also like us to think through what are the unintended consequences here of these policies and like the recommendations we're making and let's run them through that on the 23rd before we put them in writing for the um for the chief.
Okay, Commissioner Stewart and then Commissioner Baker, >> I just want to make one final statement. Our goal as an oversight commission [clears throat] should not be to ask the police to do more. It should be to ask them to do the
things that they are trained to do properly and right and do them well. Oversight exists to be preventative. not asking authority to become overreaching
because once they become overreaching, trust is broken and it's hard to get it back. And there's no amount of enforcement that can restore that. No amount.
I get phone calls all the time from the third precinct. The third precinct is the worst precinct. Sorry, Inspector Gomez, but it is. But with community taking small baby
steps to build trust, a lot of people like to say rebuild. There's never been trust. So, I'm going to say to build trust. And now we're going to ask that same agency to overextend themselves. And we're going to ask community to
overextend themselves. I don't see anybody out there or knowing of anyone texting me on my phone to say, "Hey, Commissioner Stewart, we just we heard that you're out there taking down barricades because what are we what what what what do what
is I want to call you by your proper what is this with the whistle? What is the proper name for it? Constitutional observers. >> Constitutional observers are placing barricades in the middle of 32nd in Cedar. We have an ambulance that needs
to get through. Can your team go out and help remove barricades. Meanwhile, we hear on the radio there's a young man whose car has crashed into a building because he has
been shot in his head. But we're asking police officers to come out and remove barricades. What are we doing? Oversight committee. I'mma leave that with you guys. Take that in your heart. Take it home with you. Come back on the 23rd because
that's a that's that's a real recommendation. That's what this public is asking us to come back with. They're asking us for recommendations to give to our police department for their safety. I'm done. So time has expired.
Is there any other I think we're done with I >> I would like to call to previous motion. >> So that I would ask you to make a motion to extend time >> a motion to extend time by five minutes. >> Five minutes. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. We're going to do a voice
vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Commissioner Baker. I would like to call the previous motion that we delegate to PPR to make practice recommendations at the meeting on the
23rd and that any commissioner who has recommendations for practices to consider uh sends it to Linda by the 16th and that then that comes back in the agenda to look at.
And a second part of my uh motion is that we work to we we we submit to the chief uh questions for him to have answers for at our next regular meeting. >> I think >> I'm sorry at our PPR meeting.
>> Is that different than the first motion we passed? >> Did we pass that? I thought we tabled it. tabled it >> the the first one regarding the three um the three practices. >> Oh, we did the question. Okay. So, we just need the first part of that motion.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. And so, if you could restate succinctly your first motion so that we know what we're voting on would be so helpful. the way you just say >> that we delegate to PPR practice recommendations to forward to the chief for him to discuss with us at
the following meeting >> by your date that you stated >> by the so we send ideas to the um by the 16th to Linda at the 23rd we discuss them >> okay >> and then we send that on to the chief >> can I just add one quick thing to his motion or ask a question
>> hold on hold on just one second so I just want to make sure that we have the dates in your motion so is there a second to that motion Second >> and now discussion. Commissioner Qu. >> So I just wanted to be sure that when we're making those recommendations to Linda for the things that we're asking for MPD to to do that are we going to be
looking in policy and procedures and then comparing them and then sending them over so she doesn't have to do that. And so that our commission isn't looking like we're just sending over a list of things that don't have backing. >> Does that kind of make sense? what I'm trying to ask.
>> It sounds like what you're asking is please review the policy before you make a practice recommendation. >> Make Yes, do that. >> That would be very helpful for Okay, Commissioner Champion >> and you can use the fancy new policy dashboard. We'll make sure everyone has the link. >> Okay. All right. [snorts] So, it's been motioned and seconded and a request to
please look at the policy the discussion. Are we >> more discussion? Yes. >> Yes. Um distracted by sirens. Uh I think we might be doing two different things. There is a list of questions for the chief. There's also a list of recommendations. I don't know if
we have the bandwidth to do both those things at the same time. Um, what do people think? >> Commissioner Vice Chair, >> I would hope that getting answers to the questions, the data, if there if it's possible by by then, I'm
not sure it would be, um, would help inform our recommendations. Commissioner Shanfield, >> I think we need um to figure out how we're going to do all these things. Um maybe someone could take on the questions, like calling the questions
and making sure that they're in good shape. Uh everyone and then other people can send recommendations and then I can make sure the agenda has all the right things for the 23rd. Is there anyone willing to take on the questions? Go ahead. And when you say take on the questions, do you mean submitting them
to the chief? >> No, I just mean making sure that they're in good format for you to submit to the chief. >> We can take care of that. >> So the three questions you were talking about from the the previous motion you're talking >> Yep. We can we can take care of that. Yes.
>> Oh, >> and by that I mean I can help put the questions together. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. cuz I was going to say the only questions we've discussed so far were the three that Commissioner Baker and Commissioner Shamfield were going to work on shoring up together. So our that
was my impression that was the questions we're talking about. Then [snorts] the things that were being sent to Linda were going to be suggestions and recommendations. And if that provides any clarity I I I don't think there's anything for the clerk to do here per se. Just trying to
provide some clarity as to what I understood. So if there's more questions in this conversation somewhere, you may want to clarify what that means. So we have a motion on the floor now for another recommendation. But the previous motion number one was for the questions
that were already submitted by Commissioner Baker and there was three with I think subsections and those are the ones he wants to refer to the chief to answer before the 223 meeting. So they've already been sent over. We just need to put them in a form to get to the chief to be able to answer. This one here is for the recommendation and we
had to just finish up this this motion. So, is there any further discussion on this motion? >> Commissioner, Vice Chair Olsson, >> just want to make sure that the in addition to Commissioner Baker's questions, I thought we had um data requests from Commissioner Kennedy. >> Yes, we put those together.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And so, we have [laughter] expired time again. Commissioner Shanfield, do you want >> to extend the time >> for? >> You need to give a time. You need to
give a time. >> We just need to approve the motion. Right. >> I think so. Okay. >> Five. And if we don't need it all, we don't have these at all. >> Is there a second to extend for five minutes? >> Yes. >> All right. It's been motioned and seconded. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Abstensions? Okay. Let's
get this done in five minutes. Go ahead, >> Commissioner. >> Yes. So there but there's I think there's actually a third thing which is um all of the pieces in the data that's outlined in the ordinance, >> right? The all of the pieces that you read that will be publicly available >> that's separation ordinance. Yeah, >> separation ordinance. >> What what about it?
>> Is it already exist? Are those things out there? Do we know? >> I don't think it's on the website yet. My understanding from the ordinance language is that it it's supposed to be available at the next regular meeting of the city council, but I don't deal with them uh directly. So, I don't know the
answer of when they're supposed to report that to the city council next. >> Okay. So, >> that's the data that the reason I read it is cuz that's what affirmatively is being collected to respond to the ordinance reporting requirements. >> Got it. So, are you suggesting that we should also ask for that data to make it
happen? >> I'm suggesting nothing. I'm just informing you that it exists. >> Got it. >> Yep. >> No. What? >> Okay. Any other discussion on this motion for practice recommendations
by the 16th for the 23rd meeting is the motion. All right, madam clerk, please call the role on that motion. Commissioner Mlehenny. >> I >> Shanfield. >> I Newman. >> I >> Clement. >> I Baker.
>> I >> Stewart. >> Hi, >> Kennedy. >> Hi, >> Barts. >> Hi, [clears throat] >> Williams Johnson. >> I Smith. Oh, wait. Sorry, he's absent. Um, Vice Chair Olsson, >> I. >> And Cher Reeves, >> I.
>> There are 11 eyes. >> All right. Thank you very much. It was a great discussion everyone. Uh that motion passes. With that we've completed all items on our agenda for this meeting. Without any objection the commission stands adjourned. Thank you very much.