Milwaukee police union asks court to block new body camera release policy

NOW: Milwaukee police union asks court to block new body camera release policy
NEXT:

MILWAUKEE (CBS 58) -- The union representing Milwaukee's rank-and-file cops has filed for a restraining order that would keep a new body camera policy from taking effect.

The Milwaukee Police Association filed the request Thursday, the same day the city's civilian oversight board approved a new policy setting deadlines for when the Milwaukee Police Department must release body camera video from critical incidents.

In an 8-1 vote, the Fire and Police Commission set a new requirement for MPD to release footage within two days to the immediate family of the person or people involved in an officer-involved incident where someone died or was seriously hurt. The department is now required to release the footage to the public within 15 days.

Union President Andrew Wagner said the policy risked jeopardizing cases because some investigations take longer than 15 days. He said there could be some cases where, more than 15 days into the investigation, police become aware of new possible witnesses.

"This is completely counterintuitive to what we know about releasing the video and protecting the integrity of the investigation," Wagner said. "Witnesses have to be interviewed. We know witnesses' memories can be tainted by what they see on the news."

Wagner added the union will contend the commission doesn't have the authority to set such a policy. He maintained a change in standard protocols, such as when the department would release footage, is something the union should be allowed to collectively bargain.

"They're an oversight body," Wagner said. "Not a governing body."

FPC Chair Ed Fallone declined an interview request Friday. Vice-Chair Amanda Avalos did not immediately respond to messages seeking an interview.

MPD issued a statement Friday afternoon indicating it would abide by the new requirements.

"The Milwaukee Police Department respects the Fire and Police Commission's oversight authority and will adhere to the policy enacted," the statement read. "MPD remains committed to transparency and building positive relationships with the community that we serve."

A spokesperson for Mayor Cavalier Johnson said the mayor was unavailable for an interview Friday but issued a statement.

"The Mayor has heard a number of the concerns expressed about the policy," Spokesperson Jeff Flemming said in an email. "While he favors reasonable public communications on controversial issues, he has not taken a position on this rule."

Supporters of the policy celebrated Thursday's vote as a triumph for transparency. State Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), a member of the legislature's Socialist Caucus, said there was no reason police couldn't make body camera footage public within the timeframes dictated by the commission.

"All this is is a basic measure of accountability," Clancy said. "And the idea anyone would seek an injunction or any other way of stopping this, is, frankly, offensive."

Clancy is currently the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit he brought against the City of Milwaukee over his arrest by police during racial justice protests during the summer of 2020. 

He maintained the policy would force authorities to release more raw, unedited footage. Clancy said he disagreed with the current MPD practice of releasing footage as part of a "community briefing," which includes police narrating parts of the video and making edits to highlight portions of the footage, for instance, highlighting when a suspect's weapon is visible or if an officer's camera fell off.

"We need that unedited, raw footage; that's really vital," Clancy said. "If MPD separately wants to release a redacted version with edits and with explanations, that's fine."

The new policy allows for editing for the purposes of protecting the identities of minors or uninvolved people, to cover up gruesome images, and to avoid disclosing tactical strategies police use. 

The question now before a Milwaukee Circuit Court judge will be whether the new deadlines risk hampering investigations, and whether the commission has the authority to set the policy in the first place. 

Share this article:
By using our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy